<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Nov 12 2003, 07:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Nov 12 2003, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Nov 12 2003, 06:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Nov 12 2003, 06:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to Iraq, Bush may have fumbled a bit at home, but in Iraq his goals were clear <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> wrong. 100% pure wrongness. I cant even begin to tell you how wrong that is.
you are aware that the admin changed its reason for war on an almost daily basis? was it terrorism? no that wount fly, better say somthing about weapons! yes thats right, Saddam is an immenant threat to the free world! what? thats not true either?! well, ,uhhh... perhaps... perhaps? were doing this in the name of.. democracy? freedom? and other number of 'positive but totally unrelated' goodness which serve only to be mildly rabble rousing/ and argument proof (after all, who would argue against freedom itself?!).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Overall, Bush isn't a bad guy at all, your letting the press get to you<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
. . . youv seen that highly amusing, massive list of all the **** things bush has done? the one which made its way round the internet a while back? under the title of ' Bushs CV'?
that is a list of at least 30 ways in which Bush has SERIOUSLY shamed himself and infact the whole of America. how many things will it take to outweigh the 'counter argument' which is based on nothing more than,. "oh come on guys, Bush isnt really all THAT bad"
*after a small amount of digging* <a href='http://mail2.factsoft.de/pipermail/national/2003-June/017756.html' target='_blank'>Bushs CV</a> bear in mind this is quite out of date, and no doubt Bush has at least doubled his rating on the bastometer since <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That piece of crap just exagerates many points, its very partsian and doesn't help your argument at all.
Eviscator, get your facts straight. We have had bigger defecits in the past, if you look at the value of the dollar FDR did indeed have the biggest debt.
Eviscator if you think Quayle was dumb look up about Gore's experience saying how much he loved it in North Dakota during a speech when he was actually in North Carolina. What a ****.
"That is the Republican way. Screw the environment, screw the economy, screw the people of this country, the men and women who have died fighting for it, and screw the founding fathers. Doesn't seem like a very American or patriotic thing to do. You can't explain away everything as a result of 9/11. It's inexcusable to think like that."
I can't even begin to wonder what made you say that. Let me respond with something just as stupidly thought of. **** off ****.
Actually, Dean doesn't have many social programs. Just offers help to those that are down and out.
Xzilen, Don't trust the mainstream media for anything about Gore. Even the "Left-wing" media constantly said he lied when all he did was say the truth to what he knew.
One example is that he said he was at a FEMA thing when there was an emergency requiring FEMA. He said that he was there with the Director. He was recorded being there with the director. It turned out at the last minute that it was something like the under or junior director. The media then took that and said that Gore has a habit of lying, which undermines him.
and never ever trust anything Anne Coulter writes.
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Nov 14 2003, 01:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 14 2003, 01:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would like to see you get up in public in front of sometimes millions people, all of them hanging on your every word and read a speech off perfectly. I highly doubt you could even do half as good as Bush. You fail to see the human aspect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er . . . Sorry, but he's the <b>PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES</b>
He spent millions of dollars trying to get this job. POSSIBLY THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET. This isn't the Special Olympics.-- he doesn't get points for 'trying'. He's not a good public speaker? He lacks one of the clear qualifications for the job-- so he'd better make up for it in other areas-- perhaps by being some sort of socially retarded idiot-savant political genius. Well, he's got two of the six, at least . . . <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
But seriously, I feel bad for the kid forced into public speaking 101 who stutters and morons his way through a speech, but not for the guy who brings it upon himself. On the 'American Idol' stage of life, my empathy dies at the curtains. You wander out onto the planks, that means that Simon gets to judge you, and the harsher the better. Sorry George, you suck at public speaking. You might be better if we let Karl Rove stick his hand up your **** and play Frank Oz to your Yoda up there, but I don't think the Bible Belt would be too keen on that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Xzilen, Don't trust the mainstream media for anything about Gore. Even the "Left-wing" media constantly said he lied when all he did was say the truth to what he knew.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, that whole liberal media. They were <b>so</b> nice to Clinton, <b>so</b> mean to Bush, and <b>so</b> nice to Gore.
Gore invented the internet! Harken <i>who</i>? Gore thinks he and Tipper were the models for Love Story! George Bush really fought hard for that Texas Patients' Bill of Rights! Gore thinks he 'discovered' the Love Canal controversey! Who cares how much socialized money Bush made off of the Texas Rangers deal-- remember Whitewater?!?!?!
Sigh. Not like I really dug the Clintons or Gore (I voted for him through gritted teeth), but that wanker got a bum deal, and Bush got a free ride, from the 'liberal media'.
<!--QuoteBegin--MrMojo+Nov 12 2003, 08:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Nov 12 2003, 08:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Nov 12 2003, 01:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Nov 12 2003, 01:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Current United States=1984. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, stop it with your rebel anti-governemtn SOAD Anti-Utopian ****. It is nothing like 1984. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Generalizations can be very dangerous, usually to the person making them. Don't make insulting assumptions.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I never said Bush was perfect, but with the points listed, I can correct some things, and the rest, I'm not too informed on, however, I would gamble to say they may be true, but they're not malicious at all, I would gamble to say that rarely Presidents are ever purposely malicious.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Partiot Act is unconstitutional. Here we go.
"Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents. The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights. Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause. The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity." - <a href='http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130' target='_blank'>Patriot Act Section 215 FAQ on ACLU.org</a>
The Republican Supreme Court, and the Republican Congress have no choice but to approve of it if they'd like to keep their jobs. I sincerely doubt every single person that signed off on it actually read the thing and digested it fully. They can't speak out against it now unless they really want to put themselves in a world of trouble.
Wow it's late, I have to sleep. Tomorrow I shall continue.
Xzilen, I won't respond to your post because you are taking my opinions way too personally. I don't have a problem with you or your opinions. Unless your name is George W Bush, I have no problem with you. I cannot enter a flame war, so please just stop. I suggest you correct your post before it gets noticed. This is the last I'll speak to you unless you wish to come back to a more mature level and avoid the personal attacks.
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Nov 14 2003, 08:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Nov 14 2003, 08:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--MrMojo+Nov 12 2003, 08:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Nov 12 2003, 08:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Nov 12 2003, 01:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Nov 12 2003, 01:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Current United States=1984. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, stop it with your rebel anti-governemtn SOAD Anti-Utopian ****. It is nothing like 1984. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Generalizations can be very dangerous, usually to the person making them. Don't make insulting assumptions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Assuming America is like 1984 isn't an insulting presumption? You must have taken an entirely different meaning than what I took from that book.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I never said Bush was perfect, but with the points listed, I can correct some things, and the rest, I'm not too informed on, however, I would gamble to say they may be true, but they're not malicious at all, I would gamble to say that rarely Presidents are ever purposely malicious.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Partiot Act is unconstitutional. Here we go.
"Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents. The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights. Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause. The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity." - <a href='http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130' target='_blank'>Patriot Act Section 215 FAQ on ACLU.org</a>
The Republican Supreme Court, and the Republican Congress have no choice but to approve of it if they'd like to keep their jobs. I sincerely doubt every single person that signed off on it actually read the thing and digested it fully. They can't speak out against it now unless they really want to put themselves in a world of trouble.
Wow it's late, I have to sleep. Tomorrow I shall continue.
Xzilen, I won't respond to your post because you are taking my opinions way too personally. I don't have a problem with you or your opinions. Unless your name is George W Bush, I have no problem with you. I cannot enter a flame war, so please just stop. I suggest you correct your post before it gets noticed. This is the last I'll speak to you unless you wish to come back to a more mature level and avoid the personal attacks. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait wern't you the person who said the US was behind 9/11 then changed it the Zionists? And just out of curiosity do you think we landed on the moon? Not like I know anything about that after all I jut spent 2 weeks at an overnight camp about the space program. Xzilen? Personal attacks? I'd say you are the one with problems attacking people. BTW if you care oh so much about the constitution what about gun control. It's protected but I and many others think it needs to be changed. The founding fathers also knew that the constitution could not be permanent and so allowed amendments to be made. The original founding fathers didn't let women or blacks to vote. They must have been right so why can they vote now is what I'm hearing you saying. I've been looking over the CV and noticed a lot of mistakes. George Bush was not the first American president to "attack and ocuupy a sovereign nation" Truman was. After the war with Japan, Japan was occupied by US and it's allies forces for years. And since I know you'r gonna say something about the nuclear drop on Nagasaki and Hiroshima I'm just gonna give a statistic. 1 in 3 US POWs died when captured in Japan, 1 in 29 I believe died if captured in Europe.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 14 2003, 03:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 14 2003, 03:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Partiot Act is unconstitutional. Here we go.
"Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents. The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights. Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause. The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity." - <a href='http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130' target='_blank'>Patriot Act Section 215 FAQ on ACLU.org</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well.... Its VERY convenient that you leave out the part WHERE THEY HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM A JUDGE.
Not to mention that Section 215 has yet to be used... Which, although it could still be used... Is significant since it has been in place for such a length of time.
Now I expect some excuse like the judge will do it so he can keep his job... Or he's a croney of the FBI... Or being blackmailed by the Zionists... Or is part of some mass conspiracy to have the US mimic 1984.
Nice try though... But the ACLU.org gave it away in the end. They've been rabid about the Patriot Act from day 1 and I already knew not to trust their spin on it.
Othell, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act doesn't require a judge. that was before hand. No evidence, no warrant now. the ACLU came to my school and helped us understand it.
Let's see...Truman was actually completing something already begun. We wanted to rebuild Japan but not have it be a military nation. That's why we occupied it. We didn't attack Japan first. We just responded to them.
Iraq is the first thing in which we actually occupy a sovereign nation, by striking it PRE-EMPTIVELY. We didn't wait to be attacked.
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Nov 13 2003, 11:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Nov 13 2003, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *after a small amount of digging* <a href='http://mail2.factsoft.de/pipermail/national/2003-June/017756.html' target='_blank'>Bushs CV</a> bear in mind this is quite out of date, and no doubt Bush has at least doubled his rating on the bastometer since [/QUOTE] That piece of crap just exagerates many points, its very partsian and doesn't help your argument at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> why, perhaps, and why?
look. end of the day those things on the list are not figments of some idiots imagination. the majority of them are based on reality.
so how does your being not willing to have a sense of humour/ or disregarding anything with a slant against your own not help my case?
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Nov 13 2003, 05:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Nov 13 2003, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's all I have to say about that, as soon as you draw your conclusions and your opinions along <b>party</b> lines you <b>need</b> to rethink your position. Right now you're just buying into whatever you've been told. It's not that I am intellectually superior, I simply presented the other side to your arguments, the side that you <b>don't hear</b>. That's why party politics are bad, both sides are trying to dupe you into assuming something by presenting <b>half</b> of the story.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, if you would understand conservative policies, which I don't think you do, he's not <i>outlawing</i> these things, so he's rather neutral either way, but he's leaving it up to the <b>states</b> to make their own decisions about many environmental decisions, he can all be for protecting the environment, but at the <i>same time</i> believe that states should be responsible for that area, like I think they should be, not the federal government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Leaving environmental concerns to the states is like leaving your house to your teenage son for a week. You might hope he does well and good with it, but chances are he's really going to mess things up. States do not have the funding, the resources, or the knowledge to tackle environmental issues, especially those that ultimately affect the entire planet. States are trying really hard right now to stay above water. The only way they could handle all of the additional burden being forced upon them by the federal government is to increase taxes. That's exactly the opposite of what people want... after all, it's this great president that cut taxes.
It's a money game. He cuts taxes, requiring changes to the budget to compensate. You can't reduce taxes and still pay for everything you had before. He forces states to absorb additional overhead in both education and environmental concerns as a way to decentralize. The states have no choice but to either do nothing about these additional burdens since they have no money, or raise taxes and take years to build the new state bureaucracy to handle it. People scream up and down when taxes go up, so it never comes to fruition. As a result, many states are close to bankruptcy. Schools have to close. Teachers are laid off and class sizes increase. Other schools have no choice but to dump their non-essential programs and look to find ways of funding through other means. Many won't get it, and the working class children of this country take the brunt of it. Faith-based schools, IE private schools for the rich and elite, get additional resources that general public schools do not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong about the public schools, it allows students to not be stuck in a dead end school run by terrible administration who poorly uses their funds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, the funds don't go with the student. A student going from a bad school to a better school only means the better school now has to take on the burden of an additional child yet no additional money. That is not a wise decision. Just some further reading, without spinning off into a whole new topic:
<i>"He claims to want 'no child left behind.' But President Bush is touting a school 'reform' plan that would leave more children than ever in schools that don't provide the high-quality education that all children deserve. Bush's plan is based on a number of bad ideas. Conspicuous among them are his embrace of school vouchers and his insistence that schools should be forced to give even more standardized tests."</i> - <a href='http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/index.shtml' target='_blank'>Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. Here's What's Wrong with Bush's Education Plan</a>
<i>"In response to NCLB mandates, some schools have refused federal funds, while some school administrators and state legislators have proposed rejecting federal funding on a larger scale. At least six schools in Vermont and Connecticut have refused Title I money to temporarily avoid federal sanctions, while Utah state representative Margaret Dayton ® has announced that she is drafting legislation that would allow the state to opt out of NCLB (a number of other states have already introduced such legislation, including New Hampshire and Hawaii). In Virginia, the superintendent of Suffolk's public schools has asked the Board of Education to consider rejecting NCLB funds, which amount to only 3.4 percent of the district's budget."</i> - <a href='http://www.ascd.org/cms/index.cfm?TheViewID=2227' target='_blank'>NCLB Analysis</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, he has the public going mad over dependence on foreign oil, gas prices going up, being getting angry, but they think that oil just falls into people's hands ? If you don't want to see it opened up, chances are it wouldn't be needed if people would stop driving their high consumption vehicles all over the place, Liberals and Conservatives alike, you can't get things both ways, and the problem is that people <b>need</b> transportation, hands down. Sometimes you need to sacrifice what you would like for what you need. But surely, if you dislike Bush, you would probably not bother to acknowledge that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People do not <b>need</b> their Hummers, their Land Rovers, their Escalades, or their Expeditions. People choose to buy vehicles that are completely wasteful. Instead of just appeasing to consumer demand for cheaper and more plentiful gas, the federal government should be forcing states to enact laws to stop selling <b>all</b> inefficient vehicles and maintain a certain percentage of alternative fuel vehicles. This number should increase annually. There should be a goal by 20xx to have every vehicle in this nation running on a renewable energy fuel. CA started doing that, but the Bush sued them to put a stop to it. There are alternative solutions to fossil fuels. Trouble is Bush is an oil man, so he has no problem finding ways to drill more oil and make more money. That's really all it is.
<i>"As a result of settlements, the administration has announced plans to remove wilderness protections from millions of acres of land in Utah. It also agreed to review protections for endangered species such as salmon and the northern spotted owl, reversed a Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and softened rules on logging. None of the decisions were subject to prior public comment or congressional approval. Critics call it 'sue and settle,' leaving few fingerprints as officials move to roll back environmental protections. "</i> - <a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/19/politics/main550150.shtml' target='_blank'>Lawsuits, Not Lawmakers, Make Policy</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, if you're familiar with CHPS, which I don't think you are. It's familiar to the USGBC, who created the LEED System, if you're familar with architecture or engineering. Bush supported further finding research in the positive benefits of the CHPS design, which includes a <b>mandatory</b> set of rules concerning preservation of materials, requiring that certain materials contain a certain amount of recycled goods. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was not familiar with it, but it sounds great. Just what we need. It's a good thing that people are out there trying to make a difference. Unfortunately, Bush mandating and supporting is one thing... backing it up by providing sufficient funding and removing obstacles is another. I can tell you I support your cause but then turn around and make sure you don't have enough money to fulfill it.
