quote:Firefighters vote to boycott Bush Sept. 11 tribute
By Steve Friess, Reuters
LAS VEGAS (Reuters) - The International Association of Fire Fighters voted unanimously on Wednesday to boycott a national tribute to firefighters who died on Sept. 11, in an angry response to U.S. President George Bush's rejection of a bill that included $340 million to fund fire departments.
Bush is expected to speak at the Oct. 6 ceremony in Washington D.C., where the National Fallen Fire Fighters Foundation is hosting its annual tribute to those who died in the line of duty during the prior year.
The ceremony will honor 343 firefighters who died responding to the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, as well as about 100 others who also died in the year.
The IAFF, the umbrella organization for the nation's professional firefighter unions, is enraged by the president's rejection of a $5.1 billion appropriations bill that included $150 million for equipment and training grants requested by some of the nation's 18,000 fire departments.
It also include $100 million to improve the communications systems for firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel as well as $90 million for long-term health monitoring of emergency workers at the Ground Zero site where New York's World Trade Center towers once stood.
Firefighters and survivors will be urged to skip the Oct. 6 event in protest, said R. Michael Mohler of the Virginia Professional Fire Fighters Local 774.
Mohler made the boycott motion before about 2,000 union leaders convening in Las Vegas for the IAFF's first national conference since Sept. 11.
"The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity," Mohler said. "We will work actively to not grant him another photo op with us."
But what was the rider attached to the bill? It doesn't seem to me these days that bills themselvves are vetoed as much as th extraneously stupid riders that are tacked onto them, & then the only way to cancel out stupid riders is to veto the entire bill.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I idea it seems is that this was an emergency spending bill and apparently both the Congress and the Executive must agree that there is an emergency use for the funds in order for them to be spent.
It seems Bush has the ability as Executive, even after the bill has been passed and apparently signed, to say that use of the funds is not an emergency and he will not spend them.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Damn. When I saw the thread title I had this mental image of a bunch of firemen seeing Bush on fire but just shrugging and saying "Heck with it, let'im burn." 8)
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: It seems Bush has the ability as Executive, even after the bill has been passed and apparently signed, to say that use of the funds is not an emergency and he will not spend them.
the president has the ability to veto any bill that comes before him, you know. if congress wants to, they can overrule him with the proper vote. like Shik, i would also like to see what kind of pork was attached to the bill. i'm sure there was something.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
The bill was signed. As such it is passed the time for a presidential veto.
Among the provisions of the bill:
-$90 million for long-term health monitoring of emergency workers at Ground Zero.
-$200 million for AIDS prevention
-$250 million that was to be divided between security aid for Israel and disaster assistance for Palestinians.
-$100 million to improve the communications systems of firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel nationwide. Radio problems hindered rescue workers' response to the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 because the various agencies' radios could not communicate with each other.
-$39 million to improve and increase inspections of the 6 million cargo containers entering the country each year.
-$82 million to enhance the FBI's counterterrorism technology.
-$165 million to strengthen security around food and water supplies.
-$400 million for election reform.
-$50 million for flood prevention.
-$98 million for emergency highway repairs in 18 states, including repair of the Interstate 40 bridge recently destroyed in Oklahoma.
-$17.9 million for Wisconsin's effort to combat chronic wasting disease.
Politically, very, very stupid.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: -$250 million that was to be divided between security aid for Israel and disaster assistance for Palestinians.
-$400 million for election reform.
-$50 million for flood prevention.
-$17.9 million for Wisconsin's effort to combat chronic wasting disease.
-$275 million for veterans' medical care.
Any or all of these are your potential porkers. Some, like the veteran medical care & the flood prevention, are minor. Election reform & Israelo-Palestinian aids are major hot buttons. "Chronic wasting disease" sounds like what happens when the fratboys don't finish the roaches.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, um... Did they retract the line-item veto power, or what?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Surely it would require a constitutional amendment to give the president that power?
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I think that's what California did to include the line-item veto with other powers that the governor has.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Didn't they somehow give the president that power back when Clinton was in office? I remember it being on the news and such...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Ah. Nevermind. Congress did give him the power, but, since they didn't do it via an amendment, the Supreme Court took it away a couple years later.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
congress couldn't have made it an amendment, anyway.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Congress did not give the executive a line item veto. This bill was already signed into law by the president in total.
Apparently now he has the discretion to declare the spending not to be "emergency" as the bill said. In doing so he does not have to spend the money.
According the N.Y. Times:
quote:To resolve a conflict between the administration and Congress over spending levels, lawmakers made a list of $5.1 billion in projects contingent on Mr. Bush's declaring them emergency spending in 30 days.
To maintain pressure, Congress said that Mr. Bush would have to accept all or none of the projects, that he could not pick and choose among ones he supported and those he did not.
