Oh, I thought he was calling Carlos "don" the way you might address Mr. Cleveland as "Hey, mister!"
;D



You could be right. It is just one of my pet peeves. Of course I don't mind people calling him "THE Don".  :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

The Constitution has been eroding for 100 years



I wouldn't say that.  The fact that I can vote, own property, go to school, and my child cannot be sold away from me says different

I wouldn't say that.  The fact that I can vote, own property, go to school, and my child cannot be sold away from me says different




http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/happy/applause.gif



Cat

I wouldn't say that.  The fact that I can vote, own property, go to school, and my child cannot be sold away from me says different


I don't think he meant to say what it sounds like he meant to say, but what he meant to say, I'm not sure...
???

I would say that the constitution has eroded quite a bit under Bush, which is why he should be prosecuted.  The fact that other presidents may have also played fast and loose with it is no excuse.  Certainly Reagan did (I refer to Iran/Contra), which some scholars claim was worse than Watergate.  And in both of those cases, heads rolled, Haldeman and Erlichman both served some jail time if memory serves, as did Poindexter, or was he pardoned?  In any case, it's not the jail time that is really important, but the acknowledgment of criminality.

I would say that the constitution has eroded quite a bit under Bush, which is why he should be prosecuted.  The fact that other presidents may have also played fast and loose with it is no excuse.  Certainly Reagan did (I refer to Iran/Contra), which some scholars claim was worse than Watergate.  And in both of those cases, heads rolled, Haldeman and Erlichman both served some jail time if memory serves, as did Poindexter, or was he pardoned?  In any case, it's not the jail time that is really important, but the acknowledgment of criminality.


Carlos,

This is what I'm talking about! Some people's opinions on what Bush did was wrong. One time, Bush said that The Constitution was "A Goddamn piece of paper". Either he was in a bad mood that day and didn't mean it, but that's the kind of sheesh that usually is said behind closed doors now gets bled. His Homeland Security worked TOO well....At least for Bush!

Back in 1913, Woodrow Wilson criticized The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He was also considered a fascist.

Here's where you can read more about it. http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:EZB3SJDdbyoJ:conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/woodrow-wilson-americas-worst-and-first-fascist-president/+woodrow+wilson+unconstitutional+president&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a (Warning: You may disagree)!

Carlos,

This is what I'm talking about! Some people's opinions on what Bush did was wrong. One time, Bush said that The Constitution was "A Goddamn piece of paper". Either he was in a bad mood that day and didn't mean it, but that's the kind of sheesh that usually is said behind closed doors now gets bled. His Homeland Security worked TOO well....At least for Bush!

Back in 1913, Woodrow Wilson criticized The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He was also considered a fascist.

Here's where you can read more about it. http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:EZB3SJDdbyoJ:conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/woodrow-wilson-americas-worst-and-first-fascist-president/+woodrow+wilson+unconstitutional+president&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a (Warning: You may disagree)!



What does Woodrow Wilson, FDR or anybody else have to do with holding the Bush Administration accountable for THEIR actions-NOT any other Administration?



Cat

What does Woodrow Wilson, FDR or anybody else have to do with holding the Bush Administration accountable for THEIR actions-NOT any other Administration?



Cat


To make it less complicated...History repeats itself!

To make it less complicated...History repeats itself!



Which is why Congress/Obama should hold the Bush Administration accountable.



Cat

Which is why Congress/Obama should hold the Bush Administration accountable.



Cat


Okay, now I may be sounding like the people who you were with when you were at the town organization (The one with the Clergy).

So I'll just do this.... :-X

Okay, now I may be sounding like the people who you were with when you were at the town organization (The one with the Clergy).

So I'll just do this.... :-X


What?

You seem to be saying that since other admins have broken the law it's ok that bush did.  Other people have committed murder, so I guess I can too.  Sounds like a morality of convenience to me.

What?

You seem to be saying that since other admins have broken the law it's ok that bush did.  Other people have committed murder, so I guess I can too.  Sounds like a morality of convenience to me.


What Bush did was wrong.
What Clinton did was wrong.
What Reagan did was wrong.

Whether it was about sex, drugs, violence, or what should be personal but it winds-up exposed.

What we are doing here is what is called "Freedom of Speech". My opinions may be WAY more different than yours, but your opinion should be spoken.

And I may be outspoken.  :-\\

What Bush did was wrong.
What Clinton did was wrong.
What Reagan did was wrong.

Whether it was about sex, drugs, violence, or what should be personal but it winds-up exposed.

What we are doing here is what is called "Freedom of Speech". My opinions may be WAY more different than yours, but your opinion should be spoken.

