mike1 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Shrill? No. I was just pointing out facts. What part of my "rhetoric" do you discount? Point by point? So "democratically elected" only applies when it suits your definition?However, I just can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Nmain, WTH are you talking about, same rights ? You have healthcare benefits, you can leave your wealth to anyone you want, go make a will, and it will be automatic, what is it that YOU are missing out on, by not being able to marry, and you don't even want to, to begin with. Teej, Teej, Teej...[that's how I've come to affectionatly refer to you in my mind-seriously] You've read what I've said about this before but I'll repeat it again. I don't think government should interfere with marriage. It's a spiritual-religious-whatever you want to call it-relationship between 2 people. I don't need or want the validation. We have the will thing in place and I'm really not worried about which of us goes first-baring nuclear holochaust or an invasion by those mean old Venezuelans-I do, however want the same rights you have under the law. I would like to be able to leave and/or have left to me veteran, SS, and any other government sponsored benefits. In other words, I want the same civil rights you enjoy-not "special"-just the same. So that's WTH I'm talking about. In any event, I always enjoy your rants so feel free to rant all you want. OPPS!!!...I meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I find the whole thing amusing on many fronts. If the AFA is supporting a boycott, that is my first clue that maybe Chavez isn't as bad as he is depicted in US based media. True, Chavez is selling low-cost heating fuel to the US poor to embarrass Bush. My question is, how does Chavez even get that chance? It is because Bush gave him that chance by slashing heating oil subsidies.I also wonder just how many oil producing countries the US must piss off before it figures it out. It always seems that the same hard-line supporters are the ones driving inefficient vehicles and complaining of high gas prices. They disdain diplomacy as a sign of weakness. But, the tough stance merely exposes our weaknesses, such as a technologically advanced military with too few troops to invade more than one country at a time.Consider this: The US is currently opposed to or occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. We are wary of Russia, India, and China. We SHOULD be opposed to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The Pentagon has proposed raising troop levels, even though recruiting targets cannot be met now, due to general opposition to the war and the knowledge that enlisting guarantees a trip to Iraq.Tough talk is all well and good if one is willing to fight. Americans are not willing to fight, and the government is not asking them to. In fact, the gov't. is not even asking for sacrifice. Every war must be paid for. This gov't. lowered taxes on the wealthy. In his State of the Union Address, Bush proposed lowering foreign oil imports by 75%, but did not even suggest the easiest way to lower oil consumption, raising vehicle gas mileage standards. The reason, we all know, is that American manufacturers say it is too expensive, even though Japenese mfcrs. already do it, and GM and Ford are selling $40,000 SUVs with DVD players in the roof.In the final analysis, one must look at who the enemy is. Saudi Arabia claims to be an ally of the US, and is protected by the Bush administration. Our "friends", the Saudis, provided 15 of the 19 hijackers. Hugo Chavez is considered an enemy of the State. The US aided the coup that temporarily took him out of office. He has responded by "attacking" the US with cheap heating oil for our poor and lower priced gas for motorists.Would you rather have Bush's "friends" or his "enemies"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Teej, Teej, Teej...[that's how I've come to affectionatly refer to you in my mind-seriously]You've read what I've said about this before but I'll repeat it again. I don't think government should interfere with marriage. It's a spiritual-religious-whatever you want to call it-relationship between 2 people. I don't need or want the validation. We have the will thing in place and I'm really not worried about which of us goes first-baring nuclear holochaust or an invasion by those mean old Venezuelans-I do, however want the same rights you have under the law. I would like to be able to leave and/or have left to me veteran, SS, and any other government sponsored benefits. In other words, I want the same civil rights you enjoy-not "special"-just the same. So that's WTH I'm talking about. In any event, I always enjoy your rants so feel free to rant all you want. OPPS!!!...I meant I do see your point on SS benefits and such, somehow we just gotta seperate the whole marriage issue, like I said I believe you should have the right to a civil union, but marriage has been defined, by both government and God's law, depending on how you interpret the bible. I hate this issue, because I can argue for both sides on this. In my mind, I have it all worked out, explaining it and having people see it the same way is a much different thing. Back to the issue at hand, if you back any other government , no matter how puny and insignificant they might seem to a world power, be they a dictatorship or democratically elected, if you back their view, then you are treasonist, and should be brought up on charges of sedition, you DO NOT go to another country and protest YOUR government, then expect to get back into the country. You can delicate flower all you want here at home. It's like being married, you can talk about YOUR wife as bad as you want to your buddies at home, but you don't go to her girlfriends house down the street and start talking trash in front of them about her. And, you never let another man talk bad about your wife,even if it's the same thing you just said, because thems fightin words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Back to the issue at hand, if you back any other government , no matter how puny and insignificant they might seem to a world power, be they a dictatorship or democratically elected, if you back their view, then you are treasonist, and should be brought up on charges of sedition, you DO NOT go to another country and protest YOUR government, then expect to