Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Never one to miss the opportunity...

This is topic Never one to miss the opportunity... in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/616.html

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

To-Do List for Surviving the Dubya Years
by RICK MORANIS
*Stock up on Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
*Learn the names of wrestlers.
*Put O'Reilly book on coffee table.
*Start collecting ""Dogs Playing Cards'' paintings.
*Write letter supporting plan to convert abortion clinics to banjo clinics.
*Find out who flies to Dollywood.
*Meet with accountant to discuss new Barbecue Tax Credit for purchases over $5,000.
*Buy new barbecue.
*Start calling children Rachel-Jo and Junior.
*Practice using regionally influenced conversational similes till I'm smoother than a desert snake's belly.
*Download evolutionary biology syllabus from www.bobjones.edu.
*Throw out sun block.
*Write letter condemning Clinton plan to give Chappaqua to Palestinians.
*Become standoffish with gay friends.
*Buy new ergonomically designed cork-handled 6-foot graphite fishing rod with ceramic guides and tri-bearing aluminum reel specially designed to alleviate wrist fatigue (tell Junior to keep reminding me to use other hand for drinking).
*Change smoke alarm batteries in bomb shelter.
*Misspell Barbara Striseand.
*Have mechanic remove catalytic converter from El Camino.
*Salvage olive green- and brown-colored clothing by tie-dyeing them camouflage.
*See if cowboy boots fit (should be in storage locker with mechanical bull).
*Reconsider wearing fur.
*Check Ebay for attractive spittoon.
*Stop henceforth checking addition on all hotel, restaurant and car rental bills from Florida vacations.
*Remember that Elvis is "The King"...not Miles Davis.
*Cease and desist all recycling.
*Pray.

Again, I add a

------------------
"We're just going to have a lot of work. ... Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

A Case of No Ws: Who, What, Where, Why, When?
From the Washington Post

WASHINGTON

Incoming staffers of the Bush White House are apparently victims of a practical joke perpetrated by their predecessors. Bush aides settling into the Old Executive Office Building have discovered that many computer keyboards in their work spaces are missing the W key�as in President Bush's middle initial.

"There are dozens, if not hundreds, of keyboards with these missing keys," a White House aide said Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity. "In some cases the W is marked out, but the most prevalent example is the key being removed. In some cases the W keys have been taped on top of the doorways, which are 12 feet tall."

"My guess is that the White House did not have many reasons to use the letter W over the last couple of years," joked Gore campaign press secretary Chris Lehane when asked for comment. "It's possible they just fell off because of sheer atrophy."

I add yet another

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

No way.

------------------
"Businesses used to be like Christianity; if you were faithful and obedient, you could obtain bliss in the afterlife of retirement. Now it's more of a reincarnation model. If the worker learns enough in his current job, he can progress to a higher level of employment elsewhere."

- Dogbert

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

LOL....

I like it....

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Of course, that's theft and willful destruction of government property.

With malice aforethought.

President Bush, to show the ethical direction that the new administration will be taking, should track down the responsible individuals and have them severely punished.

Except that Clinton's probably pardoned them already.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

They should all be executed. How dare they? The bastards.

(er ... if the keys were taped to the tops of the doors, how is that theft? And how many people work in the OEOB? How do you know the janitorial staff didn't do it?)

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you. It doesn't MATTER what you do with it afterwards, whether you tape it to the door or use it to patch the ex-president's grain-worn septum.

And it's still vandalism. If the keys are damaged or broken, they'll have to be replaced. How much will that cost us taxpayers? Not that wasting tax money MATTERS to Democrats...

How true to form, for you to suggest that the people responsible for a malicious act should go unpunished. There should be a hate crime law against such obviously politically-motivated malice.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 23, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yeah, how much DOES it cost to put a key back onto a keyboard?

Touchy, touchy, aren't we?

"Sir, you are under arrest for stealing a keyboard key."

Er ... and IIRC, for it to be "Theft" it must be removed from the property.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 23, 2001).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

LOL @ Fo2.

You're getting funnier as yo get older.

And get off my lawn you damned kids!!!

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

They always try to shrug off wrongdoing...

"Oh, it didn't REALLY hurt anyone..."
"Oh, it's just a LITTLE vandalism... good for the cardiovascular system, you know..."
"Oh, you're OVERreacting..."

Mainly because if you get people to ignore the little crimes, it's easier to gloss over the bigger ones.

P.S. Ashcroft's in, let the prosecutions begin! :P

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 23, 2001).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

And stay off my damn lawn or I'll shoot ya!! Little bastards.

*grumble*

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

First,

As nice as it might be to live in your own little world, until the legal system is so skewed as to send someone who broke a "w" key off a keyboard to prison, I think you're well aware that the MOST anyone would get is a fine ("What are you in for?" "I broke a 'w' key off a keyboard ... you?" "I killed ten men, but I'm being let out early next week because they need to make room for all the vandals.")

Besides, we're talking about a government whose defense department spends $500 on fucking toilet seats -- you wanna prosecute someone for theft? There you go! You're paying taxes out your ass because some government bureacrat wants to pay a couple hundred bucks for a hammer or some other useless pieces of crap that could be bought for much less (but, no -- they've gotta spend all their budget...)

With spending like that, the LEAST the government can do is spring for some new computer keyboards. Unless you're now going to try to convince me that the government is efficient and doesn't buy new monitors, keyboards and mice everytime it buys a new CPU?

Yeah, Ashcroft's in. Now the Republicans can squash the First Ammendment!!! YAY!!!!

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 23, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Um... exactly which part of the first ammendment are you talking about, praytell? Or are you just making unfounded accusations again?

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

At most, I'm over-reaching ...

John Ashcroft ...

-was a strong supporter of the Communications Decency Act, an unconsitutional law restricting the first ammendment which was ruled as such by the US Supreme Court.

-supported the "filtering" law recently passed which requires libraries (and others) to censor their computer software. Both the ACLU and the ALA are challenging in court as unconstitutional.

-almost more disturbingly, said the following during a speech as senator:

"Without the cooperation of television networks, however, Congress has no choice but to give the FCC the authority to impose itself on the entertainment industry."

And, IIRC, the Bush/Quayle Admin left a huge mess for the Clinton/Gore people to clean up after Bush lost in '92. This kind of thing is rather typical, but I don't hear First over there demanding that the Bush/Quayle staffers be tossed in Federal Prison for vandalizing government property which required Clinton/Gore staffers to clean up -- a waste of gov't resources, wouldn't you say?

Again, hypocritical BS. When Republicans do something, "it's a harmless joke" ... when Dems do it, "it's Government vandalism and theft and ... and ... lots of other bad stuff!"

You gotta take this stuff with something called a "sense of humor."

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 23, 2001).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
Without the cooperation of television networks, however, Congress has no choice but to give the FCC the authority to impose itself on the entertainment industry.

As opposed to exercising that oft voiced conservative mantra of "choice" and switching the old button to off?

Or even employing the much heralded liberal view and actually talk to one another or our children about things seen on tv?

How very un-Republican of Mr. Ashcroft.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Funny, this sounds a whole lot like Joe Lieberman. Didn't hear you complaining then.

Again, his views are irrelevant. His job is to enforce the law, and he'll do that job. If he doesn't, we'll have him removed. Simple as that.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Didn't see anyone posting quotes then did ya Sparky?

As if your evasive point really changes anything I said.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 24, 2001).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Funny... I had thought the 'W'-key thing was a joke...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Most did too save for the curmudgeon who dwells amongst us.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

I heard that this sort of practical joke stuff went on before whenever a new administration takes over.

But...

Let me say this one little thing before I get off my rented soap-box. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Freedom to say whatever the hell you want and screw you if you don't like it!". I can't run into a theater and yell "FIRE" without some form of consequences. If you act and speak responsibly, then, no problem. But if you say something that does cause harm and you KNOW it causes harm, then you had better hire a really good law firm to take care of it because you are liable to be SUED past the topsoil and into the planetary mantle.

The whole argument of censorship is tricky enough as it is. Yes, if you don't want your kids reading crap on the 'net then I think those filters should be available to those who want them. But do I think the government should hoist them off on us wholesale? No. Another thing, parents should take a more pro-active role in what their kids do. Do your job as the parent and keep your kids from things you might find objectionalble but do NOT expect the rest of the planet and government to do your job for you. And if you don't trust your kid, well, fix it where only you can turn on the computer, whatever... It's simply only common sense that needs to be reinforced. Not some silly, uninforceable decency law.

*end rant*

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Well, of COURSE it was a knee-jerk overreaction.
Can't a guy pretend to be a liberal for a day without everybody going nuts?

You'll note I never said they should go to jail. I said they should be punished. If you think punishment = jail, you're pretty daft. And you've never read the adventures of the mighty Frank Castle.