<i>"SPENDING for educational facilities has declined 3.8% since last October after several years of double-digit increases. Most state and local governments have had to make substantial spending cuts to balance their budgets. This forced the cancellation of some budgeted FY2003 (ending June 30) spending, resulting in the decline. More cuts are likely to come for FY2004."</i> - <a href='http://www.biperusa.biz/OctoberEdu_2003.htm' target='_blank'>Building Industry Professionals For Environmental Responsibility</a>
While cutting budgets for important programs on the domestic front, he's more than happy to spend billions and billions of dollars to fight a war of death and destruction. $87 billion can really turn the education disaster here completely around. I think there are much better domestic programs that could use that money. We don't need a new fleet of nuclear submarines. A nuclear sub is not going to stop a terrorist wielding a box cutter. We need better schools for every child in this country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But he's far from "raping" the environment, despite what the media and the liberal party would like you to think.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't get my opinions from the media or the liberal party. I make my own opinion based on the facts as I've found them. Of course I'm reliant upon the media to actually supply me with information, however I do not draw my conclusions from the way in which they provide it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's all I have to say about that, as soon as you draw your conclusions and your opinions along <b>party</b> lines you <b>need</b> to rethink your position. Right now you're just buying into whatever you've been told. It's not that I am intellectually superior, I simply presented the other side to your arguments, the side that you <b>don't hear</b>. That's why party politics are bad, both sides are trying to dupe you into assuming something by presenting <b>half</b> of the story.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not a democrat. I'm not a liberal. I'm not conservative or neo-conservative or left-wing or right-wing or any of that. I despise most if not all politicians, as I feel they do not have our best interests in mind. They care only about themselves and their friends that helped get them into office by paying for their campaigns. Bush I feel is one of the worst. Some others are likewise despicable, however they are mildly tolerable. Is Bush 100% the devil incarnate? No, I don't think that is the case. Again, he didn't do a lot of this himself. He's not that crafty or clever. He didn't draft the Patriot Act. So I don't fault him personally, but I fault him since he is the top of the food chain. He has the power to do much, much better and yet he chooses to do the wrong things consistently. He does this to benefit his own personal means and also those in his favor. For that reason alone, what he does is malicious to you and I.
"People do not need their Hummers, their Land Rovers, their Escalades, or their Expeditions. People choose to buy vehicles that are completely wasteful. Instead of just appeasing to consumer demand for cheaper and more plentiful gas, the federal government should be forcing states to enact laws to stop selling all inefficient vehicles and maintain a certain percentage of alternative fuel vehicles. This number should increase annually. There should be a goal by 20xx to have every vehicle in this nation running on a renewable energy fuel. CA started doing that, but the Bush sued them to put a stop to it. There are alternative solutions to fossil fuels. Trouble is Bush is an oil man, so he has no problem finding ways to drill more oil and make more money. That's really all it is." (Don't feel like editing the quotes of that novel you posted <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
As much as I agree with this it just isn't practical. People in America are not going to sacrifice their precious vans, hummers, and SUV's to decrees oil usage. If it came down to a choice between drilling in Alaska or your idea, I think you know which one would win out. I drive a VW beetle myself <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
(psst, Eviscerator, you'd like Howard Dean if you think most politicians try to appease the people who got them in office. Most of his funding is non-corparate, mostly by small donations and from parties that his website suggests.)
Yes, the ANWAR fiasco is horrible.
[edit] and I think that a billion $ per state would drastically fix the school's issues.
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 14 2003, 11:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 14 2003, 11:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well.... Its VERY convenient that you leave out the part WHERE THEY HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM A JUDGE.
Not to mention that Section 215 has yet to be used... Which, although it could still be used... Is significant since it has been in place for such a length of time.
Now I expect some excuse like the judge will do it so he can keep his job... Or he's a croney of the FBI... Or being blackmailed by the Zionists... Or is part of some mass conspiracy to have the US mimic 1984.
Nice try though... But the ACLU.org gave it away in the end. They've been rabid about the Patriot Act from day 1 and I already knew not to trust their spin on it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>1</b> <i>"The investigation of strip club owner Michael Galardi and numerous politicians appears to be the first time federal authorities have used the Patriot Act in a public corruption probe. 'Let me say, with Galardi and his whole gang, I don't condone, appreciate or support all their nakedness. But having said that, I haven't heard anyone say at any time he was involved with terrorism.'
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she was preparing an inquiry to the FBI about its guidelines for using the Patriot Act in cases that don't involve terrorism. The law makes it easy for citizens' rights to be abused, she said. 'It was never my intention that the Patriot Act be used for garden-variety crimes and investigations,' Berkley said.
But Corallo insisted lawmakers were fully aware the Patriot Act had far-reaching implications <b>beyond fighting terrorism</b> when the legislation was adopted in October 2001. 'I think probably a lot of members (of Congress) were only interested in the anti-terrorism measures,' Corallo said. 'But when the Judiciary Committee sat down, both Republicans and Democrats, they obviously discussed the applications, that certain provisions could be used in regular criminal investigations.'"</i> - <a href='http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-05-Wed-2003/news/22521283.html' target='_blank'>PATRIOT ACT: Law's use causing concerns</a>
<b>2</b> <i>"The internal watchdog of the Justice Department has found 34 new credible civil rights and civil liberties violations under the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act, according to a report released Monday."</i> - <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/' target='_blank'>Patriot Act report documents civil rights complaints</a>
<b>3</b> <i>"Consumer advocates also fear the Patriot Act will give companies another reason to invade privacy and prevent some people without criminal intent from opening accounts. 'This ranges between stupid, insidious and dangerous,' says Doug Heller, a senior consumer advocate for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights."</i> -<a href='http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/business/2003/09/15patriotacthasun.html' target='_blank'>Patriot Act has unintended victims</a>
<b>4</b> <i>"'Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases,' said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. 'They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens.'"</i> <a href='http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1389/a13.html?999' target='_blank'>Prosecutors Increasingly Turn To Patriot Act</a>
<b>5</b> <i>"Taking a clear stand against anti-privacy provisions in the Patriot Act, the U.S. House of Representatives in an overwhelmingly bipartisan effort last night agreed to an amendment that would bar federal law enforcement from carrying out secret 'sneak and peek' searches without notifying the target of the warrant."</i> - <a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0724-01.htm' target='_blank'>Congress Has Second Thoughts On Patriot Act </a>
<b>6</b> <i>"The Bureau recently sent letters to a handful of reporters who have written stories about the Lamo case -- whether or not they have actually interviewed Lamo. The letters warn them to expect subpoenas for all documents relating to the hacker, including, apparently, their own notes, e-mails, impressions, interviews with third parties, independent investigations, privileged conversations and communications, off the record statements, and expense and travel reports related to stories about Lamo.
The notices make no mention of the protections of the First Amendment, Department of Justice regulations that restrict the authority to subpoena information from journalists, or the New York law that creates a 'newsman's shield' against disclosure of certain confidential information by reporters.
Instead, the FBI has threatened to put these reporters in jail unless they agree to preserve all of these records while they obtain a subpoena for them under provisions amended by the USA-PATRIOT Act."</i> - <a href='http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/187' target='_blank'>The Subpoenas are Coming!</a>
<b>7</b> <i>"Although it passed in Congress almost without dissent in the aftermath of Sept. 11, it's suddenly being revisited, and this time around some of the folks holding opinions have actually <b>read the thing.</b> Among its detractors are 152 communities, including several major cities and three states, that have now passed resolutions denouncing the Patriot Act as an assault on civil liberties. More than one member of Congress has introduced legislation taking the teeth out of its most invasive provisions."</i><a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/' target='_blank'>A Guide to the Patriot Act</a>
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either." - Benjamin Franklin
<a href='http://www.ospolitics.org/legalwrites/archives/2003/10/01/an_action_.php' target='_blank'>Support HR3171, the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Nov 14 2003, 02:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 14 2003, 02:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As much as I agree with this it just isn't practical. People in America are not going to sacrifice their precious vans, hummers, and SUV's to decrees oil usage. If it came down to a choice between drilling in Alaska or your idea, I think you know which one would win out. I drive a VW beetle myself <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately, yes... I know which one is going to win out. That upsets me, and is why I try very hard to drum up public espousal in an effort to force our government to use their power for the benefit of this and future generations. We sent men to the moon. We set our brightest scientists to work and harnessed the power of the atom. We are capable of completely eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels. A lot of progress has been made by scientists in this area. $87 billion would really go a long way toward making it a reality. Bush is an oil man, though, so I don't know how it's going to happen during his reign. Big oil here is a very tough competitor, much like the cigarette industry. A <b>lot</b> of money is involved, and people don't like to think about their source of wealth going away. I hope they are willing to recognize that they can participate in change instead of trying to repress it.
