Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
Boy you just hate everyone that has a difference of opinion then you...
CoffeeSaint said:Congratulations, TOT! You have now joined my collection, which will hopefully be available for public viewing at some point soon, of internet paranoia. I'll be calling the exhibit "Fearcasting: When Absurdity Tells Logic To Take A Hike." I hope to show how sad it is when someone completely abandons cause and effect, and joins the likes of Nostradamus and the Weekly World News in projecting their paranoid fantasies onto a real-world situation. Your contribution is greatly appreciated!
Navy Pride said:Boy you just hate everyone that has a difference of opinion then you...
Trajan Octavian Titus said:It's not paranoia when it's true, everything I listed the leftists in charge of the Democratic party actually support let's analyze my comment from start to finish:
1. Democrats do support the Fairness Doctrine they've got a bill all ligned up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_DoctrineThe Fairness Doctrine is a former policy of the United States's Federal Communications Commission. It required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in an honest, equal and balanced manner.
In what way does asking for UN approval before initiating military force on foreign soil for the sake of preemption limit our sovereignty? Our sovereignty is our ability to rule ourselves, not our ability to attack whoever the hell we want, whenever the hell we want.Trajan Octavian Titus said:2. By their own words Democrats don't think the U.S. can act militarily without international approval, IE U.N. approval, IE bye bye U.S. sovereignty.
Good. Justice good; considering ourselves above justice bad.Trajan Octavian Titus said:3. Democrats do support the U.S. entering into the world court.
No they don't.Trajan Octavian Titus said:4. Democrats do oppose immigration control.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=57216Democrats are committed to comprehensive immigration reform that protects our borders, and provides cities and states the resources to keep our communities safe. A realistic approach must also protect American workers and their wages, while offering immigrants who have earned it the opportunities and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. Democrats will never abdicate the responsibility for a real immigration policy and its enforcement to vigilantes, or exploit people's fears for political gain. We demand the same of the President and the Republican Party."
They want to make them legal immigrants, thus citizens, and thus enfranchised people. Do you have any proof that the Democrats believe otherwise?Trajan Octavian Titus said:5. Democrats do want to give illegal aliens the vote.
So you admit that you're making this up completely, and you believe it because to you it makes sense. Okey-dokey.Trajan Octavian Titus said:6. Democrats do want to impeach a sitting president during war time ofcourse the impeachments investigations will be done under the guise of investigative oversight. Believe that and you believe in the tooth fairy.
Prove it.Trajan Octavian Titus said:7. Oh you better believe that Democrats want Cheney gone and Pelosi in.
No, the way they can get us out of Iraq is convince the President to accept that our mission is as accomplished as it's going to get, and set a timetable for an orderly withdrawal.Trajan Octavian Titus said:8. Cut funding for the war? Well they want us out of Iraq and the only way they get that is to cut its funding
Trajan Octavian Titus said:yada yada yada
This is not sh!t I'm making up this is precisely the future that you voted for hence the people get the government they deserve!
CoffeeSaint said:Well, there's two ways I can answer that. Answer #1 is, I don't hate TOT, I just think he's overreacting and spinning an incredibly ridiculous fantasy whereby the Democratic Party, people that seek public office at least in part because they want to help this country (just like the Republicans), are going to turn the US into a fascist/Communist state. I don't hate you either, I just find your opinions distasteful, and your mindless stereotyping of everyone in San Francisco as anti-American repugnant -- note that the stereotyping is mindless and repugnant, not you. I don't know any of you well enough to hate you.
Answer #2 is, I hate ignorance, I hate violence, and I hate people who foment both of those things out of some selfish and parochial need to always win; I think anyone who defends one political party to the death, while attacking every single thing about the opposing party, is one of those people. You promote disharmony, and you promote thoughtless adherence to one single political credo -- and in this specific case, you and others like you promote an endless war, and at least in TOT's case, armed rebellion against a lawfully elected government. So in an abstract sense, yeah, I hate both of you -- but unlike you, who hates me because I support the Democrats, I don't hate you simply because you disagree with me; I hate you because people like you are destroying the country I love.
CoffeeSaint said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Wow. Those inhuman monsters. Imagine wanting to make public broadcasting fair and even-handed. Yep, sounds like totalitarianism to me.
Chilling Effect
But the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" had a chilling effect on these local broadcasters. If they wanted to take a conservative editorial position on a hot topic, they were discouraged. Government-enforced "fairness" decreed that air time devoted to one point of view had to be matched by "equal time" for the opposing position.
It sounded reasonable. Any programmer could theoretically put a conservative on the air for three hours. But the station would then be pressured to put on a liberal talk-show host for another three hours, even if that liberal host could not attract advertisers. If the station manager couldn't afford to run three hours commercial-free, he was told, in effect, "Too bad. Put a liberal on the air or you're in violation of the Fairness Doctrine." As a practical matter, station managers usually decided that conservative commentary wasn't worth the hassle.