Re: Trashing of the First Amendment: Two words, 4 letters.
Tipper Gore, PMRC.

So bite me, fanboy.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Yeah, Tipper Gore and that whole AC/DC = Satan deal sucks my canned crack cocaine.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Except that all what T. Gore did was require labels to put a little sticker on the album that says "mature content" ... so all the little kids can buy the latest album which uses the word "fuck" thirty times. It doesn't require the artists to limit the words they use. Hardly the same thing.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

You'd think some artists who do use the word "fuck" every other second would get the point that people are just soooooooo tired of them being so vulgar. I mean really, you CAN be witty without saying "fuck" all the time. Just look at Vogon or UM or Liam. They're fucking geniuses.

Oh fuck, look at the time. Gotta fucking go!

(Yes, this is a parody)

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Actually, that's NOT what Tipper wanted. THAT was the watered down compromise that we were lucky enough to end up with, possibly after somebody was smart enough to point out that a lot of Country songs have objectionable lyrics and content, and that Tipper's husband was a Tennessee senator, and shouldn't upset the powers down in Nashville.

Tipper wanted a lot broader bunch of labels, including "O" for "Occult," (which presumably would incluse anything remotely religiously themed that wasn't blatantly Gospel Christian -- Everything from Marilyn Manson to Creed to Enya and Loreena McKennitt, for Chrissake)

And much more restrictions than we actually ended up with.

Anybody remember the Dead Kennedys? It's hard to find their albums anymore, and that's largely because of the PMRC's influence. Fortunately, I know a Jello Biafra fan.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, anything which restricts country music is good in my book. That stuff is worse than gansta' rap! (Er ... except for select Faith Hill and Shania Twain songs) ...

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

"OK! We'll allow the niggers and the chinks...but WE DON'T WANT THE IRISH!!!"

Seriously,m this is the same clash as on the internet. Nazi's or no nazi's? Anarchists? Godless heathens? Instigators? Plain guys from Montana? I tell you it will never end!
The only weapon I've got is N*PST*R (trademark) [url removed] that allows me to get a hold of any song without any big brother deciding it for me!! VIVA LA REVOLU�ION!!!! And now for a lucious, green apple!

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Never one to miss the opportunity, eh?

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

To say Chink?

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Wouldn't, oh, I dunno, a rating system whereby children aren't allowed to purchase CD's with "objectionable content" be beter? The movie industry does it (crazy, I know), and it kind of works. In the sense that film makers often take some of the realy heavy stuff out to avoid getting higher ratings, since lower ratings = more potential purchasers = more money.

I just think it's strange that you have to be 15 to buy South Park: Bigger, longer and uncut, but anyone can purchase the soundtrack.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

What's even stranger is that you have to be 18 here to buy spray paint, fer chrissakes...

And why? Because stupid idiot kids take the crap, spray it into a bag and inhale the fumes to get high.

Morons.

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"You'd think some artists who do use the word 'fuck' every other second would get the point that people are just soooooooo tired of them being so vulgar. I mean really, you CAN be witty without saying 'fuck' all the time."

The problem being that the people who buy this stuff do think it's funny to say "fuck" every other second, and there are a lot of them...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"Double-dumb-ass on you, and so forth."

As for the movie industry's rating system, is that not voluntary? I'm all for preventing minors from obtaining explicit material without parental consent. I just think it's not the government's job, nor right.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Indeed, and it's one of the things I was concerned about with Gore. Er ... probably the only thing. But ...

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Hell hath frozen over again.... Omega, I agree with you....

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them....

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

I'm sure the MPAA gives out the ratings. It's up to them, I daresay.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Ye gods! Did Omega just say something liberal?! *L*

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Over here, it's up to the BBFC. I think they might be govenment controlled, since I remember ratings being changed on government orders.

Since the laws regarding ratings apply to under 18s, I'd say that it is the governments job, as much as banning ciggies for under 16s is.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

The ratings are given by the MPAA, but the enforcement of it is currently voluntary. Many of the states attorney generals (I worked for them once, that's how I know) try to get theatres to enforce the standards, and some states have made it a law. As for music, there is no standard age for purchasing something with a warning label on it (which is the only discerning factor for music). TV ratings are provided, but it is up to the parents to decide whether or not they enforce them. The Michigan Attorney General had a problem with the Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue a couple of years ago (some nudity), and filed that under the same law as nudie mags (now they have to card people for them.

Seems like there is some improvements that can be made for censorship.

------------------
I looked at my son, and said, "My god, he's hung like a bear."
"That's the umbillical cord, Mr. Williams."

-Robin Williams, "A Night at the Met" 1986

Saiyanman Benjita's Dragonball Page

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Little Timmy probably hears more cuss words from his father and his playmates at school than he hears in these 'awful movies.'

If you don't want to listen to music of a certain type, or see a certain movie, don't.
If you don't want your kids to, don't let them. And tell them why. And punish them if they disobey. That's your job as a parent.

Censorship, though, is telling MY kids what they can't see/hear, and that's MY job, and I don't want anybody else doing it.

If you don't want Timmy looking up pictures of nekkid wimmin on the computer, WATCH him. Don't use the Internet as a babysitter. That's not what it's for.

If you don't want Timmy playing DOOM, don't buy it. Or don't give him the CD.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Incidentally, it's starting to look as though the stolen keys were only the tip of a vandalism iceberg.

It's funny, you know. James Carville calls W. a "frat boy," but whose people behave like a fraternity, trashing the place before they leave?

You know, this kind of behavior just shows the TOTAL lack of respect and reverence these people had for what the White House is supposed to stand for, and the people who came before them.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Tim:

Ye gods! Did Omega just say something liberal?!

No.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

You know, this kind of behavior just shows the TOTAL lack of respect and reverence these people had for what the White House is supposed to stand for, and the people who came before them

Er ... First, are you forgetting that the Bush/Quayle people trashed the place in '92 and the Clinton/Gore people had to clean up after them? So, if Republicans do it, fine, it gets ignored ... Democrats do it and they're disrespectful?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Really? Can you cite that?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Nope, I remember hearing something about it 8 years ago, and then someone else mentioned it here which jogged my memory.

Speaking of which ...

Incidentally, it's starting to look as though the stolen keys were only the tip of a vandalism iceburg

Can you cite this?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Here's one, to tide you over while I look for more.

"White House 'wiping clean' hard drives
News/Current Events Breaking News News
Source: WorldNetDaily.com
Published: Sunday, January 14, 2001

The White House is rushing to "wipe clean" the hard drives of computers used by President Clinton's aides before the Jan. 20 changeover, a public-interest law firm claims. Normally, when employees leave the White House, computer workers take a snapshot of the contents of their hard drives and store them as part of official records, as required by law. Then they reformat the hard drives for the next users.
But according to Judicial Watch, Inc., political aides have ordered computer workers to first run the hard drives through a software program by the firm Jetico, called B.C., or Best Crypt, which "wipes clean the drives so the next administration can't retrieve any files."
"They're starting with [the hard drives of] the most important people first -- the [White House] lawyers -- and working their way down," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And they're working through the weekend." He added: "It's the equivalent of burning records, according to our sources," who are White House employees. The records are key to Judicial Watch's Filegate lawsuit against the White House. General counsel Larry Klayman said he passed the tip on to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth late Friday. Calls to the White House were not returned by deadline.
Fitton said Clinton aides Mark Lindsay and Michael Lyle are heading up the project -- which is being carried out by Charles Nash, a supervisor in the White House's records management unit.

Paul Sperry is Washington bureau chief for WorldNetDaily.com.
For Education And Discussion Only. Not For Commercial Use

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 25, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/frame/direct.asp?SITE=drudgereport.com/wh93a.htm

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Ah, I see, couldn't find anything to support your vandalism claims, so you've moved on?

Ah, at least Omega's got the right idea.

Begin: RANT

Fuck it. Bush stole the election, I know it, you know it, who gives a fuck if he's gotta clean up a bit? Cheap price. You can have the White House, just go and repaint it. GO CLINTON! Fuck that place up, 'cuz we all know that Bush ain't supposed to be there. Piece of shit rich boy. Wonder how he feels ... knowing less people voted for him than the other guy?

