If you're a Republican and you don't want to be seen as overwhelmingly lily-white, though, there are certain "Dos" and "Don'ts" you'd probably do well to keep in mind. And call me crazy, but I'm almost certain that refusing to sign a Senate resolution formally apologizing for decades of Congressional inaction on anti-lynching legislation falls under the "Don't" column. Yet here we have 16 Senators who didn't want to sign on as co-sponsors of Mary Landrieu's resolution to do just that, and guess what? One Democrat, 15 Republicans. Haven't been this shocked since someone told me the Pope was Catholic.
Oh, and let me just guess what the Republicans and their defenders are going to say: That since we can't go back and change history, resolutions like this don't really mean anything, they're just easy, trivial gestures. And you know what? Maybe they're right. But if this gesture was so easy and trivial, what does it say about these 15 Republicans that they couldn't even be bothered to make it? I mean, one phone call to Mary Landrieu's office saying "Yeah, put my name on that sucker," and bickety-bam, there it is. But no. Not even that. Here's Trent Lott, who still hasn't entirely lived down the shame of those comments he made at Strom Thurmond's birthday bash about how great America was before we had to start giving black people rights and stuff, and he won't take five freaking minutes out of his busy schedule to at least pretend he's regretful about racism and the harm it's done to this country. When they were handing out stupid, ol' Trent must've gotten in line for seconds.
But anyway, my point is that if more than a quarter of your party's Senate delegation couldn't be bothered to make one lousy phone call to get on board with a freaking anti-lynching resolution -- I mean, as resolutions go, Lynching Is Bad should be no more controversial than Puppies Are Cute or Chocolate Ice Cream Tastes Delicious -- then perhaps you should shut the crap up and quit being such crybabies the next time a Democrat makes the not-so-earth-shattering observation that dang, there sure don't seem to be a lot of colored folks in your party. Look, I'm just saying. I'm trying to help you guys here.
FYI, I called Richard Shelby's office this morning and asked why his name wasn't on the resolution. The very polite young lady who answered the phone didn't know why. I don't expect that either one of us is going to find out anytime soon.
(By the way, Republican visitors, while I may not have a lot of respect for your party's various positions on race, I do have enough respect for your individual intelligence levels to expect that you're not going to whip out that "Robert Byrd was in the KKK!!1!1!!!!" tennis ball this many years after Byrd condemned the KKK and admitted his involvement was a mistake. So don't disappoint me.)
UPDATE: Daily Kos says the one Democrat who didn't have his name on the resolution, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, got off his ass today and added it. Apparently you can actually retroactively add your name as co-sponsor to these types of resolutions after they're passed. OK, yippee -- so where are those 15 Republicans? I'll be sure to let you know if I find out.
UPDATE 2: Bill Frist lies to cover the tracks of the Repubs who didn't want to get on board with the resolution. And to think this guy was the one obsessed with up-or-down votes just a couple of weeks ago.
UPDATE 3: Off the subject, but Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who did put his name on the resolution all the way back when it was first submitted in February, is a pimp.
UPATE 4: Two GOP senators have signed on after the fact, and it turns out two others who were on the co-sponsor list shouldn't have been -- here's the updated list of the offending 15. It still includes Lamar Alexander, who evidently didn't support the resolution because he'd already done his racially sensitive deed for the year. No, really -- read his staffer's explanation and tell me that's not what he said.
75 comments:
I'm glad Mary Landrieu has solved all of the other problems in the world, so she has time for such asinine shit as that. And no, it was nothing more than completely banal time-wasting government crap. While I would have just signed the damn thing as a purely PR move, I do have respect for the people that stood up and called this for what it was.
My question: Will this resolution help anything, anywhere?
ergh... Where's the "edit post" feature? Anyway...
This makes no sense. People were upset that the Senate didn't enact laws declaring lynching illegal? Um, isn't lynching murder? And isn't lynching illegal? And isn't this a big waste of goverment time?
Do we need the Senate to collectively apologize to the Kopeckne family for not enacting anti-drowning legislation too?
Josh & Dave,
How about you ask the Crawford family or Mr. Cameron if this resolution helps anything or whether it's a waste of time.
As far as lynchings being illegal...yes they were illegal, but the offenders were rarely arrested, and those that were were usually pardoned. As Mr. Gibson from Yale Univ. states:
"When the sentiment of a community favored lynching the laws were difficult or impossible to enforce. State authorities often attempted to prevent lynchings, but seldom punished the mob participants. Because of the tight hold on the courts by local public opinion, lynchers were rarely ever indicted by a grand jury or sentenced. The judge, prosecutor, jurors and witnesses?all white?were usually in sympathy with the lynchers. If sentenced, the participants in the lynch mobs were usually pardoned. Local police and sheriffs rarely did anything to defend Negro citizens and often supported lynchings. Arthur Raper estimated, from his study of one hundred lynchings, that ?at least one-half of the lynchings are carried out with police officers participating, and that in nine-tenths of the others the officers either condone or wink at the mob action.?"