FWIW- I decided about a year ago to change careers and devote the rest my life to finding alternative energy sources that will A) remove our dependency on fossil fuels and B) provide the world with environmentally clean and economically feasible transportation and electricity. To that end I went back to college and am studying engineering... chemical, mechanical, and whatever else I need to take. I will be giving up a cushy $100k/year IT job soon and plan to go to school full-time. This is a very important subject to me personally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (psst, Eviscerator, you'd like Howard Dean if you think most politicians try to appease the people who got them in office. Most of his funding is non-corparate, mostly by small donations and from parties that his website suggests.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be honest, I haven't studied much on Dean. I fall into the category of "you get two realistic choices for President, pick which one you hate the least." I will vote for Dean if he gets the Democratic nomination. I want Bush gone, so the Dems can put up just about anybody. Except maybe Liebermann. I'll read some more about Dean, though.
Smoke... You're completely wrong. Most portions of the Patriot Act ( including, and definately not limited to Section 215 ) DOES require a judge's authorization.
And as to Dean's funding... Give this a read. He's a polotician. Remember that. <a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004282' target='_blank'>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110004282</a>
And for Evis... Lets focus on #2 for now. Its the easiest and I don't have time to work on the others.
That's 34 "credible" allegations. Not violations. Violations implies conviction. As in determined guilty. That is not the case. They are just "credible" ( this implies allegations and not violations as well ) allegations... Out of 1,037 if I remember correctly.
Actually... I'll say something about #7 as well. You're blaming Bush because Congress voted for it without decent? Who wrote it? How is it all of a sudden Bush's fault that many supposedly did not read it ( I find this more as an excuse to constituents than truth )? <b>IF</b> the Patriot Act trully is unconstitutional... Or even parts of it.... <b>IF</b> it is... Then our ENTIRE government is to blame and not JUST Bush or his administration. He may be the President... But this is NOT a one man show. He cannot just get whatever he wants. Our government consists of THREEE ( that is more than one for those that are not math majors ) parts. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. They are all independent and dependent at the same time. Its absurd to think the Bush administration is the sole source of any alleged unconstitutionality within the Patriot Act.
And as to people and their SUVs... Tough luck. They have a right to drive them. End of story regardless of your supposed higher moral authority.
Othell, what they are saying is all inference. None of what is said can be proved. Let us not forget that it is a free country. If Soros and Ickes decide to use their funds to attack Bush, Dean has no say on what they can and cannot do.
And let us not forget the entire smear campaign the "liberal media" put out against Al Gore. They almost told outright lies, but Bush really had no control.
Read Al Franken's book "Lies and the lying liars who tell them". Or get it on tape, do whatever.
A majority of what the republican side will put out will most likely be a smear campaign.
I wouldn't mind Bush if he would just tell the truth about everything.
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 14 2003, 04:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 14 2003, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're blaming Bush because Congress voted for it without decent? Who wrote it? How is it all of a sudden Bush's fault that many supposedly did not read it ( I find this more as an excuse to constituents than truth )? <b>IF</b> the Patriot Act trully is unconstitutional... Or even parts of it.... <b>IF</b> it is... Then our ENTIRE government is to blame and not JUST Bush or his administration. He may be the President... But this is NOT a one man show. He cannot just get whatever he wants. Our government consists of THREEE ( that is more than one for those that are not math majors ) parts. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. They are all independent and dependent at the same time. Its absurd to think the Bush administration is the sole source of any alleged unconstitutionality within the Patriot Act. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sigh. Congress creates legislation and votes on it. Once approved by Congress, our President has to read it and sign off on it, if he agrees with it. If he doesn't agree with it, he has the power to <b>veto</b> that act of legislation. He should have read it, he should have understood it violates our civil liberties, and he should have canned it. The least he should have done is table it and determined that a commitee should be established to review it, debate it, and correct it to make sure it doesn't violate those liberties we deem essential to <b>all</b> Americans. This is the power we give to the President.
Bush could have done what I just said. Yet he did not. He didn't read it, he didn't establish a group to debate it. He didn't request that it be corrected. On October 21st, 2001, he signed his approval without hesitation. He is the last step of the process. It is <b>his fault.</b> John Ashcroft is responsible for drafting the Patriot Act. Not the 3 branches of government, not the 100 senators, and not the 435 members of the House. John Ashcroft. This is the man who could not win an election running against a dead guy. The people of Missouri felt a dead body was more useful than him. Ashcroft was <b>appointed</b> by Bush to his administration. Bush is at fault for A) tapping Ashcroft to lead the Justice Department, B) letting Ashcroft run roughshod over the constitution, and C) allowing the act to get passed through Congress in a time of national crisis, fear, and doubt about our security. Bush is at fault for not taking the appropriate Presidential measures to uphold the constitution of the United States, something that he swore to do on January 20th, 2001.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 14 2003, 06:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 14 2003, 06:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sigh. Congress creates legislation and votes on it. Once approved by Congress, our President has to read it and sign off on it, if he agrees with it. If he doesn't agree with it, he has the power to <b>veto</b> that act of legislation. He should have read it, he should have understood it violates our civil liberties, and he should have canned it. The least he should have done is table it and determined that a commitee should be established to review it, debate it, and correct it to make sure it doesn't violate those liberties we deem essential to <b>all</b> Americans. This is the power we give to the President.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm an American, and I don't think that it violates my rights, and I'm not alone.
"The least he should have done is table it and determined that a commitee should be established to review it, debate it, and correct it"
Yes, because committees have a long track record of getting things done fast, correct, and efficiently. God if this thing had gone to a committee (if any are available, they tend to take about 4 years to decide the date for the actual meeting) it would have been so watered down, it would have been pointless to begin with. I also think it has been proven about 7 or 8 times to not be unconstitutional, let’s stop going in circles here.
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Nov 14 2003, 06:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 14 2003, 06:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, because committees have a long track record of getting things done fast, correct, and efficiently. God if this thing had gone to a committee (if any are available, they tend to take about 4 years to decide the date for the actual meeting) it would have been so watered down, it would have been pointless to begin with. I also think it has been proven about 7 or 8 times to not be unconstitutional, let’s stop going in circles here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We have not proven that it is purely constitutional. Please read my previous post on this on the bottom of page 7. I'll give you one link again to save some time: <a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0724-01.htm' target='_blank'>Congress Has Second Thoughts On Patriot Act</a>
This amendment to the act was a good first step. There's more to come, and it's about time. Unfortunately, Bush and Ashcroft are still trying to expand the Patriot Act with Patriot Act II and establish even more civil liberty injustices. While Congress is finally waking up to the problems with the Act, Bush and Co. are trying very hard to make it even worse.
Evis please did you even read my post? I'm just so tired of reading your "facts" with countless links with links with links. You refuse to make any compromises or that any of your sources and data are incorrect. You're not debating your trying to convince of of a point you think is true. BTW you never answered my post on page 7. And as for the president vetoing things. It then gets sent beack to congress and if it passes with enough of a percent then the President can't stop it anyway.
I've come to the conclusion that you Evis, are letting people and articles tell you what is unconstitutional and listening to what people say, rather than picking up a copy of the constitution, reading up on some supreme court cases and making the decision for yourself.
Because. I know thats what I did.
By the way Evis, I suggest for you to do something, read the policies, read the amendments, read the Bill of Rights, read provisions, read the acts <b>instead</b> of going to whatever website you go to where they conveniently leave a nice hyperlink to your "opinion", you need to start thinking on your own, look at the original documents and make a decision, don't go to the ACLU to tell you what it's about.
