|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
06-27-2006, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Flag Burning
Good to see the Congress has taken time to debate such a far reaching immediate problem that is so clearly a ticking time bomb.
What a flippin joke waste of time... Frikkin political garbage. Orin Hatch, whos intellect I respect, has just fallen about 30 rungs on my ladder. Serve the people not your reelections... pieces of refuse, honest to God. 
|
|
#2
06-27-2006, 02:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So isn't it safe to run on a record of support for the flag than discuss the real failures that might need to be addressed? Or...is this a "smoke screen"?
|
|
#3
06-27-2006, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Man, I'm glad I'm not the only one who rolled my eyes when this came up...In Seattle we have a great liberal cartoonist named David Horsey, and he came up with a doozy the other day:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey...te.asp?id=1407 Why is it that this administration and Congress are completely opposed to government intervention *unless* it involves your private lives and personal morals? Shouldn't they care about bigger things, like maybe our skyrocketing debt? (Yes, that goes for liberal roll-over legislators, too.)
|
|
#4
06-27-2006, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Irish,
That's one of the best cartoons I've seen in a while. LOL! DTS
|
|
#5
06-27-2006, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bush is naked in a cartoon.
Clinton actually masturbated in nearly every room of the White House. Take your pick.
|
|
#6
06-27-2006, 04:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
06-27-2006, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Bush is just a "mouth piece". Now that the NY times has revealed another disregard for the Constitution, remember "free press"?...it's time to accuse this new paper of "treason". What a joke. DNS ignoring laws on orders...outing Valerie Plame...who else to blame? Gays and flag burners....time to divert attention folks. Let's just talk about something else besides the dismal failures and corruption.
|
|
#8
06-27-2006, 05:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But come on how can you not see a new flag burning debate as just deflection from all of the current administration's failures? And for the record this liberal is totally against flag burning.
__________________
 Seek respect, not attention.
|
|
#9
06-27-2006, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
06-30-2006, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As some of you know I am an active-duty Navy man with 19 plus years and will retire in 4 months and thought I would just add this.
I have thought deeply about what my job is over the past years and the conflicts and wars that I am served in. Regardless of what I think, it would be a far greater loss of one's right if the right to burn a flag was taken away. I have been fighting for these rights for so long. That being said if I so happen to see someone doing it I would take the flag from them and do some character training on them. I would be breaking the law and will always take responsibility for my actions. Aloha Geoff
|
|
#11
06-30-2006, 02:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So busy with work and travel this week, I haven’t been so timely in responding. Maybe a quick summary before going to bed followed by more details in coming days.
Irishtrekker, welcome liberal girl number two. They’re ganging up on me now! I enjoyed your post a lot and as you can imagine I have many comments for you but right now I’m too tired. You have passion and that’s a good thing. I’ll just say one thing now, your post sounds like something I would have written when I was 24. With age and an open mind my political views have swung like a pendulum over the years, first hard left, then gradually hard right, now who knows? I just call it like I see it and don’t get too hung up on the labels. Bold Brooklynite, It always seems that people don’t want to take the time to discriminate. It’s either “I hate Bush” or “I love Bush”. For me he’s been a major disappointment because I expected better from him. The things I dislike though are not the same as what you hear most people bashing him for. One of my biggies that I almost forgot about was the Harriet Meiers nomination for Supreme Court. For the life of me I can’t figure that one out. He actually said that she was the best available candidate!! Genuine Risk, I still don’t know where you got Art from. My screen name is Arl- like Arlington – Jim. The misinterpretation of your post was intentional; I was just exaggerating to hopefully make a point. I do want to comment on your point about the WSJ running a story about the bank records on the same day as the Times. That is not a coincidence. The difference is that they agreed not to run the story based upon the administrations request. Once they found out that the times was going ahead with the story against the wishes of the administration it was a new ballgame and they had to move forward with the news. Cajun, You know if you listen to the speeches and all the hot air, read the platforms, etc, there should really be big differences between the two major parties. But when you look at how they actually govern, I agree with you, the differences are nearly imperceptible. This has the appearance of being a civilized open political discussion of opposing viewpoints and so far it looks like there have been no insults or threats! Wow, it actually is possible. lol
|
|
#12
06-30-2006, 03:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
AJ - I know what you mean, but my parents are in their 60s and are still PDL (pretty damned liberal). I think I'm probably a lost cause.
 I actually used to be quite conservative until I hit 18 and am now happily out in left field after a lot of sobering experiences.I should note again that I'm definitely not someone who would call herself a Democrat. I also believe that the two parties are too similar, and my views don't exactly mesh with either. I hate having to pick a party in the primary now, because neither really reflects my views, per se. I try to vote for someone based on the issues and the person's qualifications instead of the party, which is why I'll occasionally choose a Republican candidate (our attorney general is a Republican, I think and I voted for him). Last edited by irishtrekker : 06-30-2006 at 03:26 AM.
|
|
#13
06-30-2006, 09:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
NY times
Actually GR I had it wrong when I said that the WSJ declined to publish the story at the request of the administration and only did so when they found out about the times story. Better to read the WSJ's own detailed accounting in the link below to understand what actually happened. It was actually the administration that approached the WSJ after learning about the times decision to go to print.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008585
|
|
#14
06-30-2006, 12:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Clearly I'm a big fat liar when I said I'd get back on the board last night-- I was too tired. Okay, back today...