You may want to brush up on your history of lynchings before making such brazen statements.
I won't comment on the 15 idiots who didn't sign on, but I realized why you posted this in the 1st place. You're trying to get Mary Landrieu back after Angelina dumped you for Lugar after you dumped Mary for Angelina. I remembered you had the hots for her. Are we being used for you're own perverted gain?
>I hate to once again interrupt a perfectly good sociological debate with more irrelevant hot-chick talk, but I think it's safe to say Mary Landrieu is the hottest. Senator. Ever. Mary, I commend you on realizing this yourself; that said, if I have to go through you to get to the Senator, your ass is toast. Are you prepared to fight me for her? Are ya?
Doug Gillett | Homepage | 03.02.05 - 4:19 pm | # <
Kevin:
OF COURSE the Crawford family and/or Mr. Cameron aren't going to say it's a waste of time or that it's unimportant.
But I could just as well petition the federal gov't to pass a resolution entitling me to free sandwiches for life. I could certainly argue that, to me, it's neither a waste of time or unimportant. I mean, hey, I gotta eat. At least with that resolution something tangible comes out of it.
Besides, why isn't anyone demanding apologies from the local and state governments that were directly responsible for these horrific acts?
This is akin to the spouse of a murder victim going to the murderer's parents and expecting an apology and explanation as to whey they didn't properly instruct their son that killing was wrong.
I still assert this was an act of misdirected pseudo-sincerity aimed at gaining political favor. What else would it accomplish?
Dave,
First, I think the comparison of a resolution entitling you to free sandwiches and a resolution apologizing for such acts including hanging, burning at the stake, maiming, dismemberment, castration, being dragged to one's death and other brutal methods of physical torture a little off-kilter. I bring up Mr. Cameron and the Crawford family because this apology obviously meant a lot to them, as well as other families that have been put through this. That in of itself makes it all worthwile to me. On that note, I don't think the parents of a murderer should have to apologize to the victim's family either, but isn't it a least a kind gesture?..even though somewhat futile. The fact that they are at least extending sympathy and a gesture of compassion is still worth something in my book.
As far as apologies from local government, etc. This resolution was directed at the many years of Congress' refusal to enact anti-lynching laws, not as an apology for actual lynchings. However, I would agree that local and state governments should also apologize. In fact, I believe many have. I'll take a look when I have time and get back to you.
Now, was this partially an act of gaining political favor?...of course! A politician is a politician is a politician. With that said, the 15 Repubs who didn't sign, sure did themselves and their party a great disservice...in my humble opinion. But then again, it is "pretty much a white Christian party". Maybe that's the image they want to keep.
Ater begging the left for an original idea, this is what they give us? Bravo! Is every day Ferris Bueller day at the DNC?
You have to understand Kevin that to the contemporary conservative them having free sandwichs is every bit as important as thousands of blacks being lynched because the Senate was too lazy or morally bankrupt to allow the use of federal authorities to enforce state murder laws.
Conservatives are only involved with America to see what they can get out of it. You can raise the national debt thru the fucking roof and make our proud country the largest debtor in history as long as they get a tax cut (ever wonder what happened to all that wonderful economic stimulus that was supposed to happen because of Georgienomics???) You can ignore the 40 million americans without health insurance and the working poor on medicaid as long as it does not effect thier walmart stock. You can send 1700 of our best and brightest to thier early deaths in a chase of illusory weapons of mass destruction as long as Haliburton gets a few bucks on it. The list goes on and on...
Bill:
Conservatives are only involved with America to see what they can get out of it.
I'm not actually trying to get free sandwiches out of the government, but Mary Landrieu, Democrat, IS trying to get something out of the govt. - a signed apology by a group of men and women who 1) had no direct involvement in any of this in the first place and 2) certainly have more pressing issues to deal with on our dollar.
At least I could do a lot more tangible good with free food than I could with an apology. Think of how many people I could feed. But that's not as important as senseless killings that ceased 40 years ago, I guess. I guess maybe what's done isn't really done until the Feds say so.
And by the way...
Can you imagine if Lamar Alexander or Saxby Chambliss introduced a proposed resolution asking the federal government to apologize for the murder of innocent thousands and the destruction of millions of acres of land due to Sherman's march to the sea?
I wonder how many would sign off on that.
Wartime acts, such as Sherman's march to the sea, are often horrific, but desperate situations such as war call for desperate measures. Turning your back on the deliberate violation of citizen's civil rights, lynching people only because of the color of their skin (no lynching for white scum who mishandle white women...or whistle at them), refusing to stand up to states who deprived these people of life much less their liberties under the Constitutions, is despicable, and certainly worthy of the few minutes it took to pass this type of resolution. I think it probably deprived the senators of the time to scratch their noses, but not enough time to set up the microphones for the hearings about Gitmo, or other significant congressional actions. It was a call for an act of decency, and some folks missed the boat!