And I may be outspoken.  :-\\



You have every right to disagree or agree with anyone on this board, but your posts doesn't seem to make any sense to the argument you are trying to make.


This post just totally baffles me.



Okay, now I may be sounding like the people who you were with when you were at the town organization (The one with the Clergy).

So I'll just do this.... :-X



It has nothing to do with your position on the issue but how you present it.



Cat

You have every right to disagree or agree with anyone on this board, but your posts doesn't seem to make any sense to the argument you are trying to make.


This post just totally baffles me.



It has nothing to do with your position on the issue but how you present it.



Cat


That's the problem with my autism....I know the stuff...but I don't at the same time.  :-\\

I think they should. I understand how some feel that it is a time to move on-and in a sense I agree with that. However, if they don't, it sets a precedence that future presidents are above the law. The law is for ALL not just for some. I remember as a kid, I asked my mother what would happen if the president robbed a bank. She told me that he would go to jail. In this case, I want my mother to be right.

Your thoughts? Comments?


Cat


Yes

What does Woodrow Wilson, FDR or anybody else have to do with holding the Bush Administration accountable for THEIR actions-NOT any other Administration?



Cat


I think what he's trying to say is that its doubtful that there has been any president in history who never broke rules.  To set a precedent of prosecuting and impeaching over every decision we don't like, given the split of values in this country, would be an absolute nightmare for every administration to follow.  Obama wants to undo the gay marriage bans on a federal level - does that mean christians should prosecute him because the constitution says marriage is a man and a woman?  That's equally absurd.



Which is why Congress/Obama should hold the Bush Administration accountable.



Cat


And give a free pass on those things congress approved, that you feel were illegal?  Or are you expecting that congress will prosecute their own decisions?

I think what he's trying to say is that its doubtful that there has been any president in history who never broke rules.  To set a precedent of prosecuting and impeaching over every decision we don't like, given the split of values in this country, would be an absolute nightmare for every administration to follow.  Obama wants to undo the gay marriage bans on a federal level - does that mean christians should prosecute him because the constitution says marriage is a man and a woman?  That's equally absurd.

And give a free pass on those things congress approved, that you feel were illegal?  Or are you expecting that congress will prosecute their own decisions?




Obama can't undo anything on a federal level by himself, he has the Legislative branch to deal with.  By the way are you speaking for every Christian? 

I think what he's trying to say is that its doubtful that there has been any president in history who never broke rules.  To set a precedent of prosecuting and impeaching over every decision we don't like, given the split of values in this country, would be an absolute nightmare for every administration to follow.  Obama wants to undo the gay marriage bans on a federal level - does that mean christians should prosecute him because the constitution says marriage is a man and a woman?  That's equally absurd.

And give a free pass on those things congress approved, that you feel were illegal?  Or are you expecting that congress will prosecute their own decisions?





I'm not talking about decisions that were made that I dislike, I am talking about obvious violations of the Constitution-like illegal wiretapping. And just because Congress gave him a free pass STILL does not make it right. But yet, it is ok to impeach someone for lying about getting a bj which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.


And can you show me where in the Constitution it says that marriage is between a man and a woman? 



Cat

Obama can't undo anything on a federal level by himself, he has the Legislative branch to deal with.  By the way are you speaking for every Christian? 


No I'm not speaking for every Christian... I'm not even a Christian myself.  Hypothetical only.

I'm not talking about decisions that were made that I dislike, I am talking about obvious violations of the Constitution-like illegal wiretapping. And just because Congress gave him a free pass STILL does not make it right. But yet, it is ok to impeach someone for lying about getting a bj which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.




Cat


I agree that the Clinton impeachment thing was ridiculous too.  The fact that congress approved things may or may not make them legal but the point I am getting at is that since they DID approve them they would be just as guilty as the Bush administration, no?



And can you show me where in the Constitution it says that marriage is between a man and a woman? 




I'll go dig through it and find it, but considering that even the left acknowledges that permitting gay marriage would involve an amendment (which I'm not against, btw) makes me quite certain its there. 

I'm not talking about decisions that were made that I dislike, I am talking about obvious violations of the Constitution-like illegal wiretapping. And just because Congress gave him a free pass STILL does not make it right. But yet, it is ok to impeach someone for lying about getting a bj which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.


And can you show me where in the Constitution it says that marriage is between a man and a woman? 



Cat


There we go...the wiretapping part!

Back in the 50's, Congress (I believe) wanted to wire-tap many people because of the Cold War. And many celebrities such as Frank Zappa was afraid of wire-tappers during the 60's.

