Republican Fraud
Rev_Blair @ Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:33 pm
There's nothing dishonest about it. Morris' words are being used against him. Most CommonDream readers are fully aware of Dick Morris' political affiliation and, in case they aren't, the fact that he works for Fox is carfully pointed out. Read the last paragraph. Consider in the context of the story, who wrote the story, and where the story is published. Dick Morris is being held up for ridicule because he accidentally told the truth when he was trying to spin things.
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:55 pm
Off with Their Heads: Traitors, Crooks and Obstructionist in American Politics, Media and Business, by former Clinton campaign adviser turned Fox News commentator Dick Morris compares the "liberal media" to Radio Moscow, accuses it of undermining the Bush administration's war on terror and declares, "All our terrorist problems were born during the Clinton years." (this is the same Dick Morris who resigned in disgrace after his trysts with prostitute Sherry Rowlands were exposed, along with the fact that he had tried to impress her by having her listen in on his phone conversations with the president. Fortunately, Rowlands was not a terrorist.)
I woudn't trust anything that comes from that guy. He's just another Fox News spin doctor, of course every now and then maybe he will make a point about something, but giving his past, he's a fake!
Rev_Blair @ Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:16 pm
$1:
All they said that if the drug laws in our country become loose, they'll have no choice but to tighten border security in order to protect their drug laws. Many Canadian businesses have raised the alarm because this will slow down the movement of goods accross the border. As for gay marrige, there's nothing really. I mean the only thing is that the US will not recognise Gay Marriages performed in Canada as marriages in the United States. Hardly sticking their noses in our business, simply protecting their laws.
No, what they did is threaten to make our trade relationship suffer if we adjusted our domestic laws and policies to reflect the wishes of the Canadian people.
You are saying we have no right to criticise their foreign and trade policies, which directly affect people all over the world, but they have a right to threaten us. Turn your brain on.
$1:
Facts seem to disagree with tou. In terms of people who have a college education Bush trounces Kerry 65-35, MBA's Bush won 80 per cent of the votes.
Those aren't facts, Godz, that's called Republican spin.
$1:
He's not erasing the first ammendment. He's a ardent defender of the right to arms (a constitutional right BTW), the only people arrested without due process are non-US citizens suspected of terrorist ties and there is no evidence that he's infringin the freedom of the press, otherwise the New York Times would be gone by now.
That simply is not correct. The Patriot Act allows the arrest of anybody suspected of being a terrorist. It expands electronic surveillance without a warrant. It allows the US government to demand information from private companies. It allows the US government to track what book Americans read. You should read it, Godz...the Patriot Act makes Orwell's fears look like a childs nightmare.
$1:
AGain, he's doesn't have the SAME VIEWS as you do regarding the rest of the world, but he understands. The Iraq war was "illegal" by the UN's standards, which is really a totaltarian, unelected, global government infringing on other countries' sovreignty.
The invasion of Iraq was illegal according to international laws that the US helped write and had signed onto. The US has continued this pattern of criminality throughout the occupation. Several US military and domestic laws have also been broken during the invasion and the subsequent occupation.
$1:
There was no exit plan to get out of Germnay or Japan in World War 2 either, the aim was to destroy the Nazi war machine, same with Iraq, the aim is to destroy terrorism.
This is a completely different situation...victory was not a foregone conclusion during the Second World War and the US was attacked by Japan. and plans to rebuild Germany and Japan as well as troop withdrawal plans were being drawn up well before the end of the war.
The aim in Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorism. Only an idiot would believe that lie at this point. It is a war for oil...nothing more, nothing less.
$1:
damn right he said that...and its about time, there can not be any pussyfooting around when it comes to terrorism.
If you are incapable of acting like an adult on the world stage, the world will reject you. The worlsd haas rejected George Bush.
$1:
You know there's nothing more amusing than a leftist who realised the majority of people don't agree with him.
You better have a look around, little boy...most of the citizens of this country and this planet do agree with me.
Zenfisher @ Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:27 am
vic_ticious vic_ticious:
Furthermore, I'll tell you this, if the Democrats try to get on this train they'll be looking at one very large derailment in 2006
This would of course be true, providing the allegations are disproven. However what if they are true. Do you think their would be a single Republican elected in 2006 or 2008 if the Republicans cheated? If it is proven The Republicans will be turfed out. If you combine this with Watergate, it may take a very long time for the Republicans to have any credibility with the American people.