I'm sorry Jim-- I have a slight astigmatism during the day thanks to the Paragon lenses I wear doing a good, though not perfect, job of reshaping my nearsighted eyes at night and I misread "Arl" as "Art"-- computer screens are particularly easy to misread when you have an astigmatism. Thank you for the clarification (and the explanation of your screen name.  )I'm not sure what point you were going for in your exagerration of my post-- I believe someone had asked what stories I felt were more deserving of attention than the bank records one, and I gave a list that I felt were more deserving of attention. It seems to me that often when someone presents a list of things that deserve attention, there is often a knee-jerk reaction from others of "Oh, so if Bush wasn't in charge everything would be perfect then? Ha!" which doesn't do anything other than try to slam shut debate. Of course I don't think cancer would be cured if Bush weren't in office. I do think, however, had Kerry or Gore (or, for that matter, any of a number of Republicans who believe in separation of Church and State) been in the Oval Office, that at no point would the morality of pre-marital and teenage sex have entered into the debate over getting a vaccine for a virus that can lead to cancer out onto the market. (Likewise the morning-after pill, which should have been released over the counter years ago and hasn't been thanks to religious wingnuts appointed by Bush choosing "morality" over women's health.) In the case of New Orleans, I wasn't making any reference to the levees and what Bush did or didn't ignore prior to Katrina; I was making reference to the crappy job of reconstructing New Orleans since. We've spent 200 billion in Iraq so far; how much has gone to New Orleans? Anywhere near that amount? Not blaming it entirely on Bush, but I think our failure in New Orleans is worth more newspaper space than the banking thing. Or rather, the finger-pointing over the banking thing. Likewise the estate tax, which the Republicans have cleverly framed as the "death tax" and have even more cleverly persuaded your average American that families are losing their farms over it (not a single instance of a small farm being lost to the estate tax, by the way). The Dems have offered several compromises, but what the Republicans want is an abolishment of the tax. Which will drain the nation's coffers quite a bit (income for the next ten years of the tax is estimated at, I believe, $283 billion dollars, or about the cost of the Iraq war through next year). Who do the lower and middle class think is going to have to come up with the money for that shortfall? Why, they will, of course, through higher middle class taxes and cuts in lower class relief programs. All so a bunch of extremely wealthy dead guys (and a few gals) can make sure their kids never have to do anything with themselves. All these, more deserving of news, because they affect us more directly and harder. More women die each year of cervical cancer than total people in 9/11. Higher middle-class taxes affect more of us I think, than cuts in upper income taxes (while I'm at it; I don't think I outright called you a blue-blood-- I asked if you were. I do apologize for assuming you were an conservative; your argument tactics tend to align with those of my conservative friends, but that was still a gross generalization on my part and so I'm sorry for it.) Oh! And I'd add in our Republican-controlled Congress opting to NOT renew the Civil Rights Act. You're all aware of this, right? Okay, ways in which I think the Bush Adminstration tries to get around the Constitution-- wiretapping, for one (the 4th Amendment). Faith-based initiatives (separation of church and state. Bush made it clear no Wiccan faiths, for example, would get money. Whatever one thinks of wiccans, it's still a recognized religion (the military includes it as a religion) and by discriminating against them, that seems to me to be a clear attempt to value some faiths (Christian) above others. In any event, the Constitution says Congress shall make no law providing for the establishment of religion. Not "A" religion, but "religion" in general). Imprisoning suspected terrorists without access to lawyers, without telling them why they're being imprisoned (habeus corpus? Is that what that falls under?). Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Thank you for the link to the editorial, Jim. My two big questions are-- if the WSJ's news and editorial pages are separate, why do they assume it's different at the Times? (They repeatedly invoke a Times editorial about opening a special investigation into the Plame thing) And I'm not sure whether their point was that they didn't know since the news and editorial sections are different or that they had the okay to do it- they seemed to be invoking both excuses, when honestly, I'd buy either reason if presented alone. But the Swift point is well taken and I'm going to keep googling to find out more (the specific bank thing). I might have missed that otherwise, and it's a valid point if true. I don't think the Dems are the same as the Republicans. I, do, however, think my stupid party needs to find some balls to stand up to the party in power. And not let them hijack the debate. "Death tax" for example. On top of that, it would help them to figure out what they stand FOR. As Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to an organized party; I'm a Democrat." That said, I'll paste in a funny article from Salon about the Democratic challenger to the Senate candidate in Virginia. If only the other Dems had the same cojones. Love the meeting of the minds here, Jim, Irish, et al. You all keep me on my toes and aware of what's going on in the world.
|
Hybrid Mode