The Clinton BJ was more than a BJ, but I'll get back to you on that one. ;)

And the marriage between man and woman came from the Mormon scare since that was becoming a big religion since many men married many woman, which is polygamy. That's why it became law to have one man and one woman.

There we go...the wiretapping part!

Back in the 50's, Congress (I believe) wanted to wire-tap many people because of the Cold War. And many celebrities such as Frank Zappa was afraid of wire-tappers during the 60's.

The Clinton BJ was more than a BJ, but I'll get back to you on that one. ;)

And the marriage between man and woman came from the Mormon scare since that was becoming a big religion since many men married many woman, which is polygamy. That's why it became law to have one man and one woman.


No, congress did not authorize wire tapping, the FBI and the CIA did it, and other invasions of privacy surreptitiously.  They both also used agents provocateur to induce dissidents to break the law in one way or another.  I once wrote to the FBI requesting my file under the freedom of information act.  They said I didn't have one.  I wrote back telling them that they were falling down on the job since I'm a dangerous radical.  Sure enough, I have a file, which includes some candid photos of me in Chile.

The religious sanction of marriage is ancient, and as far as I'm concerned, religious groups have the right to refuse gay marriage.  But marriage is also a concern of the state, since there are state sanctioned benefits to being married, taxes and stuff.  So to deny those benefits on the basis of sexual orientation between consenting adults is a civil matter, with each state having its own rules.

The only constitutional issues comes up because each state must recognize what any other state sanctions.  Marriage itself is not mentioned in the constitution, at least the federal one.  You might stretch a point and say it is implied in the declaration of independence though, ie pursuit of happiness.   

^You're from Chile, or did you visit there? (Because then I can understand your political opinions better).

^You're from Chile, or did you visit there? (Because then I can understand your political opinions better).


I can't speak for Carlos, but back in the seventies the Pinochet government was doing atrocious things down there and it was the United States government effort spear-headed by Henry Kissinger that helped them do it.  I don't know if I would have the cajones to go into a country under such a regime.

On the other hand, my favorite serpent of Eden, Thomas Friedman was on Press the Meat last weekend doing his best Dean Wormer impression, "One more 9/11 attack, just one more like that, and that's the end of the open society as we know it!"  So, such a regime might come to me!  But Obama wouldn't let nothing like that happen, would he?
:o

^You're from Chile, or did you visit there? (Because then I can understand your political opinions better).



He is from New Jersey (but his mother is from Puerto Rico). He spent about a year in Chile working on his doctorate. 


I can't speak for Carlos, but back in the seventies the Pinochet government was doing atrocious things down there and it was the United States government effort spear-headed by Henry Kissinger that helped them do it.  I don't know if I would have the cajones to go into a country under such a regime.



He left Chile a few months before the coup in 1973. A little less than 10 years ago, we went down to D.C. to the National Achieve to do research on how the U.S. (specifically Henry Kissinger) helped orchestrate the coup. We found a lot of interesting stuff.



Cat

ah yes, good old thomas "suck on this" friedman.

i hate to sound complacent or overly sanguine but i seriously doubt there will be another attack on the US on the scale of sept 11. they had this mad science idea to fly planes into buildings and timed it out so that the cameras would be rolling, and they were "lucky" enough to have both towers collapse on live television... i simply have no idea how a bunch of guys who generally fight by strapping homemade bombs onto the backs of donkeys are going to top that.

interesting story, apparently AQ terrorists are dropping dead overseas of black plague. something like that, a bio attack with infectious disease, might inspire as much fear as sept 11 but even that wouldn't be as intense, i don't think.

He is from New Jersey (but his mother is from Puerto Rico). He spent about a year in Chile working on his doctorate. 


He left Chile a few months before the coup in 1973. A little less than 10 years ago, we went down to D.C. to the National Achieve to do research on how the U.S. (specifically Henry Kissinger) helped orchestrate the coup. We found a lot of interesting stuff.



Cat


Okay...now I'm understanding where your opinions lay now. Because I'm just getting lectures from my father and he's confusing me!

Why can't I be opinionated? Maybe if I move...

I wouldn't say that.  The fact that I can vote, own property, go to school, and my child cannot be sold away from me says different


Here, Here! http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q132/oddsey/Smiley%20GIFs/Applause.gif


From the campaign... in case you missed it...

Whoopi & John McCain after he says he wants to return to the constitution...


1 minute clip

extended version of same clip

2 1/2 minute Clip

Just weighing my 2 cents here... I think... MrCleavland... that you're trying to use the past to justify the present...

Yes you can compare Gitmo to Manzanar....et al... neither was right but- just because someone did something 50 years ago does not make it right to do it now...  We cannot erase what FDR did but we can learn from it. 