One more thing. Our government is based on democracy and basically what the people want the people get. If there was a vote on whether to allow 20 people to die somewhere or 10 people all with the same history the 20 would win. No matter how much you believe in your righteousness and no matter how much you think it is needed if the majority of the people disagree it doesn't matter. Regardless of whther it's right or wrong. You also seem to believe anything that supports your view instantly and everything else is lies. It seem like you google "Bush stupid terrible" and anything in it is true to you yet you never believe anything from equally credible (meaning just as little or nothing behind them) from the other side. However, you claim you are unpartisan? You, who believe websites stating that US corporations were behind 9/11 because a handful of sites list hundreds of "facts", and yet when people from the other side and the world at large with inside knowledge thousands of documents, building schematics, and physics calculations, you wave them off as propaganda? Claiming all who oppose you are making personal attacks and have been fed corporate lies thinking we cannot comprehend things for ourselves. What, I ask, makes you so sure; so right; so much smarter than all of us average people; who gave you this knowledge; where you mentors as smart as thou? For you see, if you cannot bear to make any concessions you are stuck forever in a box of your own making, never learning, never truly thinking for yourself. You are but a puppet spewing out what others write as if there is no other truth. You do not conceed, despite all the evidence, that some of your thoughts are skewed by partisan. No matter what everyone else says you know yourself to be better than they. I do not think Bush is evil, nor do I think he is a great persident. I think his economic policys are sounder than some that could be, but I dislike his view on the enviroment, and his hiding of what he was trying to do in Iraq. I read a biography about Saddam, he deserves to die (or deserved), though I do not think what we did was the at the right time or in the right way to do it. Ihave my own views on things despite what you may believe I do not believe solely on an accumulation of stories; I take the evidence and make my own conclusion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sigh. Congress creates legislation and votes on it. Once approved by Congress, our President has to read it and sign off on it, if he agrees with it. If he doesn't agree with it, he has the power to veto that act of legislation. He should have read it, he should have understood it violates our civil liberties, and he should have canned it. The least he should have done is table it and determined that a commitee should be established to review it, debate it, and correct it to make sure it doesn't violate those liberties we deem essential to all Americans. This is the power we give to the President. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It takes at least some bipartisan to get something through in Congress, even if your assumption of all republicans are evil and dumb and so is Bush, still some liberals had to vote for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 14 2003, 06:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 14 2003, 06:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sigh. Congress creates legislation and votes on it. Once approved by Congress, our President has to read it and sign off on it, if he agrees with it. If he doesn't agree with it, he has the power to <b>veto</b> that act of legislation. He should have read it, he should have understood it violates our civil liberties, and he should have canned it. The least he should have done is table it and determined that a commitee should be established to review it, debate it, and correct it to make sure it doesn't violate those liberties we deem essential to <b>all</b> Americans. This is the power we give to the President. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you intentionally just read what you want and listen/remember in the same fashion? Go back and read my first post. Heck! Read your post as well. So lets state a quick fact a few times.
CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT!
CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT!
CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT!
CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT!
CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT!
You know what that means? Simple. The responsibility does not rest solely on the President. If you would read my post... I said the blame, if there is indeed any to place, rests on the ENTIRE government. So stop trying to blame one person who does not have absolute power, regardless of the conspiracy theories you profess to be fact.
Smoke... Did you catch the bit about him holding a fundraiser for Dean? Because Dean has decided to opt out of tax payer funded money... He will be getting a lot more money soon and most of it will not come from small donations.
Okay I can tell that I have to stop posting in this thread. ElectricSheep, your post is a personal attack and apparent vendetta against me. I cannot pursue an intelligent discussion with you if that is the sole basis for your argument against what I have said. I have not attacked you or your opinions, so I don't feel such a harsh statement from you was deserved. I have thus far avoided replying to your "moon" post because I did not want to drag this into a flame fest. That and I don't even understand what you're trying to say there about landing on the moon, gun control, voters rights, and whatever else was in there.
You guys are taking this way too personally. You can relax now because you've won... I'm out of here before I fall into the flame-war abyss.
Can't take the heat step out of the fire. Hey this discussion won't be the same without you, we need two sides to each discussion, and you are one side of it. Just because someone "flamed" you is no reason to leave the topic. I have read your posts and I know your point of view, and it's far from the main stream, you have to understand that if your going to say the things you say you have to back up every single sentence. Anyway I think everything that can be said here has been said.
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Nov 14 2003, 07:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Nov 14 2003, 07:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Claiming all who oppose you are making personal attacks</b> and have been fed corporate lies thinking we cannot comprehend things for ourselves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> hmm?
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 14 2003, 12:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 14 2003, 12:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, Dean doesn't have many social programs. Just offers help to those that are down and out.
Xzilen, Don't trust the mainstream media for anything about Gore. Even the "Left-wing" media constantly said he lied when all he did was say the truth to what he knew.
One example is that he said he was at a FEMA thing when there was an emergency requiring FEMA. He said that he was there with the Director. He was recorded being there with the director. It turned out at the last minute that it was something like the under or junior director. The media then took that and said that Gore has a habit of lying, which undermines him.
and never ever trust anything Anne Coulter writes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Um, if your trying to pull the "media cost Gore the election" crap that Rolling Stone reported, then don't believe that. Rolling Stone is <i>the</i> most bias magazine I have ever read. Period.
That is the truth, it was caught on tape and shown on a few websites, no over dub, in fact Gore admitted to having done so.
Evis, no where did I make a personal attack on you. The what a **** was directed about Gore, not you. If anything, <i>you</i> are the one nearing a flame war with your generlazations and harsh attacks.
Comments
wrong. 100% pure wrongness. I cant even begin to tell you how wrong that is.
you are aware that the admin changed its reason for war on an almost daily basis?
was it terrorism? no that wount fly, better say somthing about weapons! yes thats right, Saddam is an immenant threat to the free world! what? thats not true either?! well, ,uhhh... perhaps... perhaps? were doing this in the name of.. democracy? freedom? and other number of 'positive but totally unrelated' goodness which serve only to be mildly rabble rousing/ and argument proof (after all, who would argue against freedom itself?!).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Overall, Bush isn't a bad guy at all, your letting the press get to you<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
. . . youv seen that highly amusing, massive list of all the **** things bush has done? the one which made its way round the internet a while back? under the title of ' Bushs CV'?
that is a list of at least 30 ways in which Bush has SERIOUSLY shamed himself and infact the whole of America.
how many things will it take to outweigh the 'counter argument' which is based on nothing more than,. "oh come on guys, Bush isnt really all THAT bad"
*after a small amount of digging* <a href='http://mail2.factsoft.de/pipermail/national/2003-June/017756.html' target='_blank'>Bushs CV</a> bear in mind this is quite out of date, and no doubt Bush has at least doubled his rating on the bastometer since <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That piece of crap just exagerates many points, its very partsian and doesn't help your argument at all.
Eviscator, get your facts straight. We have had bigger defecits in the past, if you look at the value of the dollar FDR did indeed have the biggest debt.
Eviscator if you think Quayle was dumb look up about Gore's experience saying how much he loved it in North Dakota during a speech when he was actually in North Carolina. What a ****.
"That is the Republican way. Screw the environment, screw the economy, screw the people of this country, the men and women who have died fighting for it, and screw the founding fathers. Doesn't seem like a very American or patriotic thing to do. You can't explain away everything as a result of 9/11. It's inexcusable to think like that."
I can't even begin to wonder what made you say that. Let me respond with something just as stupidly thought of. **** off ****.
Smoke... Thats why I DON"T like Dean.
Too many Social Programs.
Xzilen, Don't trust the mainstream media for anything about Gore. Even the "Left-wing" media constantly said he lied when all he did was say the truth to what he knew.
One example is that he said he was at a FEMA thing when there was an emergency requiring FEMA. He said that he was there with the Director. He was recorded being there with the director. It turned out at the last minute that it was something like the under or junior director. The media then took that and said that Gore has a habit of lying, which undermines him.
and never ever trust anything Anne Coulter writes.
Er . . . Sorry, but he's the <b>PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES</b>
He spent millions of dollars trying to get this job. POSSIBLY THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET. This isn't the Special Olympics.-- he doesn't get points for 'trying'. He's not a good public speaker? He lacks one of the clear qualifications for the job-- so he'd better make up for it in other areas-- perhaps by being some sort of socially retarded idiot-savant political genius. Well, he's got two of the six, at least . . . <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
But seriously, I feel bad for the kid forced into public speaking 101 who stutters and morons his way through a speech, but not for the guy who brings it upon himself. On the 'American Idol' stage of life, my empathy dies at the curtains. You wander out onto the planks, that means that Simon gets to judge you, and the harsher the better. Sorry George, you suck at public speaking. You might be better if we let Karl Rove stick his hand up your **** and play Frank Oz to your Yoda up there, but I don't think the Bible Belt would be too keen on that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Xzilen, Don't trust the mainstream media for anything about Gore. Even the "Left-wing" media constantly said he lied when all he did was say the truth to what he knew.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, that whole liberal media. They were <b>so</b> nice to Clinton, <b>so</b> mean to Bush, and <b>so</b> nice to Gore.
Gore invented the internet! Harken <i>who</i>? Gore thinks he and Tipper were the models for Love Story! George Bush really fought hard for that Texas Patients' Bill of Rights! Gore thinks he 'discovered' the Love Canal controversey! Who cares how much socialized money Bush made off of the Texas Rangers deal-- remember Whitewater?!?!?!
Sigh. Not like I really dug the Clintons or Gore (I voted for him through gritted teeth), but that wanker got a bum deal, and Bush got a free ride, from the 'liberal media'.