It is nothing more than a bullshit publicity stunt with the hopes of making some look foolish and giving wingnuts like Bill something to rant about. When are you leftists going to replace the rants with original ideas?
Anonymous - I think you wanted to call Bill a moonbat rather than a wingnut. It's okay, it's a mistake that happens all the time. You can thank me later.
In the hopes of making some look foolish? All they had to do was tell their receptionist, "Yeah, put my name on that one." Those who didn't sign made themselves look foolish. There's no one else to blame on that one. But then again, the racist few never were too bright anyway.
It's just a shame that these particular House members are being so vilified for not signing it. Maybe they had a legitimate reason. Of course they could have taken the easy way out and just said, "Put my name on it.", and yes, that would have been, from a PR perspective, a smart move. But it's presumptious to call them the "racist few" - and even if they were racist, it's still worse to use the suffering of blacks for political gain than to hate them, if you ask me.
Both sides of the argument here do seem to acknowledge that this was a political/PR move. What a shame, then, that our men and women on both sides of the aisle are spending time on public relations issues instead of making a tangible impact on the populace.
"Racist," Kevin? If you're going to throw out a charged word like that, please define it. What did those "few" people do to make them racist? You gonna call 'em Nazis next?
I wasn't singling out the folks who didn't sign the bill. I was speaking in general terms of the minority of racist people in America. My apologies if it came off as calling certain Senators racist...certainly, Senators who signed the resolution could be racist. I still think it was a shame certain Senators didn't sign the resolution though...
And Dave, what on Capitol Hill ISN'T a PR move...I mean seriously. Also, isn't an apology of any sort used as some form of "gain". Usually to get back in the good graces of someone you care about? Now, whether these politicians actually "care" about those who are being apologized too is certainly up for debate. I would imagine some do, some don't.
Kevin:
I appreciate your position completely. Although I would argue that some things (raising taxes comes to mind) aren't PR-driven. At least I hope our govt. doesn't think it is - 'cause that's a crappy PR move if I ever saw one.
Good point Dave...let me re-phrase...many/most/a large portion of moves on Capital Hill are PR driven.
As a complete aside, what is the general vibe from you guys on the left over Durbin's comments?
The "general vibe" is that you guys on the right should stop being such pussies and get over it. Despite what the talk-radio hosts and FreepTards are saying, Durbin didn't call our soldiers Nazis.
He was saying that our treatment of prisoners ? as described in an official FBI document ? is more akin to what you'd expect to find in a totalitarian dictatorship than in a country that purports to be an enlightened democracy.
I challenge you to tell me that he's wrong.
What Durbin really said was:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime ? Pol Pot or others ? that had no concern for human beings."
If he isn't equating the actions of our troops and intelligence agents to those of the Nazis, gulag goons and Pol Pot, what is he saying?
Anyone here with family in the military like their loved ones being referred to as a Nazi?
I think the pussies here are the limp-wristed lefties who can't stomach the realities of war.
I hate to see it. If he and Dean keep it up, we'll have more crappy choices in '08. If the dems are going to get any traction in the South or in any of the red states, they're going to have to quit going over the top with the hate rhetoric. Don't they know that this kind of stuff went on in Bosnia?
"The realities of war." Give me a Costco economy-sized break.
So, Patton, maybe you (or one of your comrades in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders) can tell us why starving prisoners and forcing them to shit their pants is vitally important to our national security, and how it's made us better as a country.
I'm sorry, but that kind of "torture" (and calling it that is absurd compared to what we could be doing) could very easily - and HAS - produced information that our military has used in the defense of our country. Names, places, techniques, etc. So that's how it has made us safer, and why it is vitally important to national security. These people killed 3,000 of us less than four years ago, and if I can stop that happening again by blasting rap music and making them piss themselves, sign me the fuck up. As to how it has made us "better?" It's up to your individual morality, but I sleep fine at night after hearing the things Durbin read.
Yep, Doug, all this "abuse" has made us safer and that is a good thing. We are better for it.
If I could gain a piece of information by causing a slimeball that runs around killing innocent women and children to shit on himself or deprive him of sleep, I would consider it a moral and noble cause.
Now, if you and Dickhead Durbin wish to elevate this lowest of all forms of life to victimhood, I hope you both come to rot in the deepest reaches of hell.
It's a fucking shame that our troops have to not only fight these slimeballs but they have to fight leftists pukes like you and Dickhead. Your break is over, get back to your cubicle.
Well well, josh and some one too afraid to put up their name are experts on torture now. Will wonders never cease. Aside from the moral implications of torture, the real problem of torture is that the prisoner, once broken will tell you what he or she thinks you want to hear, regardless of what the truth might be. The information produced is suspect to begin with. This is why modern law enforcement agencies don't torture prisoners (that and this wacko liberal wingnut thing we have called the fucking Constitution of the United States.)