DMP08 @ Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:07 am
I have a quick question. The united states works on a system of electoral colleges, in which each state 'won' is worth X amount of 'points'. Why don't they just count the votes. Every vote is worth ONE point. Why don't places do that? That way every person has an equal vote, and it isn't based on collective points.
Rev_Blair @ Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:21 am
$1:
They never threatned to pull out of NAFTA! They did'nt suggest having quotas and tarrifs on evreything that came accross the border. All they said was "You want to decriminilise Pot...so be it, but were not thinking about changing our drug policies, and your suggestion of legalising it would make it harder for us to enforce our laws due to the large undefended border. So therefore we will beef up security on the border in order to ensure that drug dealers won't have a field day from this. This MIGHT slow down the transportation of the goods, therefore damadging trade).
The decriminalisation of small amounts of marijuana comes with stiffer penalties for harvesting and dealing, Godz. That (at least according to the anti-pot loons south of the border) would make it less likely, not more likely, that drugs would be smuggled to the US.
Their threats to "beef up security" are the equivalent of a work to rule campaign in a labour dispute. They are threatening us.
$1:
BTW: Why are you all of a sudden sounding the alarm over weak trade relations? How many times have I seen you on other threads saying we should cut off our relationship with the US, trade with other nations, join the EU and so on? If you believe in those matters, why is the threat of weak trade relations with the US bothering you?
I see you haven't been paying attention at all. I've suggested cutting our relationship with the US precisely because they use trade as a weapon against us to try to control our domestic policies. This is just one more example of that.
$1:
Threaten us? Yes...now that you mentioned it, I think I saw some B-52's flying over Downtown on my lunch hour, and the 82nd airborne is nowhere to be seen (do you think they're massing on US-Canadian border ready to take Alberta?) PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS WILL YOU!!!!!
Listen, you idiot, there are more threats than purely military ones. Pull your tongue out of Georgie's ass, will you.
$1:
Actually they're called "Exit polls" done by CNN and the USA TODAY.
They don't match many other polls though. Cherry picking data is a form of spin.
$1:
Your debating the wrong guy on this. I admit that I oppose SOME provisions of the Patriot Act but overall it has the right picture. The information which is requested has to to through certain steps. For example, it allows the arrest of people who are suspected of being terrorist yes, but the arrest must be approved by the Attorney General in person, and when he comes to testify in front of the Judiciary comitee in Congress, he has to show them the evidence he had accumlated from the FBI, the NSA and the CIA on the grounds of which he approved certain actions facilitated by the Patriot Act.
They can detain people without charge indefinitely, so the AG may never have to present evidence in court. The defendant's lawyer never gets to see the evidence against him, so any kind of defense is questionable at best.
$1:
The provisions have been used before 9/11 on crime gangs and drug dealers the only thing the Patriot Act does is expand those to the use of members on the terrorist watch-list. What I meant in general was that, Bush is not trouncing on the Bill of Rights, you can still critisize him in Times Square, you can write an article slamming his policies, you can carry a gun, your still intitled of a lawyer should you be arrested. these rights have no changed one bit.
You're referring to the Rico Act, Godz. Abuses of that act have been wide-spread and well documented. They have been used against mom and pop video stores with a porn section to force them out of business. They have been used against low-level drug dealers because of personal vendettas.
$1:
Times have changed since the 1950's. These "international laws" are simply an oxymoron. The UN since has grown its appetite for power which in turn infringes on individual sovreignty. It is now filled with politicaly-motivated actions (Worldwide Gun Control, Overseeing the Internet, telling countries how to defend themselves). Besides just as the US aggreed to join this world-government baloney, it can simply get out. What's stopping them?
Yeah, times have changed since the 1950s. The world has moved ahead. The US was at least attempting to move ahead with the world until Bush came to power, now he wants to move back to pre-1911 standards. That is not acceptable.
Your interpretation of the UN, its programs, and its goals are laughable...the result of getting your news from far right opinion pieces instead of actually learning about the issues and using facts.
$1:
Oh this is gonna be good....how so?