Going after Clinton? That was a farce... a bunch of hypocrites trying to hide their own sexual misconduct by going after someone else...
its like the bullies in the school yard...maybe they won't notice what's wrong with me if I pick on someone else first. If I can get everyone to
focus over there then they won't be looking at me... ...  (speaking of which Ted Haggard is on Oprah tomorrow if anyone cares)



Okay...now I'm understanding where your opinions lay now. Because I'm just getting lectures from my father and he's confusing me!

Why can't I be opinionated? Maybe if I move...


If your father is your only source of knowledge then you seriously need to expand your research.. I'm not saying you can't believe what you do or feel what you feel but you might want to get some real hard facts- something other than I know this because my father told me about it... that will not fly here...these people are too smart and too well versed in the political arena....that's why I usually stay out of here...


Carry on! 

I'll go dig through it and find it, but considering that even the left acknowledges that permitting gay marriage would involve an amendment (which I'm not against, btw) makes me quite certain its there. 



Have you found the passage yet?



Cat

I'll go dig through it and find it, but considering that even the left acknowledges that permitting gay marriage would involve an amendment (which I'm not against, btw) makes me quite certain its there. 



Ending slavery took a war, a proclamation and an amendment.  :o

Okay...now I'm understanding where your opinions lay now. Because I'm just getting lectures from my father and he's confusing me!

Why can't I be opinionated? Maybe if I move...


I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I came to my opinions through lots of reading, thinking, debating etc.  I went to Chile to do research for my dissertation, which is on the 19th century and British "informal" imperialism.  It was an interesting time there.

Why can't you be opinionated?  Who's stopping you?

Why can't you be opinionated?  Who's stopping you?
i for one am tempted to try.  ;D

sorry, couldnt resist.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I came to my opinions through lots of reading, thinking, debating etc.  I went to Chile to do research for my dissertation, which is on the 19th century and British "informal" imperialism.  It was an interesting time there.

Why can't you be opinionated?  Who's stopping you?


Right now...I'm bugged at my old man!

It seems that I'm always taking my work home!

Some consolation....They are calling in Rove about the firing of the US attorneys.  A federal judge said that his immunity doesn't apply in this case.

Some consolation....They are calling in Rove about the firing of the US attorneys.  A federal judge said that his immunity doesn't apply in this case.


I don't think his "immunity" was ever really legal.  They just didn't get law enforcement to take him into court.

Some consolation....They are calling in Rove about the firing of the US attorneys.  A federal judge said that his immunity doesn't apply in this case.


My fantasy is for the cops to walk right in on Hannity's show and arrest Rove on national TV; that would be a gas!
;D

My fantasy is for the cops to walk right in on Hannity's show and arrest Rove on national TV; that would be a gas!
;D


Therefore the end of Sean's show.  Oh well, I'll exchange Hannity for Young Turks having a prime time show anyday.

Therefore the end of Sean's show.  Oh well, I'll exchange Hannity for Young Turks having a prime time show anyday.
TYT is awesome. (although he irritates me when he goes on his spamting celebrity women thing.) i subscribed to them just about a week ago.

TYT is awesome. (although he irritates me when he goes on his spamting celebrity women thing.) i subscribed to them just about a week ago.


So I guess you heard their you tube account has been suspended.  Narrow minded conservatives complained.  I'm going to look into their website.

So I guess you heard their you tube account has been suspended.  Narrow minded conservatives complained.  I'm going to look into their website.


YouTube is failing because of Viacom.

Fudge you Viacom!

So I guess you heard their you tube account has been suspended.  Narrow minded conservatives complained.  I'm going to look into their website.

Why did YouTube suspend their account, was it some trumped up copyright violation charge?  On YouTube conservatives bitch at liberals and liberals bitch at conservatives all the time, like anywhere else.

YouTube is failing because of Viacom.

Fudge you Viacom!


and Warner Brothers

Why did YouTube suspend their account, was it some trumped up copyright violation charge?  On YouTube conservatives bitch at liberals and liberals bitch at conservatives all the time, like anywhere else.



Not quite sure exactly what happened.  Don't think it was copyright though.

and Warner Brothers


WB is making YouTube fail too?

actually, TYT does leave themselves pretty vulnerable to that. they lift clips and photos all the time and i doubt the buy the rights. not sayin' it's right, just expected, and it's not necessarily right-wing persecution, though i wouldn't be surprised.

there are a lot of other video hosting sites out there, youtube should be careful, they might find themselves with some competition.

WB is making YouTube fail too?


WB is starting to take everything off that's associated with them.