OK -- who believes this for more than a second?

[Navy Pride]

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!

Boy you just hate everyone that has a difference of opinion then you...

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Boy you just hate everyone that has a difference of opinion then you...

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]

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.

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

3. Democrats do support the U.S. entering into the world court.

Good. Justice good; considering ourselves above justice bad.

4. Democrats do oppose immigration control.

No they don't.

Democrats 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."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=57216
From Howard Dean, head of the DNC.

Democrats want a different immigration policy than Bush, not no immigration policy.

5. Democrats do want to give illegal aliens the vote.

They want to make them legal immigrants, thus citizens, and thus enfranchised people. Do you have any proof that the Democrats believe otherwise?

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.

So you admit that you're making this up completely, and you believe it because to you it makes sense. Okey-dokey.

7. Oh you better believe that Democrats want Cheney gone and Pelosi in.

Prove it.

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

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.

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!

All right, I think I've had enough. Not a word of this is proven or provable; it is nothing but a gigantic straw man, and it deserves exactly the label I gave it: paranoia. You find me any evidence that any of the Democratic Party's positions on these issues are anything like what you describe, and prove to me that those positions will logically lead to the end you describe, and I'll take it back. But since I'm sure your only reply to this will be more nonsense about the commie Dems, and how I'm only one of the sheeple because I don't listen to Rush and Michael Savage, I think we should just call it a day. Go hide in your bunker and stroke your AK 47, and we'll see where the country is in 2 years. Tell you what: if we're slaves under a totalitarian regime headed by the Democrats, I owe you a Coke.

 

[happykat]

Fair be it from me to take sides in a Republican vs. Democrat bitchfest, but Coffe Saint gets my vote.

 

[happykat]

See, its a pun...gets my vote....ha! I kill me!

 

[Navy Pride]

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.

Of course there are good people in the People Republic of San Francisco as there were in the Soviet Union, it just the people in charge.......I actually have retired Navy friends in Sunnyvale and San Jose.....

Oh and unlike you I hate no one...........Chill out and take a pill.......

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good. Justice good; considering ourselves above justice bad.

So you support our military men/women being tried by a foreign entity controlled by despots and tyrants?

Here is what you are advocating under the provisions of the ICC (International Criminal Court) under the ICC the our military men/women will be subject to the following:

see below didn't fit

No they don't.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=57216
From Howard Dean, head of the DNC.

Yes they do they support an amnesty program and oppose any real border control inititiative:

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.

Actually the Dems want the same immigration policy as Bush IE open borders and amnesty.

They want to make them legal immigrants, thus citizens, and thus enfranchised people. Do you have any proof that the Democrats believe otherwise?

Why yes I do Democrats oppose a voter ID card which would prevent voter fraud by illegal immigrants:

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.

No I'm admitting that the first order of bussiness on the DNC agenda is impeachment investigations under the guise of oversight:

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.

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.

Prove it.

'
See above.

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.

Future chairman of the House Ways and means committee Charles Rangel disagrees he intends to cut funding:

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;

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?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

<<<CONTINUED>>>

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:

• 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.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/voigt/041004

Not to mention the fact that it will create a superior court to the SCOTUS in direct violation of the Constitution as well as it will deny our soldiers trial by jury, retrials over errors of facts, it will allow hearsay evidence to be levied against them, and it will deny them the right to a speedy and public trial or reasonable bail, quite frankly your support for raping the Constitutional rights of U.S. service people is more than a little scary your defense isn't exactly alleviating my fears about the future course of our country.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why yes I do Democrats oppose a voter ID card which would prevent voter fraud by illegal immigrants:

And that means they support voting rights for illegal immigrants? Do you have any idea what proof means? Clearly not.

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.

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.

'
See above.

Ditto.

Future chairman of the House Ways and means committee Charles Rangel disagrees he intends to cut funding:

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?

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?

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.

I'm tired. I should have gone to bed instead of making this post, but I lost it. Like I said, you can't prove your scenario; even if you dig deep and prove that the Democrats really do hold all of these positions -- and maybe they do; lord knows I don't follow the Democrats closely enough to know all of the secret plans locked in their hearts -- you still couldn't prove that the country is doomed now that they have taken a share of power. So, good night.

