boy, I wish we actually had an opposition party in this country[views:9819][posts:158]________________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 1:47pm - ryanfromhbbsi ""] AMERICA FUCK YEAH COMIN AGAIN TO SAVE THE MOTHERFUCKIN DAY YEAHHHH |
| ___________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:12pm - Dissector ""] Joe/NotCommon said:this country didnt exist before white people came here, and who cares how indians use to live in the 13th century I don't know if you were joking, probably not since you are Joe after all. But, I 100% agree with that statement. |
| _____________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:23pm - Josh_Martin ""] the_reverend said:there is no save haven from shitty politicians No, but there are a lot of safe havens from shitty CHRISTIAN politicians. The U.S is slowly becoming a theocracy. Unless something changes soon, America will be the new Iran by 2050. The only thing more stupid than being a christian is voting for one. |
| ______________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:26pm - the_reverend ""] well.. at least there is always the judicial system to keep church and state separate. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/alito/index.html |
| ______________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:32pm - the_reverend ""] I wish we all had to wear banana hammocks. |
| ________________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:40pm - DomesticTerror ""] we could always take a bit outta the military budget and spend it on health care, education, etc. ya know, make some soldiers hold fund raisers and raffles for a few years |
| ______________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:42pm - the_reverend ""] I like how you basically just re-worded the bumper sticker on 1/2 the mini-vans in mass. |
| __________________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:44pm - davefromthegrave ""] the_reverend said:everyone knows what it was like back then. [img] Sadly, there's only one talking tree left and its name is Abe Vigoda |
| ________________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:45pm - DomesticTerror ""] lol. minus the shitty poetic sentiment. i thought you'd be gratefull |
| ____________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:49pm - BornSoVile ""] as much as I don't like the problems here, I'd rather stay and do something about it, instead of running away. I'm a 21st century patriot. |
| ______________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:50pm - the_reverend ""] well, it would be nice, but did I tell you that my other messageboard is a bicycle? |
| _____________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 4:53pm - Josh_Martin ""] the_reverend said:well.. at least there is always the judicial system to keep church and state separate. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/alito/index.html Right? Thank God for checks and balances. |
| ____________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 5:03pm - BornSoVile ""] Hungta‘Bleed said: Not only had she NO EXPERIENCE AS A JUDGE, she was an ex-Executive director of the ACLU. She is no more of a left winger than Alito a right winger. Well at least the ACLU fights to preserve the rights of every person here in America, rather than restricting and demolishing basic freedoms that many people desire and cherish. I don't think it has much to do with being sore losers or whatever, those are just hasty generalizations that promote common fallacies that we've accepted to be true, part of the right's mentality. Partly this thinking came from Regan, who was a President that loved D.C. (the glitz and glamour of being the president) but hated the Government, subsequently creating a system of thinking that intends the interest of the people to be less important and empowering those in power with more power. Bush hates D.C. but loves the Government, he's crafty the way he's gone about his shit, it's just that several of his decisions will be effecting the country well into OUR senior years, unless a left wing president comes along and systematically dismantles everything Bush did just as he's done to Clinton. Josh is right, we're heading towards a narrow minded system that restricts several basic freedoms, just like Iran. But whatever if people want that, then go ahead. I just think that this country should be all it can be, as opposed to, don't do that god is watching! |
| ________________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 5:42pm - DomesticTerror ""] BornSoVile said: I just think that this country should be all it can be, as opposed to, don't do that god is watching! but he is watching. thanks to the Patriot Act and illegal wiretaps |
| ____________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 5:44pm - BornSoVile ""] wire tapping is communist pinko observating at it's finest. |
| ________________________________________ [Jan 31,2006 5:52pm - DomesticTerror ""] shut up, go to the mall, and buy stuff you hippy! |
| ____________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 10:19am - anonymous ""] DomesticTerror said:BornSoVile said: I just think that this country should be all it can be, as opposed to, don't do that god is watching! but he is watching. thanks to the Patriot Act and illegal wiretaps I already know that the only response anyone will provide is “it is unconstitutional,” but if wiretapping, checking phone records, library records, e-mails, etc. will most likely give us valuable information as to potential terrorist attacks on our soil, which will obviously kill many innocent Americans, why would any American be against these “searches”? It is a duty of the president of this country to keep Americans safe, and that is exactly what he is trying to do by enforcing The Patriot Act. I can only conclude that the people who are against these searches have something to hide. However, these searches are geared towards people within our country communicating with people outside of this country who are believed to be involved with either funding terrorist organizations or who are involved in terrorist organizations; people like you and me will not even be affected by these searches. I think it is quite amusing that democrats/liberals are so adamantly opposed to these kinds of searches, yet if we were to be the victim to another terrorist attack, the first person that they would blame is Bush because he “didn’t do anything to prevent it,” yet he is trying to prevent another attack by instituting The Patriot Act. |