Other areas of spending according to the article included:
quote:$600 million for the National Guard and Reserves, $273 million for the Coast Guard, $165 million for the F.B.I., $25 million to equip military aircraft with radios to communicate with civilian jets and $50 million for equipment to ensure that emergency agencies can communicate, a problem on Sept. 11
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
The firefighters have apparently changed their minds:
quote:August 16, 2002 Firefighters Won't Boycott Memorial By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:50 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The International Association of Fire Fighters plans to challenge President Bush's decision to withhold money that would help fire departments, but will not boycott the annual memorial service for fallen firefighters, the union's president said Friday.
``We would never ever boycott any of the memorials that are going to honor my members,'' general president Harold Schaitberger said by phone after the union convention adjourned Friday. ``There is nothing this union will do to bring any kind of dishonor or disrespect to the events that are going to be a celebration of their service and sacrifice.''
The union voted during its Las Vegas assembly to ask Schaitberger to formally protest Bush's decision to withhold $5.1 billion in anti-terrorism funds. The options included boycotting the annual service in memory of fallen firefighters, scheduled for Oct. 6 in Washington. Bush has been invited to speak at the event.
Schaitberger rejected any thoughts of staying away from the ceremony. In New York, 343 firefighters lost their lives when terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center Sept. 11.
Bush said Friday he had a strong commitment to firefighters, but needed to cut federal spending.
``I chose not to spend the $5 billion because, one, we didn't need to and, two, it is important for this country to be fiscally disciplined as our economy begins to recover,'' Bush said.
The withheld funds included $100 million for improvements to communications systems for firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel. Rescue workers' efforts at the World Trade Center were hindered because the agencies' radios could not communicate with each other.
Bush also blocked $90 million for long-term health monitoring of emergency workers at Ground Zero and $150 million for equipment and training grants to fire departments.
Schaitberger said the union planned to push Congress to include the money in the spending bills for the federal fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
He said he planned to write a letter of protest to Bush, and would return the videotaped message Bush sent to the firefighters. ``We will find the appropriate venue to vent our anger and show our protest,'' Schaitberger said.
The union, which represents 255,000 firefighters, has given almost $2 million to federal candidates since Jan. 1, 1999, with more than 80 percent going to Democrats.
Just what you need. Indecisive firefighters.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
hey, as long as they don't boycott me if i ever catch on fire, they can be as indecisive as they want to be.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
This is an important lesson on political infighting you should all be paying attention to.
Both parties have been known to do this, although it sppears that the Dems are more adept and skillful at it.
Step 1. Create (or usurp) a good and useful bill idea.
Step 2. Drum up public support for said bill.
Step 3. Attach gobs of pork and irrelevant riders to bill.
Step 4. Neglect to inform general public of riders. Make sure friends in Press don't either.
Step 5a. If bill is vetoed for excessive pork spending, smear President for not signing bill.
Step 5b. If bill is signed, smear President for 'recklessly' increasing spending.
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
5c. If Pretzel is passed, congratulate president for digestion prowess!
HAR! I made fun of the president! I have no idea how the American government works.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I am envious.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Yeah, it's the Democrats fault. Considering that they control the House where these bills start, they must be bad, bad people. Oh, wait, they don't control the House.
And I'm sure that this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Bush wanting to look "engaged" with the economy after the much criticized, pre-lunch, photo-op economic meeting at Waco. Considering the fact that Bush signed the bill in the first place, I'm sure there is absolutely no politics being played by the White House.
quote: It's Congress's fault: "What [the firefighters] ought to be upset about is the fact that Congress tried to tie my hands. They said, 'You've got to spend $5 billion or none of the $5 billion.'" The clear sense of that remark is that the president would have supported the money for firefighters. But Congress forced his hand by lumping it in with a lot of other spending.
Unfortunately, this contradicts what the president said a mere three days ago. Back on Tuesday the president said that along with axing the $5.1 billion he would ask Congress to send him another bill to reinstate funds for "truly pressing needs and priorities" which he said were $200 million for AIDS prevention and $250 million to be divided between aid for Israel and aid for the Palestinians. Those were the priorities the president did want to spend on. The money for firemen wasn't one of them.
The whole budget cut stunt was just a snap decision to save the Economic Forum. They hadn't thought it through. Now they're in damage control. The president has to make stuff up. It's not a pretty picture.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
He's complaining that his assumptions contradict each other?
Considering that they control the House where these bills start
And riders can't be attached elsewhere?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Hey Jay... did you notice that if you add up everything in that list of cut funding, it only comes to 1.9 billion dollars?
Where did the other 3.8 billion dollars go?
I smell bacon...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
A couple of less-biased articles on the subject lead to more clarity.
1. it's a 5.1 billion "contingency" bill in an overall 28.9 billion dollar spending bill. Was the contingency met?
quote:Appropriators sought to force the administration's hand on the package, which is mostly made up of money that Bush did not request, by designating it an "all or nothing" item.
The designation forces the White House to either declare the entire $5.1 billion an emergency need and release all the money or to reject the entire package outright and kill projects popular with members of Congress, including leading Republicans.