And Dave, "these particular House members are being so vilified for not signing it" as it was a Senate resolution. No House members sign a Senate resolution. (and no Republican House member is listed as a sponser would be an unfair criticism so I won't say it.....)
Liberal wingnut?
Anyway Bill, I'm glad to know that if we ever catch any terrorists in the Johnson City area, you'll be there to give them foot massages and dangle grapes into their mouth to get the vital information.
Did I say any of that Josh?? No, as usual you twist others words to suit your idiotic position. You want to molly coddle the terrorists and give them foot massages? That makes sense considering your fearless leader decided to stop chasing them and go after Saddam Hussian instead. You guys have been feeding grapes to terrorists for years. Everyone of them, from Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph to Osama Bin Laden have benifited from you conservative program of ignore and encourage.
You want the terrorists to thrive? How about if we take the total brute force of the US military and send it half a continent away to fight over non existent WMD's and your daddy's honor? That will not only let them slip away from our grasp but also encourage others to join them! Way to go Josh!!! You guys have this terrorist assistance program going great! Next you can clean up the inner city by encouraging folks to be pimps and hos! Maybe you contemporary conservatives can reduce marijuana use among middle schoolers by giving them crack instead. Or a economic program that both spends more money than we have and sends 3 million jobs overseas!
You guys rock!!!
Wow, "anonymous" sure talks tough -- I guess you'll be signing up post-haste so that you can join the military and assist those troops who are having such a tough time fighting naughty libruls like me.
Wait, what am I talking about? You won't even attach your name to a fucking blog comment. Ah, yes, the battle cry of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders -- FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! but, uhhh, don't send me!!!
Bill:
Thanks for pointing that out... I think I meant to say "members of Congress". For the record, I do know it was a Senate resolution and that the House and Senate are two distinct parts of the American legislative branch.
Get the picture.
Doug sits in his cubicle launching his attacks on our troops. When he's done, he heads home to slam a few, trash his air conditioned apartment and jack-off to internet porn. This daily monotony is broken only by a two week jaunt to Italy. While he's in Italy his mommy and little sis clean-up his apartment. At the same time, Dickless Durbin is at the Palm restaurant in Georgetown supping on crab cakes and a buttery Chardonnay after a long day of comparing our troops to Nazis. Life is good! It's great to be a liberal!
Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, an 18 year-old grunt, someone's brother, a father, a mother, a sister is nervously moving through a Baghdad alley, in 110 degree temperature, with 40 pounds of gear, their weapon's safety off, waiting to get shot or fragged. When they're done with their mission, if they survive, they get to go back to a tent, a cot, no air conditioning to catch a few Z's. They do it every day for months on end. They do it because they choose to do it. They believe they are doing the right thing. They do it so some "Iraqi Doug" can blog without retribution for the first time in his life. They do it so Doug and lil sis can make the case that the ENEMY are the real victims here. Most importantly, they do it so Doug and Dickless have the right to call them Nazis.
What the fuck is wrong with this picture?
PS I did walk down to the recruiter and gladly signed-up for the cause. Care to join me? We need a few good men and women.
As you were.
Bill, Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph? Which president did those guys thrive under again?
They do it so some "Iraqi Doug" can blog without retribution for the first time in his life. They do it so Doug and lil sis can make the case that the ENEMY are the real victims here. Most importantly, they do it so Doug and Dickless have the right to call them Nazis.
What the fuck is wrong with this picture?
Absolutely nothing.
Thanks for all you do and get home safely.
Pfc. Martin:
1. When did I attack our troops?
2. When did I support the Iraqis over our troops?
3. When did I call our troops Nazis?
Go ahead, browse through the blog and dig up the quotes where I said those things. I'll be waiting.
And for the record, Pfc. Martin, it's the liberals who support you. The conservatives are the ones who sent you off to fight a fictitious war in Iraq (a country that posed no threat to the United States). We were the ones who didn't want to send you into harms way. I would much rather be sitting in a bar with you, drinking some beers, and talking about how you kicked Osama's ass. But poor leadership failed you, and us, and prevented that from happening. Most of us also have friends and/or family currently serving and would never in our wildest dreams consider calling you Nazis.
With that, I hope to see you, and all of our troops (and my friends) home safe soon.
NEWS.FUCKING.FLASH: FIGHTING OR NOT FIGHTING IN IRAQ WILL DO NOTHING FOR OUR FREEDOM. Our freedoms - those of speec, press, assembly, etc. - are protected by our Constitution and Sadaam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and anyone else will not and cannot change that. Our freedoms were given to us over 250 years ago, and no one, NO ONE alive fighting today has anything to do with "protecting" those freedoms BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AT STAKE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE GUY RUNNING OUR OWN COUNTRY, AND NO ONE'S ATTACKING HIM PHYSICALLY, so I really wish people would shut.the.fuck.up. about "protecting your right to say what you want" because you're NOT. The Constitution does that just by EXISTING, no bullets necessary.