| ______________________________ [Feb 1,2006 10:19am - cmo ""] DomesticTerror said:BornSoVile said: I just think that this country should be all it can be, as opposed to, don't do that god is watching! but he is watching. thanks to the Patriot Act and illegal wiretaps I already know that the only response anyone will provide is “it is unconstitutional,” but if wiretapping, checking phone records, library records, e-mails, etc. will most likely give us valuable information as to potential terrorist attacks on our soil, which will obviously kill many innocent Americans, why would any American be against these “searches”? It is a duty of the president of this country to keep Americans safe, and that is exactly what he is trying to do by enforcing The Patriot Act. I can only conclude that the people who are against these searches have something to hide. However, these searches are geared towards people within our country communicating with people outside of this country who are believed to be involved with either funding terrorist organizations or who are involved in terrorist organizations; people like you and me will not even be affected by these searches. I think it is quite amusing that democrats/liberals are so adamantly opposed to these kinds of searches, yet if we were to be the victim to another terrorist attack, the first person that they would blame is Bush because he “didn’t do anything to prevent it,” yet he is trying to prevent another attack by instituting The Patriot Act. |
| _____________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 10:40am - Josh_Martin ""] anonymous said:DomesticTerror said:BornSoVile said: I just think that this country should be all it can be, as opposed to, don't do that god is watching! but he is watching. thanks to the Patriot Act and illegal wiretaps I already know that the only response anyone will provide is “it is unconstitutional,” but if wiretapping, checking phone records, library records, e-mails, etc. will most likely give us valuable information as to potential terrorist attacks on our soil, which will obviously kill many innocent Americans, why would any American be against these “searches”? It is a duty of the president of this country to keep Americans safe, and that is exactly what he is trying to do by enforcing The Patriot Act. I can only conclude that the people who are against these searches have something to hide. However, these searches are geared towards people within our country communicating with people outside of this country who are believed to be involved with either funding terrorist organizations or who are involved in terrorist organizations; people like you and me will not even be affected by these searches. I think it is quite amusing that democrats/liberals are so adamantly opposed to these kinds of searches, yet if we were to be the victim to another terrorist attack, the first person that they would blame is Bush because he “didn’t do anything to prevent it,” yet he is trying to prevent another attack by instituting The Patriot Act. You are awfully trusting of a proven liar. |
| ____________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 10:55am - paganmegan ""] And if you think his one motive is "keeping Americans safe" you are incredibly naive |
| ______________________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 11:27am - BobNOMAAMRooney nli ""] The issue isn't whether or not Bush is trying to prevent terrorism by spying on Americans. It is the fact that he is declaring himself above the law by ignoring the FICA court. FICA warrants are ridiculously easy to get and you have up to 72 hours after you spy on someone to obtain a warrant. If a terror threat was imminent the time difference between bypassing FICA and shooting them a warrant request would be like the delay between the moment you click Qik Reply on this board and when your post appears. And if domestic spying is the salve to the threat of terrorism think about this. Each and every one of the 9/11 hijackers were filmed by the thousands of surveilance cameras in our airports and there were warnings about major Al-Qaeda actions in the US, yet we were powerless to stop them. |
| _________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 11:30am - soloman ""] paganmegan said:And if you think his one motive is "keeping Americans safe" you are incredibly naive agreed. he's doing it to steal our oil and line the pockets of haliburton stockholders with money. |
| __________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 12:33pm - litacore ""] KEEP americans safer, heh? wouldn't it be better if, while sifting through 8-zillion phone records/e-mails of "What are you wearing?" and/or who took "Fucking Jesus Up The Ass With A 12-Inch Dildo" from the library (I don't believe it's on the shelf HERE), and other such wild goose chases, someone in the Bush administration paid attention to FBI filed office memos such as "Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside the USA" and messages from flight training schools such as "Um...we had a student come in here the other day who wanted to take classes on not how to FLY a Jumbo 747, but how to hijak and crash one"???? |
| ___________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 2:06pm - paganmegan ""] I definitely think the state of American politics and the amount of opposition towards the state of things (or lack thereof really) proves just how stupid the majority of people are. We need an entirely new system of government and for people to get a fucking clue |
| _____________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 2:11pm - the_reverend ""] "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -Ben Franklin |
| ___________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 2:18pm - paganmegan ""] I wrote a paper for a class last year comparing and contrasting Thomas Jefferson's policies and philisophies to Bush's, and let's just say Jefferson (as imperfect as he was and as imperfect that form of the U.S. government was) is rolling in his grave. Between the lack of "personal liberty" and the lack of secularism |