So he killed some spending for popular projects in his party in order to prevent greater waste.
We used to call that principled behavior.
quote:During the long debate on the supplemental, the administration complained that Congress was trying to appropriate money that could not be spent by the end of the 2002 fiscal year and that many agencies still had money left from the $40 billion that Congress appropriated on an emergency basis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
True and true. some 40% of the OLD 'emergency funds' bill ramains unspent.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
seems that most people are too wrapped up in bashing bush to really care about the specifics of the actual issues.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
From your article:
quote:The designation forces the White House to either declare the entire $5.1 billion an emergency need and release all the money or to reject the entire package outright and kill projects popular with members of Congress, including leading Republicans.
Booo Democrats!!
See, that's the problem with your initial argument, you couldn't just say 'Congress did this' or 'Congress did that'. Nooooooooooo, it's them Demecrats. Cause only Demecrats do that.
And speaking of other principled behavior, I've yet to see too much of that from the present person in the White House. Simply put, principled behavior would have had him veto the bill in the first place. Rather, he waited and killed the bill to be engaged. Or, really to apprear to be engaged. Cause even though he isn't, he has to look like he is.
Hence the meeting over brunch in Waco.
This administration has two things on its mind: tax cut for the rich (its domestic policy) and invading Iraq (its foreign policy). Other than that it is overwhelmed, unfocused and reaching.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Hmm... help the economy on one hand; protect the country/world by removing a major threat, while simultaneously liberating several million people on the other hand.
Problem?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Liberating, that's a good one. Cracked the dusty shell of my too-still face, that did.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I'm pissing my pants with excitement here. Let us see...
Dubya'd like that, wouldn't he? Deposing governments of independent (!) nations -- oh, I forgot, villain states (beautiful propaganda by the way) -- without violating international law. Pesky litigation. Declarations of war are the only legal means he has to accomplish this. Way to create a precedent, eh?
But, W isn't prepared to formally declare war on any sovereign power. He'd have to justify his actions in front of those pesky tribunals. Can anyone say "Afghanistan"? This is exactly the precedent Dubya has proactively steered the United States towards.
The real danger to our GOD-GIVEN CIVIL LIBERTIES doesn't come from second and third world countries conveniently labelled as the biggest threat global order has ever faced, but from one superpower in particular which unilaterally withdraws itself from international treaties and instigates armed conflicts without legitimate mandate, yet continuously claims the moral high ground.
Very interesting choice of words, Omega.
[/tangent]
I have more to say on this subject... just not here.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
the average Afghan seems to be a hell of a lot happier now. to me, that matters a hell of a lot more than unilaterally withdrawing from treaties, many of which were a bad idea to begin with. you also seem to be conveniently forgetting that the UK also sent troops to Afghanistan. not quite so unilateral when its an international effort, bozo. and you are forgetting that the US President has fairly wide ranging powers now a days when it comes to the miltary. and you forgot that he had approval from the American people and congress. you also seem to have forgotten that a formal war couldn't be declared since the Taliban were not recognized as a sovereign nation by the US. and you forgot that Al Qaida, which was under the aegis of a non sovereign "government", WAS and IS a very real threat to the United States. you also seem to have forgotten that no reductions in freedoms have actually happened despite irrational fears about the goverment. you also seem to have forgotten that the Afghani people were enslaved by a group they didn't want. you seem to have forgotten that toppling the Taliban and capturing and killing Al Qaida was the right thing to do. did i also mention that you forgot that it was an International effort and that no Sovereign Nation was attacked since the Taliban was not a legitimate government?
you seem to have forgotten all the important things. no surprise, there.
p.s. there is no such thing as god-given civil liberties since god is fake.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'm always sooo delighted when I see this "no legitimate government" card pulled from the big brassy uniform sleeve. It brings up memories of the merry thirties when Stalin didn't fight any offensive wars against sovereign nations. After all, the nations, as represented by the local communist cells, were solid allies of Stalin's regime, and had invited those troops for a friendly visit. It was just an inconsequential bunch of "elected" "officials" of the "government" sitting in the "parliamentary building" in the "capital" who insisted otherwise...
To be sure, I'm happy to see the Taleban gone. Next in line should logically be the Kurds, a bunch of PKK terrorists and their supporters with proven Qaeda connections who should be carpet-bombed to extinction for the sake of world peace. Good thing that president Hussein is siding with the rest of the free world on this.
(What this has to do with indecisive firemen is beyond my powers of reasoning, but I still suggest holding fire on Iraq until mid-October. That should get my old school pal safely back from his honeymoon there...)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Honeymoon to Iraq. How nice.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:the average Afghan seems to be a hell of a lot happier now. to me, that matters a hell of a lot more than unilaterally withdrawing from treaties, many of which were a bad idea to begin with.
You're a shining beacon of pure altruism. With that kind of attitude, who needs foreign politics?
quote:you also seem to be conveniently forgetting that the UK also sent troops to Afghanistan. not quite so unilateral when its an international effort, bozo.