get back into the country. You can delicate flower all you want here at home.I disagree that to support another style of government is treasonous. Treason is clearly defined in the Constitution as waging war against the US, or giving aid or comfort to its enemies. It requires an overt act to be a crime. Advocating the overthrow of the government is also a crime. Therefore, the actions of the Socialist and Communist Parties of the US for a change in the style of US governance is not treasonous. A plot to achieve those goals by overthrow of the elected government would be. Cindy Sheehan's statement, "Down with the US empire", without overt actions to achieve that goal through force, is protected speech, especially since "Down with" can be achieved any number of ways, most notably, by voting out the offensive party (Bush). However, it is important to see Cindy Sheehan for what she is...an anti-war protester run amok. 60% of Americans oppose the war. Virtually none of them want Hugo Chavez' help in ending it. Just as Pat Robertson's senility and far right-wing views cause strange and objectionable comments to leave his lips, Sheehan's 15 minutes of fame seem to have caused her mouth to overload her brain as well. Some conservatives will try to install Sheehan as the mouthpiece of the 60% opposed to the war, just as some liberals try to do with Robertson, or even Donald Wildmon with the AFA. Reasonable people, though, will see all of them for what they are...fringe players with unhinged jaws.With Sheehan, it is sad to see, since her original actions came from the heart. But, however true her original intentions were, now she's just nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 To your immediate point, I don't think that Bush resonates all that much with the American people ether, but I believe Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean resonate even less. And, yes, much of what they say in public comes off as bashing their own country, and it plays right into the hands of the other side.Overthrowing foreign governments, killing or kidnapping foreign leaders, invading countries without provocation, detaining people without due process or access to legal advice, violating the rules of the Geneva Convention, illegal wiretapping, rigging elections, restraining freedom of speech...these seem like un-American activities to me. During the Cold War, we were told that this is what the bad guys did.It troubles me that any questioning of, or opposition to, this administration or its policies is construed as "bashing America". It's our duty to protest when the very qualities that made this country great are under attack - by our own politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Hugo is something of a radical. I neither hate nor love him. I was definately suprised when he was able to recover control of his government a few years back. I thought they had really got him.Carter's group put their stamp of approval on the last election saying it was above board and fair and that is enough for me.If Hugo really wanted to screw the US he should just build up a competing airline with domestic flights in the US, with his fuel costs he would sink all the american airlines in no time. (actually I'm sure there are safeguards against such a thing.. right??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 There are strict limitations to foreign ownership of domestic carriers. That's why Sir Richard's Virgin America has had such a hard time getting off the ground.Don't get me wrong, I am no huge Chavez supporter. I stood in the rain in Boston for 4 hours on Boylston St to wait with my partner so he could vote against him.That said, I do not think it a crime to HELP the poor to get some good press. I certainly wish more of our pols would do the same. I would think we'd be a much healthier nation if pols gladhandled the poor in photo ops at pre-kindegarten classes, free day care centers for the working poor, a national health care program, or even a habitat for humanity building blitz. Instead, they're too busy taking bribes from Indian Casino mafia types and fighting for Super Bowl tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Red, that is why she said "U.S. Empire", not down with Pres. George W. Bush, as thinnly veiled an attempt as it is, without using the actual words, she protects herself from harm. C'mon though, I would venture to say that 99.99% of The American People that are able to pick up a newspaper, could tell you exactly who the statement was aimed towards. It is just not right, and surely you would agree with that. This woman has a CULT following, that has a mob mentality, they prop her up as a "better you than me" mouthpiece, cause none of her supporters are gonna try it. I respect her feelings about the war, I understand that things change for you once you lose a loved one in it. Cindy's son has to be rolling in his grave though, over the whole thing. He made the ultimate sacrifice for you and me, and people in the world that can't do for themselves. So, Cindy thinks Bush is a moron, well, he's OUR moron, no sense joining up with another moron, that can do absolutely NOTHING for your cause, and only aid in his own agenda. Let me ask this, is what Cindy is doing in Venenzuela making any sense whatsoever ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Red, that is why she said "U.S. Empire", not down with Pres. George W. Bush, as thinnly veiled an attempt as it is, without using the actual words, she protects herself from harm. C'mon though, I would venture to say that 99.99% of The American People that are able to pick up a newspaper, could tell you exactly who the statement was aimed towards. It is just not right, and surely you would agree with that. This woman has a CULT following, that has a mob mentality, they prop her up as a "better you than me" mouthpiece, cause none of her supporters are gonna try it. I respect her feelings about the war, I understand that things change for you once you lose a loved one in it. Cindy's son has to be rolling in his grave though, over the whole thing. He made the ultimate sacrifice for you and me, and people in the world that can't do for themselves. So, Cindy thinks Bush is a moron, well, he's OUR moron, no sense joining up with another moron, that can do absolutely NOTHING for your cause, and only aid in his own agenda. Let me ask this, is what Cindy is doing in Venenzuela making any sense whatsoever ? TJ, To repeat once more from my first post: Besides, does anyone really think a Chavez is going to topple the most powerful nation the world has ever known? I'm thinking not. Take out Chavez and insert Sheehan, Robertson, Jackson, or any other fringer. It's all about perspective. [i'm sorry she lost her son as well, but it's time to move it along.