| ___________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 2:18pm - paganmegan ""] keep christian filth away! |
| _________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 3:24pm - pam nli ""] Is it 2008 yet? |
| ___________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 3:51pm - BornSoVile ""] wow what a bunch of pig headed liberals we got here! look at these boards, pam, megan, larissa - oh you think your so smart huh? last time i checked women are inferior, it's science. i think we need to back to the good olde days, back when women weren't allowed to vote. stop being sore losers and start cooking and cleaning everything. you're all so dumb, i'm gonna put my main man, JESUS in control of your bodies. that's right, get your stigmata on! obviously have something to hide if you don't the want the government spying on you 24 hours a day. oh and all this jefferson talk, wow, i think you're over analzying history way to much. that shit is meaningless. after all it's HIStory, so you probably are fucking up the way you understand it (since it was written by a man). so basically stop dreaming of a better tomorrow, okay, and realize that progression is a step towards evil. we need to conserve an ancient system that is based on god. and if you don't support that, you're coward, and a pinko and definately not true! |
| _____________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 3:54pm - the_reverend ""] IT'S NOT WHO'S RIGHT. IT'S WHO TALKED THE LOUDEST! |
| ___________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 4:00pm - BornSoVile ""] fucking rev, you and your jewish media site here and it's fucking conspriacy to commit blasphemy against the almighty jesus. |
| _______________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 4:16pm - DomesticTerror ""] cmo said: I already know that the only response anyone will provide is “it is unconstitutional,” but if wiretapping, checking phone records, library records, e-mails, etc. will most likely give us valuable information as to potential terrorist attacks on our soil, which will obviously kill many innocent Americans, why would any American be against these “searches”? It is a duty of the president of this country to keep Americans safe, and that is exactly what he is trying to do by enforcing The Patriot Act. I can only conclude that the people who are against these searches have something to hide. However, these searches are geared towards people within our country communicating with people outside of this country who are believed to be involved with either funding terrorist organizations or who are involved in terrorist organizations; people like you and me will not even be affected by these searches. I think it is quite amusing that democrats/liberals are so adamantly opposed to these kinds of searches, yet if we were to be the victim to another terrorist attack, the first person that they would blame is Bush because he “didn’t do anything to prevent it,” yet he is trying to prevent another attack by instituting The Patriot Act. I'm opposed to the commander in chief breaking the law, plain and simple. If Bush wants some info on potential terror attacks, he should read the reports handed to him and act on them, at least before reading my e-mails. And if you honestly believe that these searches will not affect "people like you and me" than you are either highly delusional, or borderline retarded. |
| ____________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 4:44pm - HailTheLeaf ""] anonymous said:DomesticTerror said:BornSoVile said: I just think that this country should be all it can be, as opposed to, don't do that god is watching! but he is watching. thanks to the Patriot Act and illegal wiretaps I already know that the only response anyone will provide is “it is unconstitutional,” but if wiretapping, checking phone records, library records, e-mails, etc. will most likely give us valuable information as to potential terrorist attacks on our soil, which will obviously kill many innocent Americans, why would any American be against these “searches”? It is a duty of the president of this country to keep Americans safe, and that is exactly what he is trying to do by enforcing The Patriot Act. I can only conclude that the people who are against these searches have something to hide. However, these searches are geared towards people within our country communicating with people outside of this country who are believed to be involved with either funding terrorist organizations or who are involved in terrorist organizations; people like you and me will not even be affected by these searches. I think it is quite amusing that democrats/liberals are so adamantly opposed to these kinds of searches, yet if we were to be the victim to another terrorist attack, the first person that they would blame is Bush because he “didn’t do anything to prevent it,” yet he is trying to prevent another attack by instituting The Patriot Act. He could have done it legally by simply appying for a warrant, the fact that he didn't bother makes it all the more sleazy and low-life...Nixon was impeached for breaking the same law. If you want wiretaps to prevent terrorism then let's wiretap the whitehouse because I can't think of any bigger terrorists. |
| ____________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 4:51pm - HailTheLeaf ""] paganmegan said:I definitely think the state of American politics and the amount of opposition towards the state of things (or lack thereof really) proves just how stupid the majority of people are. We need an entirely new system of government and for people to get a fucking clue fuckin' a, thank you, preach on sister... |
| ____________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 4:53pm - HailTheLeaf ""] pam nli said:Is it 2008 yet? ha, you think Bush will actually leave office in 2008? He's going to get Alito on the Supreme court and they'll decide that Bush has absolute power and can stay as long as he wants. |
| _________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 6:35pm - pam nli ""] That's when I suck on the urgent end of a shotgun. |