Wow. You leave a couple of days and come back to this.
I would say that Pfc. Martin's frustration with the liberal anti-war crowd may have been a little off target. Or maybe Doug's relation to lil sis makes him at least genetically culpable.
So, Doug, how do you feel about Durbin's comments? I noticed you didn't refute his description of your typical day. Very exciting life you live.
One thing that is apparent is that many of the most ardent fans of this site are of the kind that would be cheering Durbin on, some silently. Also, this anti-military, strident US fault finding and blaming is the kind of stuff that Jane Fonda now finds regrettable.
I suggest that instead of you following Time or the New York Times, you libs be a little more circumspect before you launch another attack on those that put it on the line every day.
I know, I know, it's not the soldiers you think you are hurting, it's Bush and company. But you're wrong. Most of the military feel they are doing the right thing. And, jen, our Constitution has been protected by bullets many times over the last 250 years. Are you so stupid that we would have to remind you?
Mortimer, the Constitution is not in danger by anyone overseas right now. THAT was my point.
However, since you want to play the "overseas wars protect American rights" game, please tell me when, other than the Revolutionary War (which was, arguably, about the right to MAKE a Constitution, not the right to KEEP it) has ANY war we've fought in had anything to do with OUR rights? WWI was about protecting other countries, as was WWII. Korea...nothing to do with our rights over here, same with Viet Nam, same with Gulf War I, same with the current war. And the Civil War? As far as I recall, there was nothing about slavery in the Constitution, though there was something about blacks having the right to vote, but I'm pretty sure that came later.
So, Mortimer, are there any wars I'm leaving out, wars that the U.S. didn't instigate (which rules out the Mexican-American, Phillipine-American and Spanish-American wars and the war of 1812, in case you're wondering), wars that were about AMERICAN rights, not foreign rights that we were just protecting?
Jen, you just perfectly summed up my primary problem with liberalism: "Our freedoms were given to us over 250 years ago."
Nobody GAVE us our rights, not even the all-powerful, all-knowing government.
Mort, riddle me this - you still haven't explained to me how I'm anti-troop for thinking that their leadership is suspect, while you're pro-troop for saying that they all like to beat people to death and waterboard them and sodomize them for fun. I mean, okay, maybe a person who's following procedure really is a worse person than someone who does despicable things all by himself. You can go ahead and explain that now.
I don't remember saying you were anti-troop. I said you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And you are by painting them as victims of the evil Bush empire. I would suspect that more than a few liberal democrats perished on 9/11. At least give them some respect. Yeah, you are anti-troop. While we're at it, where were you when we invaded Bosnia? Why aren't you screaming about our indefinite occupation of Bosnia? Remember we were supposed to be out in a year?
Jen, gosh, I don't know where to begin with your screed. I didn't think there were morons like you in the world. You learn something new every day.
Josh, according to the Declaration of Independance God gave us our rights,,, or do you "Family Values Conservatives" not beleive in God? And if you want to fight for our rights now how about stepping up against the "Patriot" Act, which is the biggest attack on our rights since the interments of WWII? The fact is that foreign powers have not posed a threat to our rights in sometime, (though 250 years is probably a stretch.) The biggest threat to our rights are the megalamanics that think they know what goes on between us and our doctor, what we should read (and that they should know about it), what we should think, what religion should be in our schools, how much of their filth we should breath, how many of thier lies about reasons for war we should accept on blind faith, how many guns we should have (yeah i don't care for that crowd either, but i like all of the constitution, not just the second amendment).... the list goes on and on...
The terrorists tried to change our way of life. If we give up a single right, they win.
Josh, according to the Declaration of Independance God gave us our rights,,, or do you "Family Values Conservatives" not beleive in God?
Bill, I won't go into the semantics of whether or not God is a "somebody", but Josh's point was that it's not the federal govt. that gave us our rights. And can you maybe try making a rational well-formed argument without discrediting yourself by begging the question? Or are you a closet Marxist Communist that enjoys shooting cute, defenseless animals in the head and setting fire to orphanages in your spare time?? Hmmm???
Actually, Dave and Steve, some of the rights we have in the Constitution WERE given to us by the government, such as the right to vote, the right to own a gun (unless you're a felon), the right to a speedy trial, and the right to not be a slave. If those rights were inherent, everyone in every country in the world would have them, but they don't. And until recent years, some Americans didn't even have some of those rights - if I or Ann had been born & died before 1920, we wouldn't have ever voted. If you'd been black in 1803, and lived in a state where it were legal, you could have been bought and sold as easily as a stick of gum, and you wouldn't have been able to vote until the 15th Amendment was ratified. So, while some of our freedoms may have been given to us by God, the Constitution protects those rights. If it weren't for that, our God-given rights would mean nothing under the control of a leader like Mao or Stalin...Chinese people and Russians have just as much right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as we do, but the people running their countries, historically, don't seem to give a crap about that.