Ad hominem #1.
Now *IF* you had actually bothered to read my post, you'd know that I brought up Afghanistan as an example of the general direction non-domestic policy is headed in, and you wouldn't be putting your usual steaming piles of verbal excrement in my mouth.
quote:and you are forgetting that the US President has fairly wide ranging powers now a days when it comes to the miltary.
... Making it much easier for potential whackjobs to abuse that power, especially when, say, large corporations with vast interests abroad are calling their shots.
quote:and you forgot that he had approval from the American people and congress.
Approving of an action does not grant it legal status outside US borders.
quote:you also seem to have forgotten that a formal war couldn't be declared since the Taliban were not recognized as a sovereign nation by the US.
Oh, what a fucking crock. Attacking autonomous states when it suits our purpose == Bad Thing. Attacking recognised regimes (yes, the Taliban were exactly that) == Bad Thing. Still, I'd like to hear personally from the average Afghan if he/she is indeed soooooo much better off as you claim, what with the NA running the place pretty much the same way the Taliban did.
quote:and you forgot that Al Qaida, which was under the aegis of a non sovereign "government", WAS and IS a very real threat to the United States.
Did I? Quote the relevant part of my post.
Isn't it ironic, though, that A-Q, which was amongst other things given financial support by the CIA during the titanic struggle with the forces of the Evil Empire (Reaganspeak kicks ass), has unanimously decided to turn its sights on the US, infuriated by its presence and activities in the middle east? Too bad one can only appreciate this incongruity if one dares to look in the mirror.
quote:you also seem to have forgotten that no reductions in freedoms have actually happened despite irrational fears about the goverment.
Man, this is deep. Many of us here, including me, have tried to convince Omega and First that their fears about Big Brother were irrational, yet now I find myself on the other side of the fence. No reductions in freedom, eh? I seem to recall a little plan called TIPS being floated quite recently. It got shot down before it surfaced, of course, but the very fact it floated at all shows the damage 9/11 has left in its wake, and TIPS is by far not the only disturbing element of the sociopolitical aftermath. But if you prefer living in a police state, who am I to argue?
quote:you also seem to have forgotten that the Afghani people were enslaved by a group they didn't want.
And we know what's best for them, don't we? Presumptious and arrogant.
quote:you seem to have forgotten that toppling the Taliban and capturing and killing Al Qaida was the right thing to do.
Have I? Quote the relevant part of my post.
quote:did i also mention that you forgot that it was an International effort and that no Sovereign Nation was attacked since the Taliban was not a legitimate government?
I believe I addressed this.
quote:you seem to have forgotten all the important things. no surprise, there.
Ad hominem #2. No surprise, there.
quote:p.s. there is no such thing as god-given civil liberties since god is fake.
It's called sarcasm. Want me to spell it out for you?
[ August 21, 2002, 08:42: Message edited by: Colorful Cartman ]
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
If you weren't so fat, and didn't live all the way in Colorado, your babies would be mine.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: P.s. there is no such thing as god-given civil liberties since god is fake.
Considering your apparent need to bring this up on a daily basis, I can only conclude that Jesus raped your mum and that you are in some sort of denial.
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
Is he the son of the son of God, then?
And, I mean, the dude walked on water, so you'd think his little soldiers'd fare a little better.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:...no reductions in freedoms have actually happened despite irrational fears about the goverment.
There are a few people who would disagree that statement. Not the least of which is one Jose Padilla, who, even though he was not captured on a field of battle, languishes in a jail cell. The government says they can hold hime indefinitely without being charged with a crime.
Same can be said of Yaser Hamdi and the 300 or so "detainees" in Cuba.
I have less of a problem with Hamdi and the others being held. They are prisioners of some sort of war and Hamdi was captured on the battlefield. The probles is the fact that there logical plan of what to do with them other than legal limbo because Bush just keeps saying he can hold them as long as he wants to.
And on top of that:
quote:Attorney General Ashcroft and the White House are considering creating a military detention camps for all U.S. citizens deemed by the administration to be enemy combatants.
Internees in this special camp will be treated just as Padilla and Hamdi have been so far - as if they did not possess the basic, traditional rights that can be invoked by U.S. citizens suspected of crimes. Even persons accused of treason have the right to these protections. (The Rosenbergs, to take one example). But according to the government, Padilla, Hamdi, and other American citizens interned in the camps do not.
Article.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:See, that's the problem with your initial argument, you couldn't just say 'Congress did this' or 'Congress did that'. Nooooooooooo, it's them Demecrats. Cause only Demecrats do that.
Fortunately, I didn't say this. I said that both parties do it, just that the Democrats were better at it.
This makes you the teensiest bit of a liar, but hey, why let the truth stand in the way of a good rant?
By the way, I suspect that an honest, line-by line accounting of the remaining 3.2 billion dollars of the bill would tell the tale. Unfortunately I don't have access to that sort of information.