The Kennedy Administration pursued this approach. Kennedy Assistant Commerce Secretary Bill Ruder was quoted as saying, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4814_0_4_0_C/
In what way does asking for UN approval before initiating military force on foreign soil for the sake of preemption limit our sovereignty? Our sovereignty is our ability to rule ourselves, not our ability to attack whoever the hell we want, whenever the hell we want.
Good. Justice good; considering ourselves above justice bad.
see below didn't fit
No they don't.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=57216
From Howard Dean, head of the DNC.
H.R. 4437
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
House of Representatives bill 4437 (The Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005) was passed by the United States House of Representatives on December 16, 2005 by a vote of 239 to 182. Passed House (92% of Republicans supporting, 82% of Democrats opposing) It is also known as the "Sensenbrenner Bill," for its sponsor in the House of Representatives, Wisconsin Republican Jim Sensenbrenner. This bill is currently under consideration by the United States Senate, after amendment by the Senate Judiciary Committee. H.R. 4437 was the catalyst for the 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests and was the first piece of legislation passed by a house of Congress in the United States immigration debate. Its parallel bill in the Senate is the S. 2611, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._4437
Democrats want a different immigration policy than Bush, not no immigration policy.
They want to make them legal immigrants, thus citizens, and thus enfranchised people. Do you have any proof that the Democrats believe otherwise?
The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks.
The Federal Election Integrity Act was approved on a nearly party-line 228-196 vote. Republicans backed the bill 224-3, with three nonvoters; Democrats opposed it 192-4, with five nonvoters. They were joined in opposition by the House's one independent member.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060921-123316-5086r.htm
So you admit that you're making this up completely, and you believe it because to you it makes sense. Okey-dokey.
Q. "Do you have an appetite for several investigations in the conduct of this administration as it relates to the Iraq war and intelligence, Halliburton, and Katrina?"
HARRY REID: I believe that the first order of business when we reorganize after the first of the year is congressional oversight.
'Prove it.
No, the way they can get us out of Iraq is convince the President to accept that our mission is as accomplished as it's going to get, and set a timetable for an orderly withdrawal.
Anxious Dems eye power of the purse on Iraq
By Bob Cusack
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House next year, but his main goal in 2007 does not fall within his panel’s jurisdiction.
“I can’t stop this war,” a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.
But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?”
Rangel’s views on funding the war are shared by many of his colleagues – especially within the 73-member Out of Iraq Caucus.
Some Democratic legislators want to halt funding for the war immediately, while others say they would allocate money for activities such as reconstruction, setting up international security forces, and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
“Personally, I wouldn’t spend another dime [on the war,]” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/092606/iraqfunding.html
All right, I think I've had enough. Not a word of this is proven or provable;
What is the ICC?
The ICC was established by a treaty (hereinafter "the Rome Treaty") proposed at a United Nations conference in Rome on July 17, 1998. It was created to take jurisdiction over crimes of "international concern."[3] The structure of the Rome Treaty is problematic, however, because it differs from our system of jurisprudence, and it would infringe on bedrock principles of the Constitution. Indeed, allowing the ICC to try U.S. citizens would deprive those citizens of constitutional due process. Equally dangerous, the ICC has nearly unlimited authority to prosecute.
The following points illustrate specific reasons why the U.S. must never ratify the Rome Treaty:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/voigt/041004
- If adopted, the Rome Treaty would allow the ICC to prosecute our soldiers, civilian personnel who provide support and logistics to soldiers, as well as military commanders. The ICC could also put the President and Congress on trial.
- The definitions of crimes in the Rome Treaty can be easily amended to politicized forms. Already, efforts to politicize the ICC crimes are in full swing. For example, Cuba has proposed that the ICC prosecute economic tariffs as international crimes.
- The ICC does not allow for a jury of one's peers, a right guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Instead, in an ICC trial, a tribunal of three judges will always decide a defendant's fate.
- The judges who will preside over ICC trials will be citizens of nations who have adopted the treaty. These nations include Cambodia, Jordan, and Liberia.
- An American tried before the ICC could be denied the right to a speedy and public trial, reasonable bail, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. These due process rights and protections are found in Amendments VI and VIII of the Constitution.
- In contrast to our system of justice, ICC prosecutors can appeal unfavorable verdicts on the basis of fact in addition to questions of law. This cedes tremendous power to ICC prosecutors and erodes finality of rulings by allowing the possibility for open-ended trials. Unlike our legal system, if an ICC prosecutor does not nail a guilty verdict the first time around, he can simply try, try and try again, forevermore until the prosecution reaches the desired result.