Current United States=1984. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, stop it with your rebel anti-governemtn SOAD Anti-Utopian ****. It is nothing like 1984. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Generalizations can be very dangerous, usually to the person making them. Don't make insulting assumptions.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I never said Bush was perfect, but with the points listed, I can correct some things, and the rest, I'm not too informed on, however, I would gamble to say they may be true, but they're not malicious at all, I would gamble to say that rarely Presidents are ever purposely malicious.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Partiot Act is unconstitutional. Here we go.
"Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents. The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights. Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause. The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity." - <a href='http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130' target='_blank'>Patriot Act Section 215 FAQ on ACLU.org</a>
The Republican Supreme Court, and the Republican Congress have no choice but to approve of it if they'd like to keep their jobs. I sincerely doubt every single person that signed off on it actually read the thing and digested it fully. They can't speak out against it now unless they really want to put themselves in a world of trouble.
Wow it's late, I have to sleep. Tomorrow I shall continue.
Xzilen, I won't respond to your post because you are taking my opinions way too personally. I don't have a problem with you or your opinions. Unless your name is George W Bush, I have no problem with you. I cannot enter a flame war, so please just stop. I suggest you correct your post before it gets noticed. This is the last I'll speak to you unless you wish to come back to a more mature level and avoid the personal attacks.
Current United States=1984. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, stop it with your rebel anti-governemtn SOAD Anti-Utopian ****. It is nothing like 1984. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Generalizations can be very dangerous, usually to the person making them. Don't make insulting assumptions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming America is like 1984 isn't an insulting presumption? You must have taken an entirely different meaning than what I took from that book.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I never said Bush was perfect, but with the points listed, I can correct some things, and the rest, I'm not too informed on, however, I would gamble to say they may be true, but they're not malicious at all, I would gamble to say that rarely Presidents are ever purposely malicious.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Partiot Act is unconstitutional. Here we go.
"Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents. The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights. Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause. The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity." - <a href='http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130' target='_blank'>Patriot Act Section 215 FAQ on ACLU.org</a>
The Republican Supreme Court, and the Republican Congress have no choice but to approve of it if they'd like to keep their jobs. I sincerely doubt every single person that signed off on it actually read the thing and digested it fully. They can't speak out against it now unless they really want to put themselves in a world of trouble.
Wow it's late, I have to sleep. Tomorrow I shall continue.
Xzilen, I won't respond to your post because you are taking my opinions way too personally. I don't have a problem with you or your opinions. Unless your name is George W Bush, I have no problem with you. I cannot enter a flame war, so please just stop. I suggest you correct your post before it gets noticed. This is the last I'll speak to you unless you wish to come back to a more mature level and avoid the personal attacks. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait wern't you the person who said the US was behind 9/11 then changed it the Zionists? And just out of curiosity do you think we landed on the moon? Not like I know anything about that after all I jut spent 2 weeks at an overnight camp about the space program. Xzilen? Personal attacks? I'd say you are the one with problems attacking people. BTW if you care oh so much about the constitution what about gun control. It's protected but I and many others think it needs to be changed. The founding fathers also knew that the constitution could not be permanent and so allowed amendments to be made. The original founding fathers didn't let women or blacks to vote. They must have been right so why can they vote now is what I'm hearing you saying. I've been looking over the CV and noticed a lot of mistakes. George Bush was not the first American president to "attack and ocuupy a sovereign nation" Truman was. After the war with Japan, Japan was occupied by US and it's allies forces for years. And since I know you'r gonna say something about the nuclear drop on Nagasaki and Hiroshima I'm just gonna give a statistic. 1 in 3 US POWs died when captured in Japan, 1 in 29 I believe died if captured in Europe.
"Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents. The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights. Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause. The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity." - <a href='http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130' target='_blank'>Patriot Act Section 215 FAQ on ACLU.org</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well.... Its VERY convenient that you leave out the part WHERE THEY HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM A JUDGE.
Not to mention that Section 215 has yet to be used... Which, although it could still be used... Is significant since it has been in place for such a length of time.
Now I expect some excuse like the judge will do it so he can keep his job... Or he's a croney of the FBI... Or being blackmailed by the Zionists... Or is part of some mass conspiracy to have the US mimic 1984.
Nice try though... But the ACLU.org gave it away in the end. They've been rabid about the Patriot Act from day 1 and I already knew not to trust their spin on it.
Let's see...Truman was actually completing something already begun. We wanted to rebuild Japan but not have it be a military nation. That's why we occupied it. We didn't attack Japan first. We just responded to them.
Iraq is the first thing in which we actually occupy a sovereign nation, by striking it PRE-EMPTIVELY. We didn't wait to be attacked.
That piece of crap just exagerates many points, its very partsian and doesn't help your argument at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
why, perhaps, and why?
look. end of the day those things on the list are not figments of some idiots imagination.
the majority of them are based on reality.
so how does your being not willing to have a sense of humour/ or disregarding anything with a slant against your own not help my case?
That's all I have to say about that, as soon as you draw your conclusions and your opinions along <b>party</b> lines you <b>need</b> to rethink your position. Right now you're just buying into whatever you've been told. It's not that I am intellectually superior, I simply presented the other side to your arguments, the side that you <b>don't hear</b>. That's why party politics are bad, both sides are trying to dupe you into assuming something by presenting <b>half</b> of the story.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, if you would understand conservative policies, which I don't think you do, he's not <i>outlawing</i> these things, so he's rather neutral either way, but he's leaving it up to the <b>states</b> to make their own decisions about many environmental decisions, he can all be for protecting the environment, but at the <i>same time</i> believe that states should be responsible for that area, like I think they should be, not the federal government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Leaving environmental concerns to the states is like leaving your house to your teenage son for a week. You might hope he does well and good with it, but chances are he's really going to mess things up. States do not have the funding, the resources, or the knowledge to tackle environmental issues, especially those that ultimately affect the entire planet. States are trying really hard right now to stay above water. The only way they could handle all of the additional burden being forced upon them by the federal government is to increase taxes. That's exactly the opposite of what people want... after all, it's this great president that cut taxes.
It's a money game. He cuts taxes, requiring changes to the budget to compensate. You can't reduce taxes and still pay for everything you had before. He forces states to absorb additional overhead in both education and environmental concerns as a way to decentralize. The states have no choice but to either do nothing about these additional burdens since they have no money, or raise taxes and take years to build the new state bureaucracy to handle it. People scream up and down when taxes go up, so it never comes to fruition. As a result, many states are close to bankruptcy. Schools have to close. Teachers are laid off and class sizes increase. Other schools have no choice but to dump their non-essential programs and look to find ways of funding through other means. Many won't get it, and the working class children of this country take the brunt of it. Faith-based schools, IE private schools for the rich and elite, get additional resources that general public schools do not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong about the public schools, it allows students to not be stuck in a dead end school run by terrible administration who poorly uses their funds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, the funds don't go with the student. A student going from a bad school to a better school only means the better school now has to take on the burden of an additional child yet no additional money. That is not a wise decision. Just some further reading, without spinning off into a whole new topic:
<i>"He claims to want 'no child left behind.' But President Bush is touting a school 'reform' plan that would leave more children than ever in schools that don't provide the high-quality education that all children deserve. Bush's plan is based on a number of bad ideas. Conspicuous among them are his embrace of school vouchers and his insistence that schools should be forced to give even more standardized tests."</i> - <a href='http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/index.shtml' target='_blank'>Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. Here's What's Wrong with Bush's Education Plan</a>
<i>"In response to NCLB mandates, some schools have refused federal funds, while some school administrators and state legislators have proposed rejecting federal funding on a larger scale. At least six schools in Vermont and Connecticut have refused Title I money to temporarily avoid federal sanctions, while Utah state representative Margaret Dayton ® has announced that she is drafting legislation that would allow the state to opt out of NCLB (a number of other states have already introduced such legislation, including New Hampshire and Hawaii). In Virginia, the superintendent of Suffolk's public schools has asked the Board of Education to consider rejecting NCLB funds, which amount to only 3.4 percent of the district's budget."</i> - <a href='http://www.ascd.org/cms/index.cfm?TheViewID=2227' target='_blank'>NCLB Analysis</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
As to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, he has the public going mad over dependence on foreign oil, gas prices going up, being getting angry, but they think that oil just falls into people's hands ? If you don't want to see it opened up, chances are it wouldn't be needed if people would stop driving their high consumption vehicles all over the place, Liberals and Conservatives alike, you can't get things both ways, and the problem is that people <b>need</b> transportation, hands down. Sometimes you need to sacrifice what you would like for what you need. But surely, if you dislike Bush, you would probably not bother to acknowledge that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People do not <b>need</b> their Hummers, their Land Rovers, their Escalades, or their Expeditions. People choose to buy vehicles that are completely wasteful. Instead of just appeasing to consumer demand for cheaper and more plentiful gas, the federal government should be forcing states to enact laws to stop selling <b>all</b> inefficient vehicles and maintain a certain percentage of alternative fuel vehicles. This number should increase annually. There should be a goal by 20xx to have every vehicle in this nation running on a renewable energy fuel. CA started doing that, but the Bush sued them to put a stop to it. There are alternative solutions to fossil fuels. Trouble is Bush is an oil man, so he has no problem finding ways to drill more oil and make more money. That's really all it is.