His Fraudulency. Ah. I've been so sick and tired of being polite in here. Fuck it. I hate the Republican Party (the Party itself, not those who make it up -- they're simply misguided. Steer clear of the Dark Side, young Luke). They claim to represent America, but clearly hate Americans. Blacks? Hah! The reasoning for only 9% of the vote is that the rest of the African-American population has been "tricked" (read: too stupid) into voting for the Dems. Well, what good what voting Republican do for 'em? Unless you're rich and white, the Republican Party doesn't care for you. I mean, that attitude right there is proof positive that the Republican Party is racist. The idea that 91% of the African-American population is too stupid to think for themselves is the most BLATANT example of racism I think I've ever seen in recent times -- except for that Texaco mess down in ... oh, yeah, Texas, what a surprise! -- and from a major political party, too! Jesus Fucking Christ! "Oh, it's all Jacksons fault ... and Sharpton ... and the NAACP! They've scared blacks by running TV ads of George W. wanting to drag black people to death on the back of pickup trucks! Hee-haw!" Good lord! Talk about arrogant presumption and completely, one-hundred percent, out-and-out racism from those who pretend to want to speak for the people! And in many cases, and this, IMHO, is much worse, pretend to be religious leaders. What pieces of shit. Falwell and the rest. What a fucking asshole that guy is.

I simply do not understand the Republican outlook. "Sure it's a free country, as long as everyone says a Christian prayer in school and follows the 10 Commandments ... except for the Commandments we don't like, so there!" What hogwash! You're going to force kids to say prayers in school? Fuck that shit. Unless you want your nice 12-year old kid saying an Islamic prayer one day or a Budhist prayer the next (you know you'd put your kid in a private school before you let that happen). And then you've got these fucking telemarketers! What the fuck? God on TV now? Fuck the big churches, God's NEW home is a 32" Digital Television? Who the fuck got this bright idea? Greedy son of a bitch he musta been -- but hey, aren't most? Naw, grandma', we don't have to go to church on Sunday, we can stay in and watch in our PJs on the television while we gorge ourselves on eggs and bacon! A great all-American-meal! "Give us money so we can spread God's word and buy ourselves a nice $5 million home in Florida."

And what is all this "All-American" crap? Will someone kindly define what an "All-American" is? 6 foot white guy with blue eyes and blonde hair who plays Football? Who fucks the cheerleaders? So much for the pre-marital stuff that some people claim to cherish. "Oh, yeah, I'm a man of God. Pardon me, I'm off to boff the prostitute." Okay, off on a tanget, pardon me.

Guns? Damn straight! Every-one should own an AK-47 with a 45-round bananna clip and silencer! Gotta defened your right to walk down the street without being accosted by a homeless man who wants to kill you for the change in your front left pocket! Cap that mo'fo! And make sure to have a Glock, a Berretta, and a knife as backup in case the clip jams.

And then of course there's the view of the correctional system. Whatever is wrong with someone, throw 'em in jail or kill 'em. That'll fix it! Hah! Even if it doesn't work, we won't try something new because it'll waste the taxpayers dollars! HAH!

George W. Bush drinks and drives? It's okay ... he takes "responsibility" ... a black reverend has a child out of wedlock? What a hypocrite! Take him out back and stone him!

Bill Clinton? He got a blowjob! In the Oval Office! What a man! This isn't what the President is supposed to do or be! He's setting the wrong example! Oh, and yeah, this is all about a lie he told. Yeah, it is. Why don't you stop telling cigar jokes then? Well, uh ... nevermind that the evidence obtained against Bill Clinton was done so illegally, in a case that was tossed out by a Judge! Not that "law" matters to Republicans. Did Nixon give a shit about the law? Nope. He most certainly did not when Watergate happened. And damn! Did you listen to his audiotapes? Can't even pretend it was someone else in the administration responsible, it's clear as anything.

Let me finish this by saying: Fuck the current administration. I wish them well, but I do not now -- nor will I ever -- believe they have a right to be there.

Thank you very much. Let the flames begin.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 25, 2001).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I am just curious why nothing as of it has made bigger headline than a 'drudge report'. Isn't the World Daily News a spin off of National Enquirer??

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them....

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I am just curious why nothing as of it has made bigger headline than a 'drudge report'.

A Fox News show doesn't constitute a "big headline"? Considering the channel has actually outranked CNN in the Nielsons, I'd say that's pretty darned big.

Isn't the World Daily News a spin off of National Enquirer?

No, it's actually one of the better news sources out there. You'd do well to visit it.

As for Jeff's latest burst of irrationality, how do you want to play this, Rob? Do you want to pick it apart sentence by sentence, or shall I? Shall we divide it up? Or shall we just ignore it, and trust the resedent population's intelligence, in hopes that they'll see for themselves what a raving loon the guy is?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

What have I said that is untrue, Omega?

And which Fox news show?

Speaking of "loony", you're the one who said, "screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" A statement you back up whenever discussing ... oh, just about anything.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 25, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"Fox News"

Ah yes, the same high-quality network that gives you such high class shows as 'COPS', 'Temptaion Island' & 'Who wants to marry a multi-millionaire?'. The white trash programming centre of the world commands you.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Granted, if tax money has to be used to pay for all this, people can get mad. But why go on about how "immature" the previous administration was, and all that? Why not just laugh at it? I mean, if somebody's grandmother was offended by the voicemail message, maybe the grandmother needs to be less easily offended. And that porno-hidden-in-the-printer-paper thing is rather intriguing. I wouldn't have thought of that... *L*

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Ultra: as opposed to the wonderful quality of.. what network, exactly? I mean, we all know TV's a vast wasteland. But Fox is more than its TV shows, while the other networks are not. At least I don't get my news from "The Daily Show."

Omega: while tearing the aforementioned rant into shreds would be amusing, especially beginning with the fact that the independent recounts so far show Bush still winning Florida (a fact Jeff himself admitted to when I posted it) (so how exactly can you steal something that's yours?), it would be time-consuming, and, ultimately, futile.

One can tell from the stream-of-consciousness style of the post, as well as the mixing of rants against virtually everybody who he disagrees with, as the hallmark of an unstable mental condition.

Once can see, in the continuing paltry defenses of Clinton and Jackson, the preexisting bias of the poster; "anything a Democrat does is forgiveable, including adultery and perjury, (and in case you haven't paid attention, Clinton's admitted to perjury of Congress, which remains an imeachable offense) anything a Republican does is a mortal sin," precisely the kind of hypocracy that he accuses his opponents of. This is indicative of a detatchment from reality bordering on the paranoid schizophrenic.

You can't argue sense into a deranged mind.

Oh, and he keeps getting this wrong, too. It's not "Even if it doesn't work, we won't try something new because it'll waste the taxpayers dollars!"

It's "We've shown you why it won't work, and we won't try something that'll waste taxpayer's dollars, simply because it's new. Which it isn't."

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Jon Stewart beats my canned crack cocaine. Please no more violentia towards my Jewish pastry.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

What have I said that is untrue, Omega?

Well, let's see...

Bush stole the election, I know it, you know it...
...we all know that Bush ain't supposed to be there.
Unless you're rich and white, the Republican Party doesn't care for you.

Then there's your entire "Republican Outlook" "idea", which composed most of your irrational rant. There's a reason you don't understand our beliefs: you have no idea what they are.

you're the one who said, "screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"

Is the concept of sarcasm completely alien to you?

Tim:

But why go on about how "immature" the previous administration was, and all that?

Willful destruction of public property is more than a sign of immaturity. It's a crime. Until Clinton got into office, we punished criminals. Or have you forgotten?

Rob:

Agreed. We can't convince him, due to his mental state, and he's not about to convince anyone else with such mindless ranting as that. We stand to gain nothing by arguing, nor are any losses possible due to our refraining. I suggest we dismiss Jeff as an irrelevancy, until such time as he is prepared for an actual dialogue.

I am curious, though. Liam, you were a psychiatry student for a while. Could you analyze Jeff's psychological state for us?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I am reminded of something I call the 'slogan mentality.'

If you've ever approached a group of protestors, or a single protestor, who's chanting slogans, and tried to open a dialogue with them, to discuss your and their thoughts and feelings on the subject matter, you'll find that it's almost impossible. They only chant louder and more forcefully.

This happens whether they're shouting "No Justice, no peace," or "Fur is murder," or any of a multitude of chants (left OR right-wing, I must add)

Now, I can understand the effectiveness of a repetitive slogan in getting attention. That's a given. But to chant when someone's trying to have a civilized conversation with you?

I've come up with a few theories for why this is so; though I haven't determined which, if any, are true.

1. Chanters are people who cannot hold more than a few words, or a single concept, within their cranium at a single time. Therefore, they chant to maintain their state of thought, because intelligent conversation is beyond them.

2. Chanters haven't thought about their issue, beyond their slogan. Perhaps they were told to chant what they're saying. Perhaps they simply feel good in groups. Conversation would require deeper consideration, which they are unwilling to participate in, because they are comfortable with their beliefs and do not want them challenged.

3. Chanters aren't interested in solving the problem. They're simply in it for the attention, or to belong to a cause.

4. Chanters deeply believe in their cause, possibly for reasons that seem good to them, possibly for reasons that ARE good.. but they're not socially adept enough to be able to share their thoughts with the rest of us.