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 For those worried about the Bush Administration and the U.S. Constitution, AG Alberto Gonzalez is due to testify today on the legality of the wiretaps. You'll never see a Congressional Hearing in Venezuela about Chavez' flights of fancy on their constitution. And yesterday, the IAEA members voted 29-3 to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for violation of their agreements. The countries voting no were Cuba, Syria and Venezuela. The Axis of weasels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 A little glimpse into Chavez' latest fit of paranoia:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4682488.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 For those worried about the Bush Administration and the U.S. Constitution, AG Alberto Gonzalez is due to testify today on the legality of the wiretaps.You mean, the Bush appointee AG? We don't need a neutered lap-dog to investigate the wiretaps. It's time to bring in an independent counsel (special prosecutor). Unfortunately, since Gonzalez has already determined that Bush is not guilty, and only he can appoint an IC, we're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 TJ,To repeat once more from my first post: Besides, does anyone really think a Chavez is going to topple the most powerful nation the world has ever known? I'm thinking not. Take out Chavez and insert Sheehan, Robertson, Jackson, or any other fringer. It's all about perspective. [i'm sorry she lost her son as well, but it's time to move it along.] You need to tell the rest of your liberal buddies the same thing. PUHLEEEEEEEEZZZZZE ! Coog: "Axis of Weasels" CLASSIC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 You mean, the Bush appointee AG? Earth to dbigtex56. The AG is an apointed position by the President. So are many others.The AG will testitfy. Congress will determine if a special investigation is required.The system is working. Perhaps you'd like to try and exercise your freedoms in Iran, Syria or Cuba.Typical lefty "the sky is falling" mentality. Maybe Hillary Clinton can save you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 You mean, the Bush appointee AG? We don't need a neutered lap-dog to investigate the wiretaps. It's time to bring in an independent counsel (special prosecutor). Unfortunately, since Gonzalez has already determined that Bush is not guilty, and only he can appoint an IC, we're screwed. Talked about your paranoid, The attorney general is gonna lie UNDER OATH to protect the President ? Well, I guess it could happen. I have seen a President himself lie UNDER OATH in the past decade so why not an appointee. I don't think Gonzalez is gonna risk career suicide for Pres. Bush though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Earth to dbigtex56. The AG is an apointed position by the President. So are many others.The AG will testitfy. Congress will determine if a special investigation is required.The system is working. Perhaps you'd like to try and exercise your freedoms in Iran, Syria or Cuba.Typical lefty "the sky is falling" mentality. Maybe Hillary Clinton can save you.um...Earth to Midtown Coog. Yes, the AG is appointed by the President. That's what my post said, dear.And no, Congress will not determine if a speical investigation is required. If you had clicked in the link I provided you would have learned:In 1999, following prosecutor Kenneth Starr 's confrontations with President Bill Clinton and the impeachment of the president, the law again expired and was not renewed. The attorney general now has sole responsibility for appointing outside prosecutors. For now, I feel my responsibility is to exercise my freedoms in the US - while we still have some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 You need to tell the rest of your liberal buddies the same thing. PUHLEEEEEEEEZZZZZE ! Play nice, TJ...I don't want to have to rearrange your sock drawer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Talked about your paranoid, The attorney general is gonna lie UNDER OATH to protect the President ? Well, I guess it could happen. I have seen a President himself lie UNDER OATH in the past decade so why not an appointee. I don't think Gonzalez is gonna risk career suicide for Pres. Bush though. He may or may not lie...he just won't be the first one to be indicted for it: On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which he dubbed the White House horrors. Tape recordings made by President Nixon and the testimony of others involved confirmed that Mitchell had participated in meetings to plan the break-in of the Democratic party's national headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. In addition, he had met, on at least three occasions, with the president in an effort to cover up White House involvement after the burglars were discovered and arrested.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Play nice, TJ...I don't want to have to rearrange your sock drawer... Your mafioso threats will not affect me, I will stand strong, I will know how to "quit" you ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Your mafioso threats will not affect me, I will stand strong, I will know how to "quit" you ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Chavez could seek further terms: Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez says he may seek to lift a constitutional limit on successive presidential terms. "If there is no opposition candidate, I would consider signing a decree to hold a referendum asking 'Do you agree Chavez should be allowed to seek a new term?' and let's let the people decide." "It is just an idea that I am working on," he added. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4731742.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Venezuela cuts US airline flights Continental Airlines flights from Houston are likely to be affectedhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4747828.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.