<i>"As a result of settlements, the administration has announced plans to remove wilderness protections from millions of acres of land in Utah. It also agreed to review protections for endangered species such as salmon and the northern spotted owl, reversed a Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and softened rules on logging. None of the decisions were subject to prior public comment or congressional approval. Critics call it 'sue and settle,' leaving few fingerprints as officials move to roll back environmental protections. "</i> - <a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/19/politics/main550150.shtml' target='_blank'>Lawsuits, Not Lawmakers, Make Policy</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, if you're familiar with CHPS, which I don't think you are. It's familiar to the USGBC, who created the LEED System, if you're familar with architecture or engineering. Bush supported further finding research in the positive benefits of the CHPS design, which includes a <b>mandatory</b> set of rules concerning preservation of materials, requiring that certain materials contain a certain amount of recycled goods. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was not familiar with it, but it sounds great. Just what we need. It's a good thing that people are out there trying to make a difference. Unfortunately, Bush mandating and supporting is one thing... backing it up by providing sufficient funding and removing obstacles is another. I can tell you I support your cause but then turn around and make sure you don't have enough money to fulfill it.
<i>"SPENDING for educational facilities has declined 3.8% since last October after several years of double-digit increases. Most state and local governments have had to make substantial spending cuts to balance their budgets. This forced the cancellation of some budgeted FY2003 (ending June 30) spending, resulting in the decline. More cuts are likely to come for FY2004."</i> - <a href='http://www.biperusa.biz/OctoberEdu_2003.htm' target='_blank'>Building Industry Professionals For Environmental Responsibility</a>
While cutting budgets for important programs on the domestic front, he's more than happy to spend billions and billions of dollars to fight a war of death and destruction. $87 billion can really turn the education disaster here completely around. I think there are much better domestic programs that could use that money. We don't need a new fleet of nuclear submarines. A nuclear sub is not going to stop a terrorist wielding a box cutter. We need better schools for every child in this country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But he's far from "raping" the environment, despite what the media and the liberal party would like you to think.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't get my opinions from the media or the liberal party. I make my own opinion based on the facts as I've found them. Of course I'm reliant upon the media to actually supply me with information, however I do not draw my conclusions from the way in which they provide it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's all I have to say about that, as soon as you draw your conclusions and your opinions along <b>party</b> lines you <b>need</b> to rethink your position. Right now you're just buying into whatever you've been told. It's not that I am intellectually superior, I simply presented the other side to your arguments, the side that you <b>don't hear</b>. That's why party politics are bad, both sides are trying to dupe you into assuming something by presenting <b>half</b> of the story.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not a democrat. I'm not a liberal. I'm not conservative or neo-conservative or left-wing or right-wing or any of that. I despise most if not all politicians, as I feel they do not have our best interests in mind. They care only about themselves and their friends that helped get them into office by paying for their campaigns. Bush I feel is one of the worst. Some others are likewise despicable, however they are mildly tolerable. Is Bush 100% the devil incarnate? No, I don't think that is the case. Again, he didn't do a lot of this himself. He's not that crafty or clever. He didn't draft the Patriot Act. So I don't fault him personally, but I fault him since he is the top of the food chain. He has the power to do much, much better and yet he chooses to do the wrong things consistently. He does this to benefit his own personal means and also those in his favor. For that reason alone, what he does is malicious to you and I.
(Don't feel like editing the quotes of that novel you posted <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
As much as I agree with this it just isn't practical. People in America are not going to sacrifice their precious vans, hummers, and SUV's to decrees oil usage. If it came down to a choice between drilling in Alaska or your idea, I think you know which one would win out. I drive a VW beetle myself <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes, the ANWAR fiasco is horrible.
[edit] and I think that a billion $ per state would drastically fix the school's issues.
Not to mention that Section 215 has yet to be used... Which, although it could still be used... Is significant since it has been in place for such a length of time.
Now I expect some excuse like the judge will do it so he can keep his job... Or he's a croney of the FBI... Or being blackmailed by the Zionists... Or is part of some mass conspiracy to have the US mimic 1984.
Nice try though... But the ACLU.org gave it away in the end. They've been rabid about the Patriot Act from day 1 and I already knew not to trust their spin on it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>1</b> <i>"The investigation of strip club owner Michael Galardi and numerous politicians appears to be the first time federal authorities have used the Patriot Act in a public corruption probe. 'Let me say, with Galardi and his whole gang, I don't condone, appreciate or support all their nakedness. But having said that, I haven't heard anyone say at any time he was involved with terrorism.'
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she was preparing an inquiry to the FBI about its guidelines for using the Patriot Act in cases that don't involve terrorism. The law makes it easy for citizens' rights to be abused, she said. 'It was never my intention that the Patriot Act be used for garden-variety crimes and investigations,' Berkley said.
But Corallo insisted lawmakers were fully aware the Patriot Act had far-reaching implications <b>beyond fighting terrorism</b> when the legislation was adopted in October 2001. 'I think probably a lot of members (of Congress) were only interested in the anti-terrorism measures,' Corallo said. 'But when the Judiciary Committee sat down, both Republicans and Democrats, they obviously discussed the applications, that certain provisions could be used in regular criminal investigations.'"</i> - <a href='http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-05-Wed-2003/news/22521283.html' target='_blank'>PATRIOT ACT: Law's use causing concerns</a>
<b>2</b> <i>"The internal watchdog of the Justice Department has found 34 new credible civil rights and civil liberties violations under the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act, according to a report released Monday."</i> - <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/' target='_blank'>Patriot Act report documents civil rights complaints</a>
<b>3</b> <i>"Consumer advocates also fear the Patriot Act will give companies another reason to invade privacy and prevent some people without criminal intent from opening accounts. 'This ranges between stupid, insidious and dangerous,' says Doug Heller, a senior consumer advocate for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights."</i> -<a href='http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/business/2003/09/15patriotacthasun.html' target='_blank'>Patriot Act has unintended victims</a>
<b>4</b> <i>"'Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases,' said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. 'They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens.'"</i> <a href='http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1389/a13.html?999' target='_blank'>Prosecutors Increasingly Turn To Patriot Act</a>
<b>5</b> <i>"Taking a clear stand against anti-privacy provisions in the Patriot Act, the U.S. House of Representatives in an overwhelmingly bipartisan effort last night agreed to an amendment that would bar federal law enforcement from carrying out secret 'sneak and peek' searches without notifying the target of the warrant."</i> - <a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0724-01.htm' target='_blank'>Congress Has Second Thoughts On Patriot Act </a>
<b>6</b> <i>"The Bureau recently sent letters to a handful of reporters who have written stories about the Lamo case -- whether or not they have actually interviewed Lamo. The letters warn them to expect subpoenas for all documents relating to the hacker, including, apparently, their own notes, e-mails, impressions, interviews with third parties, independent investigations, privileged conversations and communications, off the record statements, and expense and travel reports related to stories about Lamo.
The notices make no mention of the protections of the First Amendment, Department of Justice regulations that restrict the authority to subpoena information from journalists, or the New York law that creates a 'newsman's shield' against disclosure of certain confidential information by reporters.