5. Chanting enables one to attain an altered state of consciousness, thus enabling one to picket for hours without a rest. Much like the highly ritualized prayers of catholicism often enable the pray-er to go into a trancelike state while praying.

5A. As per above, with the added consideration that the chanting ritual may be akin to the forms of indoctrination of many cult groups.

6. Any combination of the above.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

See, I'm setting up for my insanity defense when I walk into RNC Headquarters and shoot people

I've hardly defended Jackson, I just think what he did is between himself and his family, and it's none of my business. I simply point out the similarities between Bush's DWI arrest and Jackson's current problems, and the different reactions people are having.

There's a reason you don't understand our beliefs: you have no idea what they are

Enlighten me, Oh Omega-San. It seems to me that there is a reason that the Republican Party draws very little support from minorities and homosexuals -- because the Republican Party has a very poor track record on minority rights. Perhaps that has changed recently -- I hope it has, but it will take time for that public perception to change. Hopefully, mindless rants like the above will help illustrate that the Republican Party needs a facelift

Is the concept of sarcasm completely alien to you?

I could ask the same of you. Could not the above "rant" indeed in fact be a satire of those "chanters" you and First discussed above? Could I not in fact be using sarcasm to open a dialogue on this?

Stealing the election

This is a very subjective question, and I don't want to hear any of this "electoral collage" bullshit. Just listen.

Many people do feel that George W. Bush stole the election, and it boils down to the simple fact that Al Gore won more of the popular vote. The electoral collage seems like a "cheat" way of winning -- like typing in a cheat code in a video game to ensure victory. Yes, I am well aware of what the electoral collage is and its role in our elections -- do I think it serves its purpose? No, not really. And I think if George W. Bush had won more popular but lost the electoral, you might understand how many Democrats feel. Did he steal the election? Well, legally maybe not. But it sure feels like it.

It's "We've shown you why it won't work, and we won't try something that'll waste taxpayer's dollars, simply because it's new. Which it isn't."

Er ... you have? When? You posted a bunch of numbers from studies, most of them 10 or 15 years out of date. You pointed a finger at John Downey, Jr. You haven't proved anything. I quite honestly think this plan (rehab over jail) is a worthwhile one, and could work if implemented properly. Hell, we're wasting taxpayer dollars at $20k a year, rehab is only $4k. When has the government EVER tried a program like this? An alternative is needed to the current situation.

I notice no-one replied to my "assuming 91% of the black population is stupid is a racist way of thinking" ... I guess I got that one correct, huh?

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Mmm, hate. Pure and smooth, just like mom used to make.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

With caramal topping.

Sol, do you know that the link to Chap. 3 isn't working?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

because the Republican Party has a very poor track record on minority rights.

Examples?

Many people do feel that George W. Bush stole the election

What "many people" (not so many, according to every poll in existance) feel is irrelevant. Even with the DNP cheating in every manner imaginable, Bush still won. One can not steal what is rightfully one's.

Hell, we're wasting taxpayer dollars at $20k a year, rehab is only $4k.

Yes, and rehab wouldn't work, for the reasons Fo2 explained.

An alternative is needed to the current situation.

Agreed. Propose one thats merits are greater than those of the present system, and we'll support it.

I notice no-one replied to my "assuming 91% of the black population is stupid is a racist way of thinking" ... I guess I got that one correct, huh?

No, we did not reply to it because it had nothing to do with reality, and thus we rightly ignored it. As I said, you know nothing about our beliefs.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Examples?

Well, let's see ... 91% of blacks voted for the Democratic Party. Proof enough. Unless you're insinuating that minorities are too stupid to think for themselves, that is?

What "many people" (not so many, according to every poll in existance) feel is irrelevent. Even with the DNP cheating in every manner imaginable, Bush still won. One can not steal what is rightfully one's.

You know, if you're not going to read what I wrote, please don't fucking reply to it.

Yes, and rehab wouldn't work, for the reasons Fo2 explained

John Downey, Jr. and data 16 years out of date is hardly conclusive.

Agreed. Propose one thats merits are greater than those of the present system, and we'll support it.

No you won't, because one has proposed it, and you're not supporting it. Speaking of which, are you now speaking for the Republican Party? If not, who is this "we"?

No, we did not reply to it because it had nothing to do with reality,

The reality is that 91% of the African-American voting population did NOT vote for the Republican Party, and members of the Republican Party have maintained that they did so because they have been "brainwashed"/"frightened" etcetra into voting for the Democratic Party, an idea which is, frankly, very racist.

and thus we rightly ignored it

Because its true? I don't blame you.

As I said, you know nothing about our beliefs

We? Our? You say that like you're from another planet. Hello, oh little one! Your beliefs are extreme right. Hell, even Rob doesn't share all of your beliefs -- he of ymocks several ours, including your undying faith in a work of fiction. Not to mention he's an advocate of gay rights, and aren't you rather against that? Speaking of which, didn't you recently change your opinion on the Death Penalty from against to for? How can you have a rigerous system of belief within the Republican Party if individuals are free to change certain beliefs? Give me a BREAK!

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega, 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 25, 2001).]

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Oh bleeding hell. *sighs* Here we go again.

So, Liam, how's the weather?

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Thread hijacked and on the way to Burundi.

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

We want safe passage to Iran, a nice Mercedes and many, many filthy whores! If you do not comply, we will kill our hostages. Infidels.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

I'll bring the bullets! *estatic!*

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Estatic. If static on your TV and radio aren't enough to satisfy your desire, now you can get your static electronically by way of the Internet!

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Back on track...

quote:
The George W. Bush store strikes back!
On Tuesday, delighted Dubya detractors discovered that the words "dumb motherfucker" plugged into Yahoo or Google would lead directly to the George W. Bush Store; news circulated the Net twelve times over by this morning. Today, however, visitors to The George W. Bush Store were met by this greeting: "Note: If you have arrived at this site through inappropriate references via a search engine, please be assured that we did not utilize this language in our site, our HTML, nor in our Internet promotion of this site. What happened was the result of a malicious act and we are pursuing remedies through the efforts of our staff and attorneys.

via Salon

I still have a bunch of 's left to use and four years of stupidity to use them.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 26, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Of course, one questions the intelligence of someone who searches for 'dumb motherfucker' in liu of anything actually 'not-horribly-retarded'.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

http://www.hugedisk.com/story.asp?ar_id=57

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

It is not so much that it is broken as it is missing from chapter two. It can, like so many things, be reached by going up to Function and then back down, like a dolphin. But because I am full of love for you and everyone, I have fixed it so that it can be read clear through, chapter to chapter to chapter, as God intended.

I am sorry for hijacking this thread, and wish to return it to LAX now.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

LAX is closed to all you Washingtonian type people who want to come to my city and try to be cool...

Be cool in Yakima.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Everyone's welcome to come to P-Cola Regional. Who knows, we may even raise the city's average IQ from 70 to 71!

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Oh I'm sorry, I don't drink Pepsi.

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

The only good thing about Pepsi is Dr. Pepper. Or is that a Coke product?

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

Neither actually. Schweppes. And IMO it tastes ungood. Reminds me of a cherry-flavoured penicillin I had to drink as a kid.
White, creamy bitter stuff, made me throw up every time. I cheered when they gave me pills instead. But enough about me, how do YOU do?

------------------
Here lies a toppled god,
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.

-Tleilaxu Epigram

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Psychology. Not Psychiatry There's a whole 4 letters different there.

And the weathers surprisingly sunny. I am going up to London now, and then I am going to go watch a Gundam Wing DVD that a mate of mine has bought. I am living the life that is high.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

NBC News ran a story about the vandalism. (the only major network to do so, unsurprisingly) Beyond the typewriter keys, it included desks glued shut, doors jimmied so that they locked people inside, computers broken or tapewormed, graffitti on the walls, and various obscene messages left in different modes (on copying paper, on answering machines, etc.).

Estimated damages at around $200,000.
So that's what the hissy fit cost us.

They quoted someone from the Clinton administration who said that during THEIR turnover, a couple of hard drives came up missing, but "Nothing to the scale of what's happened here."

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

So, now the question becomes:

Do you think the Clinton Administration ordered this, or was it the work of probably a few misgruntled employees? Sure it's sad, but honestly, in this day and age of government waste, $200,000 is hardly a drop in the bucket.

Honestly, I think it would be almost impossible to identify the perpetrators -- how would you do so? Fingerprints? DNA tests?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 26, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

$200,000 would keep the library I work at open for half a year. It would pay my salary for TEN years. It's hardly a drop to us.