As for your final article... I'm awaiting an analysis by the nice non-tinfoil-hat-wearing folks at snopes, and will reserve comment until then. Nice subject jump, though.
quote: Declarations of war are the only legal means he has to accomplish this.
Not necessarily. There are the UN Resolutions which could be interpreted to authorize just about any action against Iraq.
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990), which authorized member states to use "all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area" has never been rescinded. To be pedantic about it, we are still operating under its jurisdiction.
Taken literally, the pre-Desert Storm Resolution 678 could be said to authorize not only the one-time use of armed force, but also whatever subsequent use of armed force might be needed to restore international peace and security in the area. The U.S. could argue that a renewed use of armed force is now needed if peace in the area is to be permanently restored.
Resolution 687 imposed the obligation to accept the neutralization under international supervision of its chemical, biological and medium- or long-range missile capabilities.
Resolution 678 gave member states the authority to uphold all "relevant resolutions" subsequent to Resolution 660, and Resolution 687 is such a resolution.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
There is one thing I won't be called you pompous overblown windbag, and that is a liar.
You took a stupid swipe at the Democrats and I called you one it.
quote:although it sppears that the Dems are more adept and skillful at it.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Your own words betray you.
(emphasis mine)
quote:Cause only Demecrats do that.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
[remark removed]
In the hyperbole of the Flameboard, that ain't nothing.
[ August 21, 2002, 13:10: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: Are you off you medication again?
OOH, Ad-hominem. How quaint.
quote: In the hyperbole of the Flameboard, that ain't nothing.
By that logic, neither was my 'swipe' at the Democrats.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Only I didn't call you a liar for your little swipe. You know as well as I do that it's just not true, because both sides play the political game just as good as the other side.
Go, count the riders. Add the parties up and get back to me.
Until then, if you want to get right down to it,
quote:although it sppears that the Dems are more adept and skillful at it.
is an unfounded accusation...which I pointed out in a sarcastic way.
As for my final article, I'm not sure that calling an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle and the Associate Director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce & Technology "tinfoil-hat-wearing" does anyone a bit of good. Or that Snopes would have the discussion of law that the Commentary section on FindLaw has.
Irregardless of your remark, it is far from a "subject-jump" as you describe because Mr. Reks brought the issue up in his far reaching post. This is a wide ranging topic touching on things scuh as Mr. Bush playing politics with the spending bill and the reaction of the firefighters, the apparent looming attack on Iraq and even civil liberties. I hope readers of the thread will be able to keep up.
[ August 21, 2002, 14:03: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Wow, nutty.
I was all hepped up for the dialogue, but now not so much. But I will point out that my skepticism re: the "liberation" of Iraq does not extend to Afghanistan. Or even Iraq. I mean, that is, not in the way this thread is tending. I'm all for toppling governments who are eager to blow me up. Let's just not labor under the delusion that this is the same as waving the magic democracy wand.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote: P.s. there is no such thing as god-given civil liberties since god is fake.
Considering your apparent need to bring this up on a daily basis, I can only conclude that Jesus raped your mum and that you are in some sort of denial.
yes, my mother was raped by an Argentinian named Jesus. does it make you fucking happy to gloat over that, you arsefaced pedophile? Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
Cartman, imnsho, you're wrong on most counts, but i won't bother explaining it to you. it is energy i would rather not expend. i'm a Jeffersonain Constitutionalist, and i will happily take up arms (both verbal and physical) against a corrupt and dictatorial government in a revolution if i think that it is in the best interest of the people and the revolution is being run in such a way that a victory against the government would mean that freedom and happiness would be restored to the US people. however, i don't see bogey men in the closet, and the current administration has more or less increased our security without seriously compromising liberty. sometimes the survival of the state and the security of the people is worth a temporary reduction is some things. you might not like it (and i surely don't), but it is better than dying in a terrorist attack. by the way, there is no longer a such thing as the Northern Alliance, so don't say anything pertaining to them. and also, a friend of my is an Afghan, with family in that country, and according to him the situation IS a lot better for the average Afghan. it's nice having food, water, some security and basic freedoms again. i believe him more than i believe you. and here is some more ad hominem. go to hell, shitbrain.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: sometimes the survival of the state and the security of the people is worth a temporary reduction is some things
Yes, because god knows that the US was in danger of collapsing completely after Sept 11.
quote: yes, my mother was raped by an Argentinian named Jesus. does it make you fucking happy to gloat over that, you arsefaced pedophile?
Fairly. I mean, if I were raped by Jesus, I'd certainly brag about it.
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
"go to hell, shitbrain"
Edipis is the best arguer ever. I mean, how do you come back to that infantism?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Fortunately, I didn't say this. I said that both parties do it, just that the Democrats were better at it.
This makes you the teensiest bit of a liar, but hey, why let the truth stand in the way of a good rant?
And why let a conmpletely unprovable statement, one that allows you to advance your own agenda without any sort of justification whatsoever, stand in the way either? Why, to say one party does something 'better' than another is comnpletely unquantifiable.
quote:There are the UN Resolutions which could be interpreted to authorize just about any action against Iraq.