Instead, the FBI has threatened to put these reporters in jail unless they agree to preserve all of these records while they obtain a subpoena for them under provisions amended by the USA-PATRIOT Act."</i> - <a href='http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/187' target='_blank'>The Subpoenas are Coming!</a>
<b>7</b> <i>"Although it passed in Congress almost without dissent in the aftermath of Sept. 11, it's suddenly being revisited, and this time around some of the folks holding opinions have actually <b>read the thing.</b> Among its detractors are 152 communities, including several major cities and three states, that have now passed resolutions denouncing the Patriot Act as an assault on civil liberties. More than one member of Congress has introduced legislation taking the teeth out of its most invasive provisions."</i><a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/' target='_blank'>A Guide to the Patriot Act</a>
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either." - Benjamin Franklin
<a href='http://www.ospolitics.org/legalwrites/archives/2003/10/01/an_action_.php' target='_blank'>Support HR3171, the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act</a>
Unfortunately, yes... I know which one is going to win out. That upsets me, and is why I try very hard to drum up public espousal in an effort to force our government to use their power for the benefit of this and future generations. We sent men to the moon. We set our brightest scientists to work and harnessed the power of the atom. We are capable of completely eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels. A lot of progress has been made by scientists in this area. $87 billion would really go a long way toward making it a reality. Bush is an oil man, though, so I don't know how it's going to happen during his reign. Big oil here is a very tough competitor, much like the cigarette industry. A <b>lot</b> of money is involved, and people don't like to think about their source of wealth going away. I hope they are willing to recognize that they can participate in change instead of trying to repress it.
FWIW- I decided about a year ago to change careers and devote the rest my life to finding alternative energy sources that will A) remove our dependency on fossil fuels and B) provide the world with environmentally clean and economically feasible transportation and electricity. To that end I went back to college and am studying engineering... chemical, mechanical, and whatever else I need to take. I will be giving up a cushy $100k/year IT job soon and plan to go to school full-time. This is a very important subject to me personally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (psst, Eviscerator, you'd like Howard Dean if you think most politicians try to appease the people who got them in office. Most of his funding is non-corparate, mostly by small donations and from parties that his website suggests.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be honest, I haven't studied much on Dean. I fall into the category of "you get two realistic choices for President, pick which one you hate the least." I will vote for Dean if he gets the Democratic nomination. I want Bush gone, so the Dems can put up just about anybody. Except maybe Liebermann. I'll read some more about Dean, though.
And as to Dean's funding... Give this a read. He's a polotician. Remember that.
<a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004282' target='_blank'>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110004282</a>
And for Evis... Lets focus on #2 for now. Its the easiest and I don't have time to work on the others.
That's 34 "credible" allegations. Not violations. Violations implies conviction. As in determined guilty. That is not the case. They are just "credible" ( this implies allegations and not violations as well ) allegations... Out of 1,037 if I remember correctly.
Actually... I'll say something about #7 as well. You're blaming Bush because Congress voted for it without decent? Who wrote it? How is it all of a sudden Bush's fault that many supposedly did not read it ( I find this more as an excuse to constituents than truth )? <b>IF</b> the Patriot Act trully is unconstitutional... Or even parts of it.... <b>IF</b> it is... Then our ENTIRE government is to blame and not JUST Bush or his administration. He may be the President... But this is NOT a one man show. He cannot just get whatever he wants. Our government consists of THREEE ( that is more than one for those that are not math majors ) parts. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. They are all independent and dependent at the same time. Its absurd to think the Bush administration is the sole source of any alleged unconstitutionality within the Patriot Act.
And as to people and their SUVs... Tough luck. They have a right to drive them. End of story regardless of your supposed higher moral authority.
And let us not forget the entire smear campaign the "liberal media" put out against Al Gore. They almost told outright lies, but Bush really had no control.
Read Al Franken's book "Lies and the lying liars who tell them". Or get it on tape, do whatever.
A majority of what the republican side will put out will most likely be a smear campaign.
I wouldn't mind Bush if he would just tell the truth about everything.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh. Congress creates legislation and votes on it. Once approved by Congress, our President has to read it and sign off on it, if he agrees with it. If he doesn't agree with it, he has the power to <b>veto</b> that act of legislation. He should have read it, he should have understood it violates our civil liberties, and he should have canned it. The least he should have done is table it and determined that a commitee should be established to review it, debate it, and correct it to make sure it doesn't violate those liberties we deem essential to <b>all</b> Americans. This is the power we give to the President.
Bush could have done what I just said. Yet he did not. He didn't read it, he didn't establish a group to debate it. He didn't request that it be corrected. On October 21st, 2001, he signed his approval without hesitation. He is the last step of the process. It is <b>his fault.</b> John Ashcroft is responsible for drafting the Patriot Act. Not the 3 branches of government, not the 100 senators, and not the 435 members of the House. John Ashcroft. This is the man who could not win an election running against a dead guy. The people of Missouri felt a dead body was more useful than him. Ashcroft was <b>appointed</b> by Bush to his administration. Bush is at fault for A) tapping Ashcroft to lead the Justice Department, B) letting Ashcroft run roughshod over the constitution, and C) allowing the act to get passed through Congress in a time of national crisis, fear, and doubt about our security. Bush is at fault for not taking the appropriate Presidential measures to uphold the constitution of the United States, something that he swore to do on January 20th, 2001.
<img src='http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/bush-signing.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm an American, and I don't think that it violates my rights, and I'm not alone.
"The least he should have done is table it and determined that a commitee should be established to review it, debate it, and correct it"
Yes, because committees have a long track record of getting things done fast, correct, and efficiently. God if this thing had gone to a committee (if any are available, they tend to take about 4 years to decide the date for the actual meeting) it would have been so watered down, it would have been pointless to begin with. I also think it has been proven about 7 or 8 times to not be unconstitutional, let’s stop going in circles here.
We have not proven that it is purely constitutional. Please read my previous post on this on the bottom of page 7. I'll give you one link again to save some time: <a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0724-01.htm' target='_blank'>Congress Has Second Thoughts On Patriot Act</a>
This amendment to the act was a good first step. There's more to come, and it's about time. Unfortunately, Bush and Ashcroft are still trying to expand the Patriot Act with Patriot Act II and establish even more civil liberty injustices. While Congress is finally waking up to the problems with the Act, Bush and Co. are trying very hard to make it even worse.
Because. I know thats what I did.
By the way Evis, I suggest for you to do something, read the policies, read the amendments, read the Bill of Rights, read provisions, read the acts <b>instead</b> of going to whatever website you go to where they conveniently leave a nice hyperlink to your "opinion", you need to start thinking on your own, look at the original documents and make a decision, don't go to the ACLU to tell you what it's about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It takes at least some bipartisan to get something through in Congress, even if your assumption of all republicans are evil and dumb and so is Bush, still some liberals had to vote for it.
Do you intentionally just read what you want and listen/remember in the same fashion? Go back and read my first post. Heck! Read your post as well. So lets state a quick fact a few times.
CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT!
CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT!
CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT!
CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT!
CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT!
You know what that means? Simple. The responsibility does not rest solely on the President. If you would read my post... I said the blame, if there is indeed any to place, rests on the ENTIRE government. So stop trying to blame one person who does not have absolute power, regardless of the conspiracy theories you profess to be fact.
Smoke... Did you catch the bit about him holding a fundraiser for Dean? Because Dean has decided to opt out of tax payer funded money... He will be getting a lot more money soon and most of it will not come from small donations.
You guys are taking this way too personally. You can relax now because you've won... I'm out of here before I fall into the flame-war abyss.
My opinion, as an outsider of this thread, see that you use the excuss "You are using personal attacks" as a way to cop out of answering questions.
Wonder if you are reading this.. You did say you were leaving after all. Meh, another post count for me then.
Anyway I think everything that can be said here has been said.
hmm?
Xzilen, Don't trust the mainstream media for anything about Gore. Even the "Left-wing" media constantly said he lied when all he did was say the truth to what he knew.
One example is that he said he was at a FEMA thing when there was an emergency requiring FEMA. He said that he was there with the Director. He was recorded being there with the director. It turned out at the last minute that it was something like the under or junior director. The media then took that and said that Gore has a habit of lying, which undermines him.
and never ever trust anything Anne Coulter writes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, if your trying to pull the "media cost Gore the election" crap that Rolling Stone reported, then don't believe that. Rolling Stone is <i>the</i> most bias magazine I have ever read. Period.
That is the truth, it was caught on tape and shown on a few websites, no over dub, in fact Gore admitted to having done so.
Evis, no where did I make a personal attack on you. The what a **** was directed about Gore, not you.
If anything, <i>you</i> are the one nearing a flame war with your generlazations and harsh attacks.