In any case, the new administration seems disinclined to attempt a prosecution, which, while morally satisfying, would probably only end up costing us more money.

Oh, and today's paper says Greenspan's supported the Bush Tax Cut.
Ooer!

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yeah, so Greenspan says tax cut = bad for HOW long and he just changes his mind like that? Hmmm. Gotta wonder about the timing. Scheming Republicans.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Liam: Really? GREAT! GW is better on DVD. then again, everything is better on DVD.

Now if Quatre's original voice actor was male instead of female.

But I digress...

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

JK:

Well, let's see ... 91% of blacks voted for the Democratic Party. Proof enough.

Can you say "circular reasoning"? Sure, I knew you could. Now whether you know what it means or not, that's a different question altoghether.

All it is is proof that 91% of minorities BELIEVE that the GOP has a bad track record on minorities, or at least that the DNP has a significantly better one. Since this is patently not true (seeing as even you can't manufacture the evidence), the question is, "Why do they believe this?" What answer do you propose?

"Yes, and rehab wouldn't work, for the reasons Fo2 explained"

John Downey, Jr. and data 16 years out of date is hardly conclusive.

Then neither is your evidence. Human nature doesn't change over a decade and a half.

Hello, oh little one! Your beliefs are extreme right.

Yes, and they're shared by a good chunk of the country. Get used to it. You are NOT mainstream.

Not to mention he's an advocate of gay rights, and aren't you rather against that?

"Gay rights" as defined as? Give me specifics instead of buzzwords, or I can't answer you.

Speaking of which, didn't you recently change your opinion on the Death Penalty from against to for?

Not exactly. I don't like it on a personal moral basis, but I also don't think that I can try and have it outlawed based on some feeling I might have. From a purely logical standpoint, all evidence I've seen points to capital punishment being a good idea. Therefore, legislatively, I must support it.

Greenspan says tax cut = bad for HOW long and he just changes his mind like that?

Um... perhaps because the economy just went bad after eight years of Clinton, and now we absolutely must have one to avoid a recession?

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

"Gay rights" as defined as? Give me specifics instead of buzzwords, or I can't answer you."

Howabout the right to NOT be fired from your job because the boss don't like gays? Howabout the right to be able to rent/buy a house with your domestic partner without any hassle from homophobic landlords and or rental agencies? Howabout the right to just live in PEACE and not be bashed to and fro by bigoted people?

You're such the constitutional know-it-all. My and many other's 15th amendment rights have been CONSTANTLY and VICIOUSLY violated for years. Explain THAT.

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

[This message has been edited by Quatre Winner (edited January 26, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Howabout the right to NOT be fired from your job because the boss don't like gays?

That's not a right. If it's in your contract, that's a different story, but otherwise, your boss can fire you for whatever dumb reason he cares to come up with. It's his money, and he can determine what he wants to do with it.

The employer has a right to his money. YOU, OTOH, do not have a right to your employer's money, nor does anyone else.

Howabout the right to be able to rent/buy a house with your domestic partner without any hassle from homophobic landlords and or rental agencies?

Again, not a right, unless the "hastlers" are breaking some law, or a contractual obligation.

How about the right to just live in PEACE and not be bashed to and fro by bigoted people?

Please define "bashed to and fro".

My and many other's 15th amendment rights have been CONSTANTLY and VICIOUSLY violated for years.

Your right to vote has been denied because you're black?

Might want to look at that particular ammendment some time.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
That's not a right. If it's in your contract, that's a different story, but otherwise, your boss can fire you for whatever dumb reason he cares to come up with. It's his money, and he can determine what he wants to do with it.

Using that ultra right-wing philosophy I have every right to shoot the boss in the head...afterall, it is a private act between two people. I have every right to act on whatever dumb emotion I feel like without interference.

As with everything in life, there is a responsibility that comes with gathering together in communities for mutual benefit.

Ah, screw that. Back to the caves everyone!! Omega's buying!!

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

*sigh*

Here we go...

"That's not a right. If it's in your contract, that's a different story, but otherwise, your boss can fire you for whatever dumb reason he cares to come up with. It's his money, and he can determine what he wants to do with it.

The employer has a right to his money. YOU, OTOH, do not have a right to your employer's money, nor does anyone else."

What about the woman who was fired from her job of 15 years at "Cracker Barrell" for just being a lesbian? She was singled out and FIRED because the owners "felt" that her orientation ran contrary to their policy of "Christian family ideology". She had worked there for many years, everyone knew she was lesbian and had never missed a day of work and was a model employee. But yet, she was fired for no reason other than she was lesbian.

"Howabout the right to be able to rent/buy a house with your domestic partner without any hassle from homophobic landlords and or rental agencies?"

"Again, not a right, unless the "hastlers" are breaking some law, or a contractual obligation."

Ever heard of something called Equal Housing Oppurtunity laws under the US. Dept. Housing and Urban Development?

Please define "bashed to and fro".

Okay. How about hate crimes against gays and lesbians in theis country? Need a specific example? Matt Sheppard, you idiot.

My and many other's 15th amendment rights have been CONSTANTLY and VICIOUSLY violated for years.

"Your right to vote has been denied because you're black?

Might want to look at that particular ammendment some time."

That was a typo on my part. I meant Amendment 14. Read Section One and tell me that hasn't happened.

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Tell me.

If all these people doing these bad things are clearly ignoring the Constitutional Amendments, how do you think they're going to deal with a LESSER law?

They're going to ignore it, too.

Mostly because 'sexual orientation' isn't on the protected list, even though science is showing it to be far less of a "choice" than religion is.

What y'all need to do is found a religion that allows you to be gay. then you can sue based on religious discrimination... and the right wing will HAVE to support you.

Meanwhile, education about the biological origins of homosexuality is the key. Don't chant, talk. Drag out the data and clobber them with it.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

All it is proof that 91% of minorities BELIEVE that the GOP has a bad track record on minorities, or at least that the DNP has a significantly better one. Since this is patently not true (seeing as how you can't manufacture the evidence), the question is, "why do they believe this?" What answer do you propose?

Maybe they believe it because -- I dunno -- it's true. I notice that you're not sprouting evidence of times the GOP has supported minority rights. It was Democrats who signed into law the Civil Rights Act, and it was the Democracts who ordered the FBI into Mississippi to make sure all those lovely rednecks couldn't interfere with blacks getting to vote. All that and more

But the point I was originally making, is that many Republicans believe that the only reason minorities stay with the DNP is because that the Democrats "lie" and otherwise manipulate them, and I'm pointing out that that assumption is very racist -- blacks can't think for themselves? Very racist indeed.

Then neither is your evidence. Human nature doesn't change over a decade and a half

I don't think I said it did. All I said was that testing would improve, making it more accurate and -- thus! -- easier to find out whether or not the rehab is working.

Yes, and they're shared by a good chunk of the country. Get used to it. You are NOT mainstream

Er. Actually, neither are you. As far as I am to the left, you are to the right. The majority of the country is centrist moderates. And you know what? I like not being mainstream. I like being an individual with my own thoughts that I don't get fed to me by hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh or Dr. What's-Her-Name.

"Gay Rights" as defined as? Give me specifics instead of buzzwords, or I can't answer you

Well, it's not like you ever answer me anyway.

Gay rights ...

The right not to be persecuted for one's sexual preference.

The right to marry another member of the same sex

The right to equal protection under the law.

Um ... perhaps because the economy just went bad after eight years of Clinton, and now we absolutely must have one to avoid a recession?

Um. Riiiight. As I see it, the economy was great under Clinton. Employement at an all time high ... then Bush comes in, and suddenly we need a tax cut to avoid a recession? Dammit, Gore, why didn't you win? I'd rather have a strong economy over a tax cut, thank you very much!

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

QW:

What about the woman who was fired from her job of 15 years at "Cracker Barrell" for just being a lesbian?

I disagree with their policy. However, Cracker Barrel has a right to determine who they will or will not employ. Period. Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "done".

Ever heard of something called Equal Housing Oppurtunity laws under the US. Dept. Housing and Urban Development?

US Constitution trumps that. And nearly everything else, for that matter.

How about hate crimes against gays and lesbians in theis country?

The people who commit hate crimes are punished. What more do you ask?

I meant Amendment 14. Read Section One and tell me that hasn't happened.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall and State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Are your privileges or immunities abridged by a current US or state law? Have you been deprived of life, liberty, or property by the government without due process? Have you been denied equal protection by the government?

Rob:

What y'all need to do is found a religion that allows you to be gay. then you can sue based on religious discrimination... and the right wing will HAVE to support you.

Wrong, Rob. People have the right to discriminate based on religion, as well.

JK:

Maybe they believe [that the GOP has a bad track record on minority rights] because -- I dunno -- it's true.