Damnit. Sorry, Steve, that should have been "Dave and Josh." My bad. It's what I get for posting before breakfast.
Well Dave, God is somebody to me....
As to the rest of your drivel can you please write a coherent sentence?
"And can you maybe try making a rational well-formed argument without discrediting yourself by begging the question?"
What question Dave? Please diagram this sentence and tell me which clause relates to each other.
As usual when you slap a neoconman in the face with the truth, ie where the Declaration of Rights says our rights come from, they can't take it and have to drop back to personal attack. This is so typical of the Repugs, they just can't see the truth when it sits in front of them if it does not agree with thier world view. Deal with it Dave, Jefferson says our rights come from God, not from troops sent on Bush's misadventure in Iraq. To say this does not mean I don't support those troops, I support them so much I think they should come home.
Well, Morty, let's think. That was 1995, I was fourteen... oh, and there were, if I recall correctly, all of three American fatalities in the Bosnian conflict. Now, they were tragic and shouldn't be discounted, but we're nowhere near the scale of the 1,700 troops we've lost in Iraq so that they could democratically elect themselves an increasingly theocratic government. As for disrespecting our troops and the liberal Dems who died in 9/11, I don't see how I'm disrespecting them by trying to ensure that they did die/are dying for a country worthy of a description other than "not as bad as Saddam."
But that's neither here nor there, buttercup, 'cause you haven't answered my question.
And Bill, would you please just shut up and let people agree with you? Y'all are arguing semantics. Let me see if I can clean it all up a little bit.
According to the Declaration of Independence, we were "endowed by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. Now, if you're a religious type, you're going to read that as some kind of a god, and if you're not, you're more likely to look at it as your parents - i.e. those who physically created you. Either way, the idea is that from birth, with no outside interference, you had these rights. And as Josh and Jen both point out in their own ways, the only way to not have those rights is if the government decides to screw with them.
Thus, one thing is a "threat to our freedoms," and Middle Eastern terrorism isn't it.
Sorry Ann, when someone implys I am a communist that kills animals and burns orphanages it is hard to see that they agreeing with me.... which part of that supports my position anyway? Help me out here, I am confused. Is that supposed to agree with me? Which part of that is mere semantic?
or do you "Family Values Conservatives" not beleive in God?
That ^^^ is called "begging the question". And hopefully at least a few here realized that my "communist who kills animals" question was intended to show just how ridiculous begging the question is.
OK, jen, I'll bite. You said:
"Mortimer, the Constitution is not in danger by anyone overseas right now. THAT was my point."
The US Constitution confers the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" right now and always. Using your logic, on 9/10 these "rights" were not in danger by anyone overseas at that time. But in fact, these rights were in danger well before 9/11. You can go back to the Berlin disco bombings in 1986 that targeted our troops and the Zaire embassy bombing that targeted our diplomats. So, how do you know that our right to life is not in danger overseas now?
I'll just bet your 38D's that we'll have another terrorist attack against us in a place other than Iraq within the next 6 months.
No Dave, that is asking a question, not begging. Begging would be more like "Jen has 38D's????Please Please Please tell me is that true???"
And uh,, hmmm uh, Morty,,, that was the Declaration of Indpendance, not the Constitution. The Constitution limited the powers of goverment (that Bush and Co want to expand to include your bedroom and doctor's office) and enumerated your rights (which are eroded by the Patriot Act.
Morty - Checked out the blog, I see? Sorry it's boring, but that's my life.
Yes, Bill, pregnancy has inflated the once large but manageable 34Cs to 38Ds and it doesn't look as though they're stopping any time soon. *announcer voice*For more information about my changing body, see my blog./announcer voice
And Morty, Bill's right about the Declaration & what it says...and besides that, by your rationale, ANYONE who kills ANYONE ELSE would be limiting those freedoms for EVERYONE ELSE, which simply isn't true. Jeffery Dahmer, while one shithead of a guy, took away the freedoms of life, liberty, and happiness from SPECIFIC PEOPLE, as did the embassy bombers, as does anyone else who commits a crime in which people are killed. It sucks for the dead, and their families & friends, but for those of us uninvolved with the situation, our freedoms are untouched.
Yes, I stand corrected, the DOI.
So, jen, what's your threat threshold for those of us "uninvolved?" Just when should we become concerned that we may be next? You want us to stand idly by and wait for our turn?
PS There's nothing boring about 38D's.
Bill, check out the complaints for the Patriot Act. Those that have any substance are very rare.
By "Those that have any substance" you mean those you agree with? I think anything that limits a persons freedom in anyway is a complaint of substance.