And we all know how important the UN and its resolutions is to the US the rest of the time.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Oh, poor poor Red Voggychops...
Go back and read my statement again. Here is the relevant clause in its entirety:
quote:Both parties have been known to do this, although it appears that the Dems are more adept and skillful at it.
Now, I understand that, as a Londoner, your grasp of the English language may be not quite up to par, so I'll explain it in a simple (albeit extremely condescending) way:
Pay attention, class...
Appears is a word which indicates to the reader that the clause which contains it is the speaker's personal... what?
Class: OPINION.
And a statement of opinion is different from a statement of... what?
And a person who takes a clear statement of opinion and twists it to try to make everyone think the speaker was presenting a fact is a... what?
Class: Lobster-shagging nincompoop with delusions of sentience. Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:your grasp of the English language may be not quite up to par
Right, which explains:
quote:sppears
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
Any point Rob has, or ever had is nullified, as he has quoted Kevin Bacon in his sigature.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It was worth it just to get to say:
quote:Lobster-shagging nincompoop with delusions of sentience.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Although I am loathe to throw more oil on the fire, I nevertheless feel compelled to issue a creative rebuttal to your (referring, of course, to my esteemed colleague, mr. EdipisReks) intelligent and charming argumentation.
The fact that you don't even bother reading what other people write before you respond shows your true colors. The fact that you lash out at my character, as opposed to my words, probably shows that you are uncomfortable with your own lack of factual argument and that you are uncomfortable with your own choices.
I do, however, have one question (and far be it from me to question, criticise, or even doubt the President of the United States in this jolly new Americanized, Amerocentric and patriotic World Order), which is the following:
Other than being the President, and Pretzel affectionado, who does President George Washington Bush (I assume that's what the "W" stands for. Or, quite appropriately, "We're No. 1!") think he is?
While not disagreeing that sir Hussein and company are not the kind of people we would like to invite over for tea and a Harry Potter discussion, and agreeing that they are Bad, Bad Anti-American Affectionados who must be disposed of no matter the cost, mercilessly and expediently.
So, Monsieur Bush wishes to oust Mr Hussein. Fine (though it's not, for various reasons).
But, taking a break from this conquest of domination of the Irakis, one wonders two things.
Where is the line, and who draws it?
And, perhaps in vein, two more things.
Why is it Bush, and is his nose really so big that it cannot help but get stuck elsewhere in the world (primarily in non-US countries that dislike such American activities as roller-skating, playing pinball, and dining at McDonalds)?
And a couple of other things, such as:
Who is the next threat, and the next? When will it stop? When all the "BAD EVIL ANTI-AMERICAN NATIONS THAT DO NOT IMPORT ANY TVS FROM US!" are disposed of and replaced with Burger Kings and Pretzel Stands (or, more relevantly, American Puppet Governments)?
This is the undesirable precedent I spoke of earlier. Revolution may now commence.
[ August 22, 2002, 13:22: Message edited by: Colorful Cartman ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
*sigh*
Robert, Robert, Robert. . . this really has gone far enough. The feelings of inadequacy you have, well, I'm not sure where they come from. I suspect that deep in your bones you really want to take the guns you're so proud of owning, and start paying back some of the wrongs (real and imagined) you feel you've suffered.
Do it, Rob. Do it. Kill them all.
The people who laugh at you for having a chickenshit woman's job - a librarian, for fuck's sake? - Kill them. Come on, gunboy, wipe them out. Mow the fuckers down.
Those people who abused your girlfriend and got away with it? I mean, what sort of a pussy are you to have let them live this long? Any real man would have done the right thing a long time ago.
But you won't, will you? Because you're a snivelling coward who prefers to hide away in an internet chatroom concocting clever little arguments that, sadly, have never done anything to alter a single person's point of view in the slightest.
No, maybe I'm being a bit harsh here. I wouldn't want you to cite me as your defense at the trial. Who do you really hate, Rob? Yourself. Kill yourself, before you bore the rest of us to death.
Posted by Magnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
This whole thread needs a little Puppy Lovin'. And not like the kind on the Internet.
Renaming "Dog Sex" to "Saved by the Bell."
Damn Kazaa.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Let's get a couple of things straight here and now.
Rob presented an opinion. He chose to single out the Democrats as being the party in Congress who attach riders and spends money on "pork" projects. That is an opinion that implies that Republicans would not stoop to such a political tatic.
(Sidenote: This is a maneuver that I've seen the present occupant of the White House and his handlers use over and over again with great skill and aplomb. It goes along the lines of: Mr. Bush is above politics and anything he says or does is only driven by his compassionate, altruistic nature, and as a result is as pure as lambs wool.
The other side of this has been to portray the Democrats as an unpatriotic bunch who act only on the basest power grabing motivations whithout a care about the "little people" Mr. Bush cares so much about.
The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.)
I think what Rob wrote is silly and falls into the above politically puerile point of view.