Your evidence being? You're making an assertion. Now prove it.

It was Democrats who signed into law the Civil Rights Act

A democrat. Not "democrats". The DNP was the most voiceferous opponent of the act in congress. It was the GOP that shoved it through.

All that and more

More? Do tell.

blacks can't think for themselves? Very racist indeed.

I would agree that such a belief would be racist. However, as I know no one who holds such a belief, I fail to see your point.

The majority of the country is centrist moderates.

Every poll I've seen shows 1/3 liberal, 1/3 conservative, and 1/3 moderate, to within two percentage points.

I like being an individual with my own thoughts that I don't get fed to me by hatemongers

Then why not be one?

Gay rights ...

The right not to be persecuted for one's sexual preference.

Got that.

The right to marry another member of the same sex

Should have that.

The right to equal protection under the law.

Got that.

So... what's your point?

As I see it, the economy was great under Clinton.

Until January 2000.

Bush comes in, and suddenly we need a tax cut to avoid a recession?

How, praytell, could a man who's been president for all of five days have caused an economic downturn that started a full year ago?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

US Constitution trumps that. And nearly everything else, for that matter

Remember folks, this is a guy who thinks Highways and NASA are unconstitutional.

Wrong, Rob. People have the right to discrimate based on religion, as well

Discrimination is bad, be it of blacks, gays, or the religious. Why should people treat you different because of the color of your skin, the cross around your neck, or your sexual preference?

A democrat. Not "Democrats". The DNP was the most voiceferous opponent of the act in Congress. It was the GOP that shoved it through.

Your evidence being ... ?

Your evidence being? You're making an assertion. Now prove it.

I did. Why don't you show some times that the Republican Party has helped minorities?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 26, 2001).]

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

*The insanity that is Omega continues*

Me - "What about the woman who was fired from her job of 15 years at "Cracker Barrell" for just being a lesbian?"

O - "I disagree with their policy. However, Cracker Barrel has a right to determine who they will or will not employ. Period. Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "done"."

So, you're saying it's perfectly FINE to fire someone, despite their excellent performance on the job, is ok? Just for that, i'm gonna sack all the Christians that's in GCSA for JUST being Christian. Is that OK with you?

Me - "Ever heard of something called Equal Housing Oppurtunity laws under the US. Dept. Housing and Urban Development?"

O - "US Constitution trumps that. And nearly everything else, for that matter."

*sighs* I'm not even gonna argue this one with you. You won't get it.

Me - "How about hate crimes against gays and lesbians in this country?"

O - "The people who commit hate crimes are punished. What more do you ask?"

For justice.

Me - "I meant Amendment 14. Read Section One and tell me that hasn't happened."

O- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall and State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yes, I have. I can't marry my BF, he's not entitled to any of my benefits. If I die, my parents can waltz right on in, shove him aside and take everything from us. That's happened here in Florida. Oh and we can't adopt either because bigots like YOU say that "we recruit" or that we're not fit to be parents. Or whatever reason. There are MANY more examples I can site but i'm a busy person and if you really need to know, go to gay.com (I think that's the URL) to read up on how bigots like you have constantly fucked with us.

JK - "The right not to be persecuted for one's sexual preference."

O - "Got that."

Oh, REALLY? Then why does anti-gay crime happen?

JK - "The right to marry another member of the same sex"

O - "Should have that."

Damn right. And the second it does become legal, me and my BF are gettin' married.

JK - "The right to equal protection under the law."

"Got that."

WRONG. Don't got that.

I tire of this. Cheque, please.

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Just a couple things.

1.) When did benefits packages become a 'right?' my Gf wouldn't be covered under MY benefits package if we got married, either.

2.) Couldn't you just WILL your partner all your stuff if you croak? As long as you demonstrate sound mind, your will can't be overturned legally. And you cann will your stuff to anyone you want to. At least, not without a HEAP of hassle on your parents.

3.) Doesn't the Equal Emplotment Opportunity Commission have something to say about employers practicing religious discrimination, O?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 26, 2001).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

How many states are like Michigan, at will?
You are hired and fired at the will of the employer, unless you have a legally binding contract for employment. This also works in reverse, you can quit a job at anytime for any reason. If an employer fires someone for being a homosexual and let it be known that that was their reason, then they shouldn't have a business or be in a position to do such actions.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them....

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

God bless unions.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Hmm. Is this your first serious relationship Jordy? I'd wait a while before you jump into the emotional mindfield that is marriage. You're barely 20. Go out and have fun with your life before you settle down.

I always thought that the law stated that there must be good reason for someone to be fired. Gross incompetence is a good reason. Homosexuality is not. Posting pornography using the company computer network is a good reason. Enjoying ham and ketchup sandwiches is not. And so on.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

[This message has been edited by PsyLiam (edited January 26, 2001).]

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Actually Liam, it's not really my first serious relationship. There's been others but seriously serious? Yep.

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I always thought that the law stated that there must be good reason for someone to be fired.

Maybe in your country. Over here, we have all-overriding law that says otherwise.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"All-overiding law"? Is this law perhaps sent down from heaven, for his chosen people; the religious right of the US?

I'm just a bit confused by your choice of words. Saying "our law is different" would make sense, but "we have an all-overiding law that says otherwise, you poor, poor Brittish-type person"?

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

And that would be the constitution, right? Well nowhere in it does it say "Thou shall not add to nor take away anything in this document." You seem to want the constitution to remain static, unchanging. Well, guess what times change. People change and COUNTRIES change. And if the constitution cannot be changed to reflect the many wild changes this country has, can and WILL go though...then it ain't worth the paper it's wrote on.

And if you can't accept that, then we'll remember you with a certain wistful fondness. Much like the way we remember the Dodo bird. Which seems you have a deal in common with.

Now i'm REALLY, really done...

------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

From the EEOC Home page:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including hiring and firing.

Title VII and the ADA cover all private employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions.

So I'm afraid that the statement Omega made about an overriding law about not needing a good reason is... oh, what is it we say about such things... 'pulled out of his ass?'

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 27, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Isn't most of what he says?

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

JK: That much is true...

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

So I'm afraid that the statement Omega made about an overriding law about not needing a good reason is... oh, what is it we say about such things... 'pulled out of his ass?'

The Constitution trumps pretty well everything, Rob. You can't tell me who I can and can not hire, because it's my money, and I can thus do whatever I want with it, short of damaging something not belonging to me. Period. The quoted law is unconstitutional.

As for QW, of course the Constitution can change to adapt to a changing society. Thing is, it hasn't changed in the way you suggest. The constitution is the highest law of this country, and if you don't like it, either deal with it, propose an ammendment, or move to France. Frankly, I don't care which.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Gotta watch that slippery logic, pal. You're heading to where even most of the superconstitutionalists won't go. That's an EXTREMELY narrow view of the 10th Amendment.

Do you really think any business that wanted to be successful could survive with a discriminatory outlook like that for more than, say, 30 seconds? It's not a viable business policy, and hasn't been for nearly 40 years.

Incidentally, the Constitution doesn't 'override' it. It simply doesn't mention it. (The Extremely Narrow view of Amendment 10 notwithstanding.) Although the EEOC MAY be considered come under the ability of the government, under the Constitution, to regulate commerce. certainly a lot more execrable laws have been passed that way, rather than the esentially benign EEOC.

It's a tricky thing, when you start saying that whatever isn't mentioned under the overriding law is permitted. If we take the words and "commandments" of Jesus (which number 2) as the 'overriding' voice of God, we soon see that virtually everything he didn't mention (which is a LOT) would be permitted.

Falling back on the OT prohibitions, say, against homosexuality, would fall outside the scope of the overriding laws.

Remember, the Constitution and most of the Amendments give Congress the right to create laws to see that the Amendments are enforced. HOW they do that is up to Congress.

If there was any real Constitutionality question, there have been numerous times, no doubt, when the question came before a more conservative Supreme Court since 1964. If it wasn't struck down then..

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 27, 2001).]

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :

quote:
The quoted law is unconstitutional.

Five years ago, my father was fired. He was one of many who were fired. All were over 50.

They actively pursued a case with the EEOC citing discrimination.

So, you're saying that this action is unconstitutional?

Technically I am mentally retarded. I have a learning disability. I have brain damage.

If I was fired or failed to be hired because my employer discovered this, are you saying that under the Constitution, I would have no rights whatsoever to whack the employer upside the head?

Omega, you've said some really stupid shit before, but that absolutely tops it all.