Those that have substance have been investigated, found to be valid and charges have been brought against the perpetrators. The last time I saw the scorecard it was something like 200 - 210 complaints resulting in 3 or 4 charges brought against individuals. Yes, there should be no violations but then again, you shouldn't drink, hit a doobie and drive.
"I think anything that limits a persons freedom in anyway is a complaint of substance." Yep, like working at your desk and having a 757 rammed up your ass?
Monty, the actual report from DOJ in July 2003 (two years out of date...) cited over 1000 complaints, 272 in OIG's bailiwick, of which 34 were judged "credible" cases of violations of Patriot Act. About 34 too many! [Just think what the count would be if other than DOJ were doing the counting (and had someone more credible responsible for the running of the place, past and present)] The protection of the basic inalienable rights of all humans is in the hands of our government, and to have them stomping all over them here and abroad (including Gitmo) is despicable, even if one of those humans wants to ram a 757 into uncomfortable body orifices! These are not just USA rights, but human right, even for JDahmer and Osama Bin Laden!
Morty, your problem (well, one of your many problems) is your fanatical devotion in your rhetoric to the non sequitur. (That's dirty commie French talk for "one thing not having a fucking thing to do with the other.")
Your argument, to the extent that you have one, is that because terrorists flew airplanes into some of our buildings, we have the right to do anything and everything that is not as bad as that, including (but not exclusive to) peeing on Korans, making people crap in their pants, and ramming fluorescent light bulbs up their asses. Wonderful!
I'm real glad you're such an easygoing, happy-go-lucky, easy-to-please guy that "At least it's not Ground Zero/the Hanoi Hilton/Auschwitz" is good enough for you. But some of us demand better. How that makes us terrorist-loving America-haters is something I have yet to hear you adequately explain.
And to a great extent I am not concerned with the "abuses" of the patriot act... any act that allows the government to know what i am reading, whether abused or not, is just plain wrong. It's none of thier damn business what I read, or where I shop or who I hang out with. Bush and Co have become Big Brother watching us, and it needs to stop.
OK, Dougie, please let us know how you really feel about Durbin's comments. Please.
BECAUSE islamists flew planes into the WTC, we are at war. Therefore, we have every right to subject those who would continue to do us harm to interrogation. Further, according to international law, they are not subject to GC protection because they are non-national, out-of-uniform combatants that kill innocent women, children and civilians to further their cause. Doug, they are fucking terrorists. Don't you get it? They don't desereve better. Even their own won't give them better. Hence, one of your liberal federal judges won't let us send them home. Maybe you want to send Dr. Phil to deal with them, but they are fucking terrorists. They want you and li'l sis D-E-A-D. Get off your "higher standard" high horse. This is war! W-A-R! Get it?
And, Bill, if Bush was lying, so was Kerry and Hillary. Both were convinced by the same evidence that SH had WMD's and were are threat. It's in the Congressional Record.
And, Doug, fuck your non seguitar BS. What a pompous ass!
I keep pointing out why you're going to get your asses kicked again in '06 and '08 and all you have to say is that Bush is a liar, Morty writes in non sequitars, Club Gitmo must go, the detainees are vicitims of mean old Rummy. What a bunch of lame-os. You and the Deaniacs need to keep it up and you'll lose more ground. Biden and Hillary in '08!
Pardon any non sequitars, Mr. second rate college magazine journalism boy. Hell, why don't you get a real job, like writing for a fashion magazine?
No Morty, Kerry and Clinton, like the rest of America, were misled by Bush's lies. You are the kind of guy that after a little old lady's house is broken into blames her for not having enough locks.
If we are at war with terrorists, then why didn't we finish the job in Afganistan before going off to invade Iraq, a country with few, if any, links to terrorists (the only proof we have of any links at all are supplied by the same guys that told us they knew exactly where the WMD's were, and that we would be in and out of Iraq in no time. How many times do they have to lie to you before you start doubting thier word? Face it Morty, you've been duped like a fool.
I'm curious Morty, when Clinton lied about a blow job your ilk cried for impeachment. Bush has lied about WMD's and cost 1700 American lives as a result. He has lied about Social Security and the effect of his tax cuts on the economy. One would be hard pressed to find anything he has told the absolute truth about.
Do you favor impeachment proceedings now?
Bill, liberal whining = same result in '06 and '08.
Where are the ideas? Embrace the Fair Tax proposal and everyone wins. SS is saved, the "rich" pay more, the "poor" pay less. How can you libs not like that outcome?
PS I thought impeachment for Clinton was BS then and calling Bush a liar is BS now.