I made fun of of this position.
I did so by posting my sarcastic and somewhat overdone opinion of his opinion. I even posted a quote from his article that also lays blame** at the feet "members of Congress" which includes members of the same political party to which the present occupant of the White House belongs. This other party is known as the Republicans.
As a result I got called a liar.
I think calling people liars crosses something of a boundry and I resent it very much. I would ask for an apology for being called such, but I'd sooner expect my cat to write a book before I'd get one.
Such is what has become of the flameboard.
What I'd like to see on the flameboard follows in my opinion of actual issues discussed in this thread.
I think we are in the midst of a very important time. This never-to-be-over war on terror has the potential to change the society and culture of the United States in ways that I don't think that Mr. Bush understands and, even worse, cares to try to understand.
A policy of declaring citizens of the United States "emeny combatants" and denying them Constitutional rights and holding them incommunicado in the course of an undefined never-to-be-over war on terror needs full and open debate. Such a policy begins a trip down a very dark road and represents important and seminal changes to the fabric of the United States. Such a decision should not be imposed on the will of Mr. Bush and a very small, select and secretive group in the Executive branch of government without discussion. Nor should the checks and balances of the Constitution be so cavalerly swept aside.
Further, If we attack Iraq on the will of this very small, select and secretive group in the Executive branch of government's concept of "unilaterally determined pre-emptive self-defense", I think that the very core of the American system will be shaken. Afterall, wasn't the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor an attack carried out in the name of "unilaterally determined pre-emptive self-defense"? Do we not revile such things?
Not to mention the fact that I am personally rather frightened of what might come out on the other side an attack carreid out on such a basis. Such an attack would be a watershed in the history of the United States.
It would polarize the Arab world and would draw untold more people into a violent anti-Americanism. The attacks were evil, the people who took part in them and plotted them were and are evil just as those who may be plotting similar actions are evil. But it is utterly foolish to think that United States policies and unlilateral attitute and actions in the world played no role in what happened. So far, Mr. Bush has done nothing publicly to address this.
I think history my well condem his simplistic point of view as missing the overall picture and loosing the opportunity at dialog. We're at a cross-roads in history and cultural where the western world as represented by American capitalism and materialism must take into account those left behind. Also, secular Islam must to come to grips with ultra-religious Islam.
You might disagree. Great. Respond. Present your opinion.
Be serious and don't call me names.
**Although I think the blame rests with the present occupant of the White House strangely engough playing politics.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
He chose to single out the Democrats as being the party in Congress who attach riders and spends money on "pork" projects. That is an opinion that implies that Republicans would not stoop to such a political tatic.
See, THAT's why he called you a liar. He said BOTH parties do that, but that the Democrats are better at it. Seeing as any moron could attach a rider, he probably meant the public relations end of it, which any observer will agree, the Democrats ARE better at, i.e. they're very good at deceiving the populace by leaving out vital information. Witness "The Republicans don't want to count black people in the census!"
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Irrespective of how of how may odd numbered words you can capitalize, you are wrong.
His accusation was nothing but simplistic, baseless nonsense. This is, for the reading impaired, what I made fun of.
Now we can add your baseless, unprovable nonsense to the list, which thankfully, you chose to post rather than dealing with any substantive issues.
Thank you very much for posting.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Jay, I'm FAR from being alone in my opinion on this issue:
Washington Post
quote:"Republicans tend to want to be seen as playing the game above board, while I don't think the Democrats have any compunctions about getting down and dirty," said public relations consultant Craig Shirley. He quickly added: "I say that as praise, not condemnation of the Democrats, because Republicans have to get better at the game, and I hope this is a step in the right direction."
newsargus.com
quote:The Republicans, although logic often is on their side, come across as cold and uncaring. Democrats are better at couching their arguments in human terms that are likely to win sympathy.
quote:Cheating has victims. Both the Republicans and the Democrats know that, but the Democrats are better at making hay over it. All these scandals, starting with Enron, came to light during the Bush administration, but most of the offenses occurred during Bill Clinton's presidency. That doesn't mean Clinton is at fault for them but, on the other hand, neither is Bush.
Gilbert Parker III (young black activist quoted in Independent Online)
quote:"The Democrats are better at bludgeoning and better at spinning and better at relations than Republicans are."
Rep. Gil Gutknecht
quote:Gutknecht discussed ways in which Democrats are better at communicating their views than are Republicans, saying that
Republicans think that if they say something once, its been said, whereas Democrats say things repetitively, and Republicans are good at explaining facts, but not so good at conveying emotion and empathy in their arguments
Worcester Phoenix
quote:Remember the impeachment struggle? The Democrats are better at these extra-normal political battles.
Michael Moore
quote:The job of all politicians is to lie and we just think the Democrats are better at it than you are
However, after some consideration, I WILL take back my statement. You are NOT a liar. You are an exagerrator, and by your own admission, overblown. But not a liar.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
As for Vogon's last post...
I believe most board moderators would initiate disciplinary proceedings for the advocation of murder/suicide.
Although I don't necessarily expect that here.
Incidentally: YOU, Voggy, are the first person to 'make fun' of my job. Therefore, I assume by your statements as to what should be done with said people, that you have a deathwish. Seek therapy.
My gf's abusers are already dead. I believe I mentioned that before.
I don't hate. Hate is a waste of energy.
You are clearly becoming unstable. I suggest you consult a qualified therapist as soon as possible. If your health plan covers one.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
You two need to hug, kiss, and make the fuck up.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Like you and Omega have done?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
You're the one he finds sexy.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Let me congratulate you Robert in finding other people out there who agree with your opinion on this matter. At least, that is, someone other than Omega.
I trust it wasn't too hard in this land of diverse opinion, some 250 million strong, to find people of like mind and who share your point of view.
I guess your presenting these folks as un-biased so I thought I'd look and see what I could find to back up their un-biased position.
Mr. Craig Shirley, or as you have him, Mr. Damning-The-Democrats-With-Faint-Praise.
He's my personal favorite person on your list. Turns out he's not so touchy-feely when it comes to the Democrats.
quote:Democrats like to steal elections. In fact, they're very good at it." American Conservative Union board member, Craig Shirley [Washington Times, 11/10/00]
"Democrats are about anything but fairness in this election; they are about power, pure and simple. Democrats must destroy the election process and anyone who gets in their way regardless of party. The stakes are too high to be concerned with individual reputations or careers." American Conservative Union board member, Craig Shirley [Washington Times, 11/10/00]
That sounds a great deal like the Republican line during and after the Brooks Brothers Riot as they created a meme about the election as Roger Ebert of all people writes.
But one should expect no less from a person listed on Townhall.com's website as:
quote:Craig Shirley & Assoc. - Republican media PR firm
quote:In early 1980 he directed the Fund for a Conservative Majority's $750,000 independent expenditure campaign in support of Ronald Reagan for President.
and
quote:In 1982, he served as Communications Advisor to the Republican National Committee and traveled across the country advising dozens of, campaigns and state committees on public relations, political advertising and campaign strategy.
During the 1984 campaign, he was the Director of Communications for the National Conservative Political Action Committee, America's largest independent political committee, which spent over $14 million on behalf of President Reagan's re-election.
In December of 1984 Mr. Shirley formed Craig Shirley & Associates, Inc., a public relations consulting firm. One of his first clients was the Fund for America's Future, the political action committee of Vice President George Bush, through which he served as an advisor to Mr. Bush.
American Conservative Union. Hmm. Don't go anywhere, there's more.
Mr Shirley is or was on the Advisory Board of the Patrick Henry Center along wit such conservative stalwarts as Bob Barr and one Lt. Col. Oliver L. North.
Mr. Gilbert Parker III, young black activist. I love the sub-head of the article you quote from:
quote:A young black Republican explains why the GOP is the party of opportunity.
The article portrays him as more of a Republican advocate than your out of context quote would alow. And there is this quote as well:
quote:I don't think the Democrats have ever done anything that was true, meaningful and lasting in terms of establishing African Americans as individual citizens who own their own property and are self-reliant," says 25-year-old Parker, assistant director of the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Raleigh.
That is an opinion you might share, but again, it not one of a disinterested political neutral.
And lest I forget, the rest of the quote you posted:
quote:"The Democrats are better at bludgeoning and better at spinning and better at relations than Republicans are," he says. "But the Republicans are changing that."
Emphasis mine.
Rep. Gil Gutknecht is a Republican member of Congress. As such, a lover of all Democrats. Still, his wasn't much of a quote.
Mr. Michael Moore. I suppose he was supposed to be your trump card? A review of his book on Barnes and Noble says "Bill Clinton: One of the best Republican presidents we've ever had." Sort of like quoting Ralph Nader bashing Democrats, and Republicans, for being too much in the pockets of big corporations. Neither are really big fans of the mainstream Democratic Party. So his quote is not much of a big "oh, I never thought in a million years he'd say that" deal.
As for newsargus.com and Worcester Phoenix, *shrug*, sounds like more liberal bias in the media. The Enron quote has a much larger context, which if you'd like to discuss you might want to start a new thread...and the Worcester Phoenix quote, like the Gutknecht quote, doesn't say much of anything.
I'm not attacking these people. I'm listing where they come from. These folks are more than welcome to serve on the Advisory Board of any group or be the assistant director of any Foundation. But why didn't you list where these people come from?
What was it you said?
quote:A couple of less-biased articles on the subject lead to more clarity.
Or in this case, a couple of more biased people to reinforce your opinion.
I'm glad they share your opinion. However, big whoop.
This proves nothing other than the fact that some of these folks share your opinion. Again, big whoop.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
The Enron quote has a much larger context, which if you'd like to discuss you might want to start a new thread...and the Worcester Phoenix quote, like the Gutknecht quote, doesn't say much of anything.