------------------
"Babies are squirmy, ugly, dirty, smelly, and noisy. They'd offend all five of my senses if I had any reason to lick one..."
-- TSN, 2001.01.11 23:27, PhoenixChat

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

If you are in an 'at will' state the business owners/managers don't have to make up a good excuse, just a so-so one. I've seen people fired for going in to work while sick, because they could have everyone else sick. That was the 'reason' anyway. The truth was, he was determined, nothing definite, to be a homosexual. The gut feeling of the supervisor.
He didn't unemployment, they determination was that he had caused a health risk at work, from a common cold.

More often than not I have seen the Government, in the form of the Michigan Unemploymeny Agency, screw people over like this. Since the supervisor didn't let on about why he fire the guy for several years there was nothing the guy could do.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them....

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

"As for QW, of course the Constitution can change to adapt to a changing society. Thing is, it hasn't changed in the way you suggest. The constitution is the highest law of this country, and if you don't like it, either deal with it, propose an ammendment, or move to France. Frankly, I don't care which."

Fine. I wouldn't want to spend one minute more in this country after you and your christian-fascist looneies turn this country into a police state. So, as the humans like to say, UP YOURS! *LOL* (Quote attributed by G'Kar)

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

We had a couple of gay people at the last place I worked. They were the best dressers, but absolutly appalling at bowling.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

Really? You'd think they'd be quite competent at handling balls.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Rob:

Do you really think any business that wanted to be successful could survive with a discriminatory outlook like that for more than, say, 30 seconds?

No, of course not. It's an incredibly stupid thing to do, but again, it's my money, and I can do stupid things with it if I want.

That's an EXTREMELY narrow view of the 10th Amendment.

Extremely narrow? It says that all powers not granted to the federal government are forbidden it. How much room for interpretation is there?

Incidentally, the Constitution doesn't 'override' it. It simply doesn't mention it.

Exactly my point. If the Constitution doesn't mention it, the federal government can't do it. Period.

Although the EEOC MAY be considered come under the ability of the government, under the Constitution, to regulate commerce.

INTER-STATE commerce.

If there was any real Constitutionality question, there have been numerous times, no doubt, when the question came before a more conservative Supreme Court since 1964.

Oh, yes, the Supreme Court is ALWAYS right. Just like when they wrote new law with Roe v. Wade, or in Dred Scott, or...

Charles:

Five years ago, my father was fired. He was one of many who were fired. All were over 50.
They actively pursued a case with the EEOC citing discrimination.
So, you're saying that this action is unconstitutional?

He can sue as he pleases. If he wins, the decision will be incorrect, as it will be based on an unconstitutional law. Assuming, of course, that there wasn't a clause in his contract saying otherwise. Yes, I'm sorry your father got fired, and based on the little information I have on the situation, I'd say the company did a stupid thing. But they have the right to do what they did.

If I was fired or failed to be hired because my employer discovered this, are you saying that under the Constitution, I would have no rights whatsoever to whack the employer upside the head?

Yes, I am. You also, however, have the right to make a large public fuss about it, and thus destroy the company. You shouldn't go running to the federal government every time you have a problem. There's always a better solution.

QW:

I wouldn't want to spend one minute more in this country after you and your christian-fascist looneies turn this country into a police state.

Since this statement has no relevence to my stated beliefs, I must assume you intended to quote someone else, and respond to them.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited January 27, 2001).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I would suggest that any argument about labor laws can not be made without looking at US Code which are laws based on interpretation of the Constitution. Titles and codes remain Constitutional and the law of the land until they are struck down by the Court.

And if you think that the Constitution is not subject to interpretation or that the Court is not in the business of doing so, then you seemed to have missed the last election.
www.findlaw.com is your firend.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

I wouldn't want to spend one minute more in this country after you and your christian-fascist looneies turn this country into a police state.

"Since this statement has no relevence to my stated beliefs, I must assume you intended to quote someone else, and respond to them."

Oh it MOST certainly does. Don't like being called out for what you REALLY are huh?

What a crybaby.

*leaves for the duration of this thread*

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

QW:

Exactly how do you think you know my beliefs better than I do? And you people accuse ME of being arrogant? Give me a break.

Jay:

Titles and codes remain Constitutional and the law of the land until they are struck down by the Court.

And would this apply to segregation laws in the South decades ago? Slavery?

An unjust law is no law.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Please stop doing that Jordan. It's sinking to the level of playground name-calling. Argue with him all you want, but don't post the equivelent of:

"I don't agree with you, you smelly piece of smellyness."

"What are you talking about?"

"Ah! You know I'm talking to you! You've admitted you're smelly! Smellyhead!"

It's just a teensy-weensy bit childish.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

In all this childlike banter, a fabulous (used on purpose) ball-handling joke of mine was missed.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I saw it. Very nice useage there, UM. Very "pun"-iffic.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

William Lloyd Garrsion would be so proud.

Slavery is in the Constitution isn't it. Slavery was amended out of existence and segreation met challenge with the Civil Rights Act.

What is the point?

You neglect to take into account US Code, which in the American system acts as the means of the federal legislature to interpret the Constitution. It is up to the Court to strike down legislation that it interprets as unconstitutional.

However, you can't be taken seriously in your legal or Constitutional arguments when you neglect US Code and when you neglect the fact that the Constitution is an interpretative document.

And peaceful means of protest are open for you to act on if you believe something wrong with current law.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

And my point is that NO possible interpretation of the Constitution can allow for the laws in question. Unless you're going to say that what's written there isn't, in fact, the law of the land, I frankly don't give a darn what the legislature and the courts do. I will follow the law of the land in order of precidence, and in accordance with my pre-existing beliefs.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

"And over here we have the Dodo bird..."

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

BUT ... seriously ...

Jay: Titles and codes remain Constitutional and the law of the land until they are struck down by the Court.

Yep.

Omega: And would this apply to segregation laws in the South decades ago? Slavery?

Yep. Both were Constitutional until ruled un-Constitutional.

Jay: Slavery is in the Constitution isn't it. Slavery was amended out of existance and segregation met challenge with the Civil Rights Act

Yep.

Jay: You neglect to take into account US Code, which in the American system acts as the means of the federal legislature to interpret the Constitution. It is up to the Court to strike down legislation that it interprets as unconstitutional.

Damn skippy.

Omega: And my point is that NO possible interpretation of the Constitution can allow for the laws in question

This from a person who thinks NASA in un-Constitutional? Omega, if the Constitution is law, then what it says is law until there is an ammendment or struck down as Unconstitutional. In this case, slavery and segregation WERE Constitutional until the Court ruled them un-Constitutional.

Unless you're going to say that what's written there isn't, in fact, the law of the land,

It is infact the law of the land. Until ammended or ruled unconstitutional.

I frankly don't give a darn what the legislature and the courts do

See, I call that ignorance. Clinging to the past. Etcetra etcetra.

I will follow the law of the land in order of precidence

Which is set by who? Just out of my own curiousity.

and in accordance with my pre-existing beliefs

Right. NASA and Highways: illegal! Pre-marital sex evil! Bible good, OT bad. Yeeeesh.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

[Precidence] which is set by who?

The popular vote that instituted the Constitution.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I would say to that Omega that you are about as wrong on this issue as you are on most others you argue about.

Read some Constitutional law and get back to me, otherwise you sound uninformed and just plain not knowledgeable about the law and how it works.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 29, 2001).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"The popular vote that instituted the Constitution."

The what now?

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yeah, we all know how important the popular vote isn't, don't we?

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

The countdown has started....

Bush Countdown

Now you too can know how many days we've got left with un-Curious George as president.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 30, 2001).]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

***well, that made now sense***
I am going to shut up for a bit now.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them....

[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited January 30, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Tell me, you people who think that the law is the law until it's changed, regardless of whether the Constitution says otherwise: What if someone passed a law that eliminated all courts, and turned the country into a literal dictatorship. Would THAT be the law?

We have a Constitution for a reason.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Only if the legal process for making such a law was followed. If this type of thing were to be started, in or out of the existing legal process I can think of a few associates of mine from the military that might be a bit perturbed by it, and would, most likely hand things.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them....

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

I'm simply stating that the electoral college is more important in determining the president than the popular vote. Hence, the popular vote isn't important. Would you disagree with this? Then shut the fuck up. Thank you.

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

A law that is passed to get rid of the courts would be struck down as unconstitutional, since the constitution provides for the Supreme Court. It is paradoxial.

Jeff: That summary was well spoken. I completetly agree with the answers given.

I may not like that slavery and segregation was once allowed by law. I may not like the fact that abortion is allowed by law. However that does not change the fact that a law is a law until otherwise repealed.(normally by means of the United States Supreme Court) This is best exampled with the Prohibition amendment.