The invasion itself; bombing of non-military infrastructure necessary for the well-being of civiiians; not protecting the civilian population in the aftermath of the war; not protecting national treasures, hospitals etc.; not providing policing; changing the basic economic structure of the occupied country; taking souveneir pictures of prisoners; putting prisoners on display; mistreatment of prisoners; torture.
Those things are against US laws too, Godz. There are reasons for those laws...like not pissing off the general population so you end up in a war that never ends.
$1:
Just like Middle Eastern Terrorism attacked the US on 9.11. Al-Qaida isn't the whole cake, its part of the totaltarian mindset currently in place in the Middle East, and Saddam was part of the contributers to this mindset. Better to go in one country and start draining the swamp and install Democratic reforms which will help eliminate the current mentality existing in Muslim countries.
The Domino Theory was wrong in the 1960s and the Reverse Domino Theory is just as wrong now, Godz. You can't force democracy at gunpoint, it has to come from within. True democracy has never been the USA's goal though...it leaves open the possibility of an unfriendly government. The Bush ergime wants a friendly puppet in power in Iraq, like Saddam used to be.
$1:
Oh yes..you can see Bush shaking in his boots at the prospect of not having the support of Germany and France. While he has countries like Russia, the UK, Italy, Holland, Australia, Japan and Israel (Military powerhouses in today's world) backing him up.
Russia isn't giving a whole lot of backing, last I checked. In fact they, along with China, have been backing Iran. Those two countries are military powerhouses. They have nukes, equipment, and people. Tony Blair is serious trouble for participating and has said that he will not help with any other illegal invasions. Italy will likely change their mind if there is a change of government, something that happens a lot in Italy. Australia only sent 900 people and has kept them in support positions...largely out of harms way. Holland has sent only a minimal contingent. Same with Japan.
$1:
Plans to rebuild Germany was never brought up until the Battle of the Bulge. It wasn't until US and Soviet Soldiers began crossing into the German border had Churchill and Roosevelt put together a task force in charge of setting up the European re-construction.
England, the USA, Canada, and the USSR had been drawing up contingent plans for years. When the joint task force was set up everybody had something to bring to the table.
$1:
I was talking in terms of the United States, most of the people in the United States DO NOT share your view. And until that is changed..nothing will change. Deal with it.
It's going to have to change, Godz. The United States does not run this world and they are increasingly getting themselves into trouble. They have no friends left, only a few allies who are there because of circumstance and are looking for a way to change those circumstances.
UglyYank @ Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:28 pm
DMP08 DMP08:
I have a quick question. The united states works on a system of electoral colleges, in which each state 'won' is worth X amount of 'points'. Why don't they just count the votes. Every vote is worth ONE point. Why don't places do that? That way every person has an equal vote, and it isn't based on collective points.
The Founding Fathers debated the merits of different systems. They discovered the Electoral College system the best. Not perfect, but it works for us.
Rev_Blair @ Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:40 pm
I don't think it works anymore, Ugly Yank. After the last two elections it is evident that your electoral system has become divisive and is open to fraud and/or claims of fraud.
That isn't just because of George Bush winning either...you know as well as I do that if Kerry had won this time or Gore the time before it would have been the Republicans screaming.
UglyYank @ Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:20 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
I don't think it works anymore, Ugly Yank. After the last two elections it is evident that your electoral system has become divisive and is open to fraud and/or claims of fraud.
That isn't just because of George Bush winning either...you know as well as I do that if Kerry had won this time or Gore the time before it would have been the Republicans screaming.
That isn't just because of George Bush winning either...you know as well as I do that if Kerry had won this time or Gore the time before it would have been the Republicans screaming.
The electoral system works, it just didn't work like the liberals wanted it to. I do not expect ignorant foreigners to understand the system.
You are forgiven for being an idiot.
Scape @ Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:34 pm
House Republicans embrace new pro-crime agenda!
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton, 1887
Rev_Blair @ Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:46 pm
Ugly Troll said,
$1:
The electoral system works, it just didn't work like the liberals wanted it to.
in response to me saying, $1:
...you know as well as I do that if Kerry had won this time or Gore the time before it would have been the Republicans screaming.
The thing is, trolls aren't very good at analyzing things. That's why they live under bridges.