Morty, the reason it isn't okay to handcuff detainees in the fetal position on the concrete floor of a 40-degree room in a puddle of their own shit is that it's wrong. Over at my blog, we've been looking at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was signed by the US (among other countries) as a promise not to do those exact things, no matter the circumstances (Steve, you asked if anyone actually did disagree with the UDHR? This guy is why we're looking at it). And it's now being estimated that one-quarter to one-third of Gitmo detainees aren't supposed to be there, in addition to the 70-90% in Iraq. Is it okay to beat the shit out of an innocent man, Morty, in the interest of our national security? Would you submit to being hog-tied on the floor of a 100-degree room for two days, as long as the government said it could help the war effort?
You can answer those questions as soon as you've answered my other questions, which, by the way, you still haven't answered.
You need to calm down, Morty. Sounds like it might be time for a cup of hot Ovaltine and a nap.
I also find it interesting that you always seem to follow your demands that liberals come up with "ideas" with demands to fall right in lockstep with whatever the Bush administration wants. Which is it, kid? Come up with original ideas or regress back into GOP Lite?
By the way, I don't know if you got the memo, but the stuff the Bush administration wants doesn't seem to be all that popular with either Congress OR the American people lately. Become lap dogs for a lame duck like Bush? I got an "idea" for you, Morty: Make me.
Damn, Doug, haven't you figured it out? I'm no fan of the Bushies. We deserve better than W, Kerry, Hillary, Dean, Biden and the rest of the idealogues. We need people with new ideas. Not old socialist crap or right wing narrow mindedness. Socialism and big government doesn't work. Class warfare doesn't work either. And welfare doesn't work. It's time to trim government and reinvigorate our capitalist system - the greatest system in the world.
My concern with the left is that you all are moving so far to the left that we're going to have another choice between the dumb and dumber candidates. And as we did last time, we all lost.
As far as new ideas, I really don't know where the Bush administration is with the Fair Tax proposal. I'm all for it. It solves most of our fiscal problems and gives everyone a big shot in the arm. It's an original idea that, if embraced by you all, can bring you back to the middle.
"Fair tax" = Republispeak for screw the little guy again, It has been considered, and found to be a bad idea. Why anyone with a lick of sense would still be harping on as though it is a prescription to heal all the mismanagement by the conservatives is beyond me.
"Fair tax" in a discussion about torture is also another silly ass non sequitor, but that goes without saying.....
That's spelled non s-e-q-u-i-t-u-r, y-o-u m-o-r-o-n. And you only know the Fair Tax plan from what your liberal handlers have told you. Why don't you l-e-a-r-n about it and t-h-i-n-k for yourself.
Gee Mortie has a spell check,,, now if mortey could get a truth check as well. Perhaps Morticia, if you ever checked into your fair tax you harp on about you would see if for what it is, not what the Oxy heads that lead your party want you to think. As to my spelling here, it is the stuff of legends. As to you constantly changing the subject when you are proved wrong again and again, it is the sign of a weak mind. Dumbass.
You want a fair tax? How about we take the amount that the Republicans spend every year, and divide it between all the tax payers based on their total wealth. What could be fairer than having to pay your share of the debt based on your share of the nations total wealth? (Cue right wing crickets chirping here. The last thing you assclowns want it to pay your share.) Cheap fucker.
But if you really want fair, since you are so clearly support Haliburton's war, why don't you join the service? They have a great need for troops now and are behind on thier recruiting goal? Chicken shit mutha fucker (Did I spell that right Marty?)
Bill,
Communism has already been tried and it was a dismal failure.
Yes, I do understand that your illiteracy is legendary.
Why don't you educate yourself on the fair tax plan before you dismiss it? It has a lot to offer people like that can't hold a job. I hear them paging you for a clean-up on aisle two.
Morticia, that was not commuisium I was describing, it was the fair tax.
I'm curious though, what's wrong with being the guy that cleans up messes on aisle 2? Seems like honest work to me, yet you banter it as though it was an insult. Anybody that has ever worked a day in thier life has had to clean up a mess at one time or another. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Why do you cast is as an insult? Do you have that much condescending disdain for the working folks of America? What is it about them you don't like? They pay most of the taxes in America, do most of the work, their kids do most of the killing and getting killed for their country. All they want is a decent days wages for a day's work, decent affordable housing and schools, insurance for when they get sick and if it isn't too much to ask before you send their kids to get killed over weapons of mass destruction could you tell the truth about whether the other guy has them or not?
What's wrong with being the guy that cleans up aisle 2? or better yet, what's wrong with you Morty?
Anybody got a tissue?
Seriously, Bill, good to see you are proud of your work. Now, collect the carts in the parking lot.
This is typical of the disdain all republicans have for the working class of course. They have committed open class warfare for years, Morticia is merely inept at hiding his contempt for anyone that has to work for a living. He and the rest of his Armani clad class warriors will do anything to put a fella down that gets up every morning, works all day and tries to make life better for thier families. Proud? Damn straight I am.
And you wouldn't need a tissue if you weren't jacking off so much.
Post a Comment