| _________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 6:55pm - Dankill ""] So..... Does anyone have any productive ideas that can be EXPLAINED and are likely to be accomplished? Seriously, the biggest problem America faces today is people know only how to bitch and point fingers one way or the other, but can't think of real solutions to problems and are so paraniod of each other, nothing can be done with out assuming that either the Jesus Squad or the Commies are behind everything and are about to take over your lives? Part of the reason that the Democrats have fucked up so much in the past 10 years is because they've allowed their face to be that of the most loudmouth ultra left wing people possible so that your avergage person that isn't all that deep in politics get turned off. The days of Dixiecrats and Regan Democrats are dying and guys like Joe Leiberman are a dying breed. On the same hand, I don't believe the Republicans are as deep into the Jesus Squad as people think. There are plenty of them in the House and Senate that don't like all of Bush's plans and have blocked him or at least made him alter bills. If anything, there are plenty that are trying to keep the Jesus Squad from speaking for all Republicans much like the Democrats have let themselves go from being the party of the working man to the party of the welfare state and interest group. The quote that I hear more and more these days is this: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, The Democratic Party left me". As for everyone assuming doomsday, we've survived 5 years of Bush, we'll survive the rest. If you are still whining about how you are so afraid that you think you're gonna leave the country, I'm willing to bet you said that in 2000 when Gore lost (HE LOST! GET OVER IT! IT'S A DEAD HORSE), then again in 2004. Why the fuck are you still here?! Leave already. If you really believe you are in such danger, then you are a fool not to have bailed out. Otherwise, you are full of shit. I may not agree on every issue with him, but I'm with Josh. I'm an American, I'm a Patriot and I intend to stay and improve my country from within. This is going to be ours someday, so we have to start sometime. |
| ______________________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 7:08pm - slowlypeelingtheflesh ""] cmo said:I already know that the only response anyone will provide is “it is unconstitutional,” but if wiretapping, checking phone records, library records, e-mails, etc. will most likely give us valuable information as to potential terrorist attacks on our soil, which will obviously kill many innocent Americans, why would any American be against these “searches”? It is a duty of the president of this country to keep Americans safe, and that is exactly what he is trying to do by enforcing The Patriot Act. I can only conclude that the people who are against these searches have something to hide. However, these searches are geared towards people within our country communicating with people outside of this country who are believed to be involved with either funding terrorist organizations or who are involved in terrorist organizations; people like you and me will not even be affected by these searches. I think it is quite amusing that democrats/liberals are so adamantly opposed to these kinds of searches, yet if we were to be the victim to another terrorist attack, the first person that they would blame is Bush because he “didn’t do anything to prevent it,” yet he is trying to prevent another attack by instituting The Patriot Act. I oppose The Patriot Act and I have nothing to hide, keep watching FOX News and sucking President Bush's cock. |
| _________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 7:11pm - pam nli ""] I agree there's too much bitching, and not enough action. That tends to be my biggest issue with a lot of my fellow lefties. They're cowards that prefer to hide in their run down homes, and cry about the injustices of the world. I don't know how to fix the country's problems...but what I do know is this, what Hail The Leaf and I are most afraid of... You CANNOT out law abortion. You cannot tell a woman what to do with her body, her future and her life. All the reasons the right has for ban abortion, the morning after pill, and birth control, are based in religious beliefs. We have every right to complain about Alito being sworn in because that is one more step toward reversing Roe V Wade. It CAN happen, it's not a false threat. I get off my ass and write letters, I've called senators, and I plan to be in DC this year for the march. AT LEAST when lots and lots of people complain, it creates a buzz, more people are, voluntarily or not, dragged into having to pick a side. Now it may only cause 1 out of every 100 people to take some action, but 1 is better than nothing. If no one complained, no one would do anything to stop the bitching, and we'd be screwed. Think about it that way. I know what you're saying though, and there are plenty of people on the left and right who agree with you. All I'm saying is I'd rather hear mass complaining and whining than silence. |
| _________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 9:39pm - Dankill ""] Pam. It's not gonna happen. Trust me. It's a scaretactic. Reversing Roe V Wade is political suicide and much harder in terms of law then people think. Supreme court justices can't just wave a wand and change laws they may not like. It has nothing to do with liking a law, they decypher the laws and would have to prove that a law broke other laws by it's presence, therefore is null. People were scared of Regan doing this and they put fuckin Ginsberg in the court. Yeah, I could really see Ruth Ginsberg overturning Roe V Wade. Any party that tried that would create a political firestorm in America that would seriously eclipse the Iraq war debate, protests and civil unrest. The Republicans would be crippled as a party after taking away a hotly contested law that is over thirty years old. |
| ________________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 9:55pm - BobNOMAAMRooney ""] Focusing on Roe v. Wade is a complete waste of energy, since neither party will