------------------
Though it will go without saying ten minutes into these preceedings, View Askew would like to state that this film is - from start to finish - a work of comedic fantasy, not to be taken seriously. To insist that any of what follows is insensitive or inflammatory is to miss our intentions and pass undue judgement, and passing judgement is reserved for God and God alone (this goes for you film critics too...) Just Kidding
So please, before you think about hurting someone over this trifle of a film, remember God has a sense of humor. Just look at the platypus. Thank you and enjoy the show.
P.S. We sincerely apologize to all platypus enthusiasts out there who are offended by that thoughtless comment about the platypus. We at View Askew respect the noble platypus and it is not our intention to slight these stupid creatures in any way. Thank you and enjoy the show.

-View Askew disclaimer "DOGMA"

Saiyanman Benjita's Dragonball Page

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

A law that is passed to get rid of the courts would be struck down as unconstitutional, since the constitution provides for the Supreme Court.

So thus the Constitution would be the higher law? Thank you.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Gotta get Congress to 'make it so', and does anybody imagine that such a thing happening, in this country anyway?
Omega, can you come up with a better example?

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

Yes, the constitution is the be-all end-all of United States Law. Any law that is passed must adhere to it, elsewise it can (and most likely will) be struck down by the Supreme Court.

US Codes, however, are law, therefore they must be followed. However they fall under the Constitution, which governs the making of those laws. Such US Codes include the hiring and handling of employees. There is a code that says that you may not discriminate because of race, sex, color, sexual orientation, belief, or handicap.

However, the US Constitution is not as interpretive as some may think. Many cases have been won and lost because of the actual wording of the Constitution.

-View Askew disclaimer "DOGMA"

Saiyanman Benjita's Dragonball Page

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Also, it's important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court doesn't go around looking through the various laws of the land and deciding if they're legal or not. A case has to be brought to the Supreme Court for the Supreme Court to rule on it ...

It's also important to note that the Supreme Court doesn't always rule correctly. Or, at least, in the terms as we think of it today. Look at Dred Scott.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Omega: "The popular vote that instituted the Constitution."

Except that there wasn't a popular vote. The State Legislatures voted to ratify the Constitution, not the people. Virginia was one of the very close votes, 89 to 79. (We know there were more people than that in Virginia at the time.

So does that make the Constitution... unconstitutional?

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Hmmm. Let's sue. I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Also, it's important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court doesn't go around looking through the various laws of the land and deciding if they're legal or not.

Unless, of course, it's the Supreme Court of Florida.

So does that make the Constitution... unconstitutional?

No, since the pre-existing law (Articles of Confederation) allowed for it, once all thirteen states ratified it. 'Course, the Constitution only supposedly needed nine, but it's a little late to squabble about that.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I don't know how state Supreme Courts are set up, but I'd imagine they're done on a state level in tune with individual state constitutions, so I can't speak for the legality of the actions of the Fl. Supreme Court.

I think First was being facetious.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Do you know that, apparently, there are some countries out there (probably socialist nazi supporters), that don't even have a US constitution? I didn't believe it at first either, but it's true! How on Earth do they manage?

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

You bet we have a Constitution for a reason Omega.

And we have a Supreme Court for a reason.

And a Legislative Branch for a reason.

And we have federal laws for a reason.

It's what American's like to refer to as the Federal System of jurisprudence. And as each branch of the federal government interprets the living Constitution, then you get to see that we have checks and balances for a reason.

You keep chasing your tail in circular arguments about 'higher law' and the Constitution without taking into account that slavery was the highest law. William Lloyd Garrsion appealed to a higher court than the supreme Court in his opposition. And yet it wasn't really until 1954 that the rights of the citizen granted under the Constitution really got going.

In the end its about interpretation. That you have an opinion about how the Constitution is to be interpreted is just great. You, Omega, still haven't a clue about how Constitutional Law works.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

each branch of the federal government interprets the living Constitution

Let me make this perfectly clear: THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT. If we have a living constitution in this country, we need to kill it. Now.

There is one way, and exactly one way, that the Constitution can be changed, and that's extremely rare. Other than that, the Constitution is a fixed document, with a fixed meaning. If the rules constantly change, then they aren't rules, and there is no reason for their existance.

Let's play a game of poker some time, Jay. We'll play with living rules. Sometimes, my two pair will beat your full house.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

In that the document is open to interpretation it is 'living' in a sense. Not in a literal meaning.

Your "fixed meaninging" argument is specious.

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

People,

Don't even try to debate with this person. He's obviously got his head shoved so far up his wazoo that it doesn't matter.

Thus begins my apathetic political state.

NOTHING MATTERS.

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Omega: As long as you declare ahead of time that two pair beat a full house, and make sure everyone has ample opportunity to make themselves aware of it before playing, what's wrong w/ that?

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

That's not "living" rules.

"Living" rules would be a bit more like playing Kirk's Iotian version of fizzbin.

"This rule applies, unless its Tuesday, in which case THIS rule applies, except when it's dark..." I'll explain the rules as we go along.

A better analogy, however, would be to liken the concept of a 'living document' to a game of "Calvinball," where Calvin makes up the rules as he goes along, just to guarantee he wins.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited January 31, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Quatre,

But that's what makes a debate with Omega so much fun!

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

*with moderator hat on*

Play nice.

*without moderator hat on*

Food for thought: Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand have constitutions that don't play anywhere close to the same role in the democratic process as the United States and its own bloathed mass of Neo-Classical/Pre-Romantic English. Hell, Britain pretty much doesn't have one at all.

More food for thought: The aforementioned countries have yet to spontaneously combust.

Further food for thought: The reverance Americans extend towards their constitution, might be, shall we say, a bit misguided.

------------------
"People have the right to discriminate based on religion."
"There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution"
-Omega, Jan 26 and 30, respectively

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Which is what I said. Only I was funnier.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

I know, Liam, but that was a whole dozen posts ago, and we all know Omega's attention span when it comes to issues such as this

------------------
"People have the right to discriminate based on religion."
"There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution"
-Omega, Jan 26 and 30, respectively

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

And his tendancy to not get the point/joke.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

Which is almost all the time.

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Tom: Way to "play nice". :-)

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Jeff Kardde (Member # 411) on :

Gee. Interesting turn of events ... turns out the stories of vandalism in the White House were ... lies.

Imagine that.

The GSA (General Services Admin) reported that the only damage to the White House was the normal type you would expect after a "long term occupancy."

The White House backed off the story pretty quickly, too, if you'll notice. And while they're not saying it didn't happen, they're not talking about it at all -- even when presented with the GSA report.

Where is the proof of the vandalism? There is none. Looks like some Republican pranksters pulled a fast one on the press.

Despite the "extent" of the alleged vandalism ... no one took photos.

No one has been willing to speak on the record about the vandalism. Why? Maybe, because liers prefer to remain unknown.

Tsk-tsk-tsk ...

[ June 03, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff Kardde ]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

You know, of course, that the WH finally DID release a report of the vandalism. It wasn't as extensive as previously reported, but damage estimates DO tend to fluctuate when the press gets ahold of them.

6 answering machines with obscene messages,
several phone lines cut
several lines redirected to useless numbers
100 inoperable keyboards
some minor grafitti.

Posted by Jeff Kardde (Member # 411) on :

quote:
6 answering machines with obscene messages,

And what kind of obscene messages WERE these? I mean, if we're going by John Ashcroft's definition, it could be some dude saying, "wow, I'm proud of...[insert word]"

quote:
several lines redirected to useless numbers

Yes, because it is absolutely 100% impossible that the numbers the lines were orginally directed to were changed or deleted after the change of administration? Right?

quote:
100 inoperable keyboards

Yes, because we all know that nothing breaks after extended, long term use. Face it: they wore out.

quote:
some minor grafitti.

Like ... ?

And, what's your source for this?

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

Well, I've been moderately keeping up with the news, and it appears that there are three different stories concerning the alleged vandalism to the White House and associated property.

First, the GAO has released a report that the evidence does not match with the information provided. As a sidenote, Senator Barr is considering a hearing into what is going on since there are allegations that Bush staff members may not have handed over pertinent paperwork, etc., to the GAO for it to conduct a proper investigation.

Second, there a report from another agency that was released about the same time. I cannot for certain remember the name of the agenct, but it was an internal White House office that supervises maintenance and facilities for that building. There report said they found nothing aside from normal wear and tear. As a side note here, this agency/office/whatever does not normally look into stuff as in-depth as phone lines and electronics as those problems are normally outsourced for repair and maintenance.

Third, the White House is saying that there was vandalism done. I believe First of Two has a list earlier of what the Bush administration found. As a sidenote to this one, Ari Fleischer, spokesman for the White House, said that this information was gathered from the recollections of some Bush staff members and not from original paperwork or incident reports filed during move-in.

As for me, the jury is still out on this verdict.

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Cropped to keep the rapid web cockroaches in check. The continuation is here

[ June 06, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]