Remember: totalitarian slaves in two years, that's a Coke for you. I'll even throw in the smile.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Fair be it from me to take sides in a Republican vs. Democrat bitchfest, but Coffe Saint gets my vote.

I believe it was Joseph Stalin who coined the phrase "useful idiot" . . . fitting.

 

[FreeThinker]

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.

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.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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.

Oh I see, in the "brave new world" which the Dems have lined out for us privately owned bussinesses can now be forced to be made to conform to the leftist agenda. Good to see that you don't give a fuc/k about the 1st amendment though. The re-implementation of the "Fairness Doctrine" has one objective and one objective only and that is to silence all opposition to the liberal agenda in order to insure that a repeat of 1994 can never be allowed to happen again.

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?

Only under the tyrant Clinton all other Presidents requested an AUMF.

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.

Are you honestly saying that preemptive military action is despotic? You and Neville Chamberlin would have gotten along famously.

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.

They oppose any serious attempt at border control what so ever, what they support is rewards for illegal immigrants through amnesty which only produces more incentives for foreigners to break the law by entering our country illegally.

And that means they support voting rights for illegal immigrants? Do you have any idea what proof means? Clearly not.

Umm yes I do, a voter ID card would prevent illegal immigrant voter fraud which is precisely why the Democrats oppose it.

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.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy too? "Oversight investigation" is code for "impeachment investigation" you want it in unmistakable terms? If you believe anything different then you are diluting yourself, the Dems have been salivating at the chance to avenge Clinton since 2000. I'll be saying I told you so with in the next year.

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?

Bush was granted the war powers by our elected representatives, going to war is their job but when congress decides to play partisan politics with their lives it's a whole nother matter and one which borders on treasonous.

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.

I proved every single one them, and I edited my last post to touch on the topic of the ICC (International Criminal Court).

 

[FreeThinker]

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.

It is against the law to threaten someone with violence in most countries.

Don't threaten America?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

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.

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.

But you're right. The Fairness Doctrine is not a good idea. I wasn't trying to say that it was, but the idea that it is an attempt to eliminate the free press completely in order to bring about our Glorious Regime is absurd.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

It is against the law to threaten someone with violence in most countries.

Don't threaten America?

And when you threaten someone with violence, you get arrested, and usually receive a fine or a restraining order. You don't get carpet-bombed and invaded, your government overthrown and replaced with a puppet, your people suppressed and oppressed and imprisoned and even tortured. That doesn't come from a threat of violence, and so I don't see that the analogy is relevant.

I personally think that whatever threat to this country Saddam Hussein was or might have been, fighting this war has done more damage to us than he ever could or would have. And the idea that we should fight a war to avoid fighting a war, is simply illogical.


Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about Pelosi's agenda; what say we get back to that?

 

[Hoot]

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.

 

[Navy Pride]

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?

 

[Hoot]

Did you feel that way when the dems were in the minority and they obstructed for 6 years?

Of course, but thanks to numerous republican missteps, it wasn't a factor.

 

[Navy Pride]

Of course, but thanks to numerous republican missteps, it wasn't a factor.

Yeah, right........:rofl

 

[Goobieman]

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.

To do this, they'd have to dismanlte the entire entitlement system.
I don't see that happeneing.

 

[hipsterdufus]

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......

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.

 

[Deegan]

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.

LOL, so I count you, and Bill Maher, as the two people who don't believe we have a "left" in this country.:lol:

 

[Caine]

To do this, they'd have to dismanlte the entire entitlement system.
I don't see that happeneing.

Since when did the government limit its abilities to the constitution?

What would be the purpose of a legislative branch then?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Since when did the government limit its abilities to the constitution?

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.

What would be the purpose of a legislative branch then?

Are you saying that the legislative branch can pass legislation which is contradictory to the Constitution?

 

[Caine]

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?

No, im not saying that.

Can you tell me how these programs you speak of are against the constitution?