- An ICC tribunal would likely permit hearsay evidence and anonymous witness testimony into the courtroom. This would be inconsistent with protections secured by the Constitution. Specifically, the Sixth Amendment protects an individual's right to be "confronted with the witnesses against him." Unlike our Constitution, however, the Rome Treaty lacks a specific prohibition against hearsay evidence. Furthermore, there exists international precedent that would permit the admission of hearsay evidence where there is no rule against such evidence. For example, in one of the international trials related to the tragedies in the former Yugoslavia, where there was no such prohibition in the rules, the judges permitted the admission of hearsay evidence over the defendant's objections.[4]
- As a newly created court, the ICC will set its own precedent and, thereby, render over two hundred years of case law in the United States meaningless.
- Armchair bureaucrats from around the world can use the definitions of crimes in the Rome Treaty to second-guess U.S. military tactics. As an example, since the U.S. has laser-guided bombs in its arsenal, the U.S. could be prosecuted for using regular bombs if those bombs inadvertently injure civilians unintended as targets. We are already seeing the groundwork for this type of lawsuit — the ICC is currently investigating and considering whether to prosecute Britain, which ratified the Rome Treaty, for using cluster bombs in the Iraq War.
- The ICC can prosecute for the same conduct that a defendant was already convicted or acquitted of in a U.S. court if the ICC believes that the former trial was conducted unfairly. How is fairness decided? The answer is that fairness can be whatever the ICC wants it to be.
- The ICC does not answer to the United Nations Security Council; it does not answer to any nation; ICC judges will not be elected by or answer to the American electorate.
Hogwash. Simple solution: Hannity and Colmes. Give Rush a Liberal punching bag, and you've got equal air time. I'm sure that some incarnations of the FCC have gone after Conservative broadcasts in the past, but don't tell me that a radio station can't find ways around an FCC regulation as simple as this.Trajan Octavian Titus said:You have no clue what you're talking about the "fairness doctrine" was used for more than 40 years to silence Conservative voices in this country. What the fairness doctrine does is it allows the government to force equal time on privately owned bussinesses, so on stations which broadcast say Rush and Hannity they will be forced to grant equal time to liberal pundints regardless of whether or not they can attract sponsors, in other words these radio stations will be put in the position of either going bankrupt by granting hour upon hour of free airtime or dropping Conservative hosts. Guess which ones they're going to choose? This is exactly what the DNC did for 50 years and it is as god damn fascist as it gets.
Two problems here: one, all we would need to do if necessary is blow off the frigging UN and go to war; after all, the president doesn't have the authority to declare war, but that hasn't stopped our military in the past fifty years, has it? Second, the idea that we should preemptively act against an impending threat is what makes us one of those tyrants and despots you're so hot against.Trajan Octavian Titus said:A nation whose military is in the hands of a foreign entity has no sovereignty. The U.S. should never have to ask permission from the corrupt U.N. which is dominated by the very same despots and tyrants that it was intended to eliminate, before we can act preemptively against an impending threat.
Nice spin. I showed you the Democrats position on this, at least Dean's and the DNC's, but since they oppose a single bill, that means they oppose all immigration control? Okey dokey. I guess that a straw man argument is kinda like proof. Kinda.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Yes they do they support an amnesty program and oppose any real border control inititiative:
Actually the Dems want the same immigration policy as Bush IE open borders and amnesty.
And that means they support voting rights for illegal immigrants? Do you have any idea what proof means? Clearly not.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Why yes I do Democrats oppose a voter ID card which would prevent voter fraud by illegal immigrants:
And again, this is not their declared objective, it is what you think is their objective, and you have no proof other than saying, "Make no mistake."Trajan Octavian Titus said:No I'm admitting that the first order of bussiness on the DNC agenda is impeachment investigations under the guise of oversight:
[/FONT]
Make no mistake about it these "oversight" investigations are code for getting dirt, holding subpoenas, all leading to one end the impeachment of a sitting President during war time.
Ditto.Trajan Octavian Titus said:'
See above.
Frustrated man. I hope Bush doesn't push him to it -- but I'll grant you this one. He would apparently cut funding for the troops. Since the idea of the troops being in danger makes you lean towards armed rebellion, have you taken a shot at Bush yet?Trajan Octavian Titus said:Future chairman of the House Ways and means committee Charles Rangel disagrees he intends to cut funding:
Dude! Not only did you not prove the assertions I questioned, except for the last one, but you didn't prove that these assertions, even if they were right, would lead anywhere close to the outcome you described.Trajan Octavian Titus said:I just proved every assertion you actually tried to counter I notice you didn't touch on gun righs or Kyoto, would that just be to easy for me to prove and not allow you to make your claim that my assertions are unprovable?
happykat said:Fair be it from me to take sides in a Republican vs. Democrat bitchfest, but Coffe Saint gets my vote.
CoffeeSaint said:Hogwash. Simple solution: Hannity and Colmes. Give Rush a Liberal punching bag, and you've got equal air time. I'm sure that some incarnations of the FCC have gone after Conservative broadcasts in the past, but don't tell me that a radio station can't find ways around an FCC regulation as simple as this.
And as fascist as it gets? Knocking down your door at three in the morning and putting you in a concentration camp is as fascist as it gets. Not this.
CoffeeSaint said:Hogwash. Simple solution: Hannity and Colmes. Give Rush a Liberal punching bag, and you've got equal air time. I'm sure that some incarnations of the FCC have gone after Conservative broadcasts in the past, but don't tell me that a radio station can't find ways around an FCC regulation as simple as this.
Two problems here: one, all we would need to do if necessary is blow off the frigging UN and go to war; after all, the president doesn't have the authority to declare war, but that hasn't stopped our military in the past fifty years, has it?
Second, the idea that we should preemptively act against an impending threat is what makes us one of those tyrants and despots you're so hot against.
Nice spin. I showed you the Democrats position on this, at least Dean's and the DNC's, but since they oppose a single bill, that means they oppose all immigration control? Okey dokey. I guess that a straw man argument is kinda like proof. Kinda.
Wait, no it isn't.
And that means they support voting rights for illegal immigrants? Do you have any idea what proof means? Clearly not.
And again, this is not their declared objective, it is what you think is their objective, and you have no proof other than saying, "Make no mistake."
Make no mistake, TOT, you are wrong.
Frustrated man. I hope Bush doesn't push him to it -- but I'll grant you this one. He would apparently cut funding for the troops. Since the idea of the troops being in danger makes you lean towards armed rebellion, have you taken a shot at Bush yet?
Dude! Not only did you not prove the assertions I questioned, except for the last one, but you didn't prove that these assertions, even if they were right, would lead anywhere close to the outcome you described.
CoffeeSaint said:the idea that we should preemptively act against an impending threat is what makes us one of those tyrants and despots you're so hot against.
Good points, all. Except this last one: do you really equate this attempt to balance airwaves, whether it is intelligent or not, whether it is constitutional of nor, with Nazism? This seems like a good example of Godwin's Law to me.FreeThinker said:Fairness Doctrine?
To be "fair" who determines what is liberal and what is conservative? What happens when those ideals begin to mix and change as they have multiple times in the 230 years of this country?
What happens when a 3rd party pops up? We working in fractions now?
If you want to apply it to private radio, why not apply it to The New York Times? As long as we're regulating privately owned mass media....
Better yet, lets have a government controlled agency that tells people what they are allowed to say politically and when. They can dish out airtime based on their own opinions of whats conservative and whats liberal.
And they call Bush a nazi. lol.
FreeThinker said:It is against the law to threaten someone with violence in most countries.
Don't threaten America?
Hoot said:I think Pelosi would be smart to portray her party as "constitutionalists."
In other words, get the party back to preserving and defending the constitution.
If this means a few repubs get indicted a long the way, then so be it.
Try to present it as a direct result of establishing the proper system of checks and balances again....keeping the republic free and strengthening the constitution.
Republican fillibusters will only bite them in the arse in 2008. They need to come back to the center. Any obstructionism will backfire.[/QUOTE]
Did you feel that way when the dems were in the minority and they obstructed for 6 years?
Navy Pride said:Did you feel that way when the dems were in the minority and they obstructed for 6 years?
Hoot said:Of course, but thanks to numerous republican missteps, it wasn't a factor.
To do this, they'd have to dismanlte the entire entitlement system.Hoot said:I think Pelosi would be smart to portray her party as "constitutionalists."
In other words, get the party back to preserving and defending the constitution.
Navy Pride said:Doesn't make any difference...........She was still elected by the Peoples Republic of SF and if she does not follow their left wing radical beliefs she will be history......
hipsterdufus said:This is a new and somewhat puzzling strategy. So, everyone in the same city, San Franciso in this case, has the same beliefs and Pelosi is to champion those beliefs.
Uh, huh. Run with that in 08. Please....
There is no left in this country, certainly not in the Democratic party.
But for the record, one of the most liberal congressmen, Dennis Kucinich - D OH 10th District won by a landslide in a predominently GOP district.
Goobieman said:To do this, they'd have to dismanlte the entire entitlement system.
I don't see that happeneing.
Caine said:Since when did the government limit its abilities to the constitution?
What would be the purpose of a legislative branch then?
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 that's the whole point of the Constitution it defines what the government can and can not do.
Are you saying that the legislative branch can pass legislation which is contradictory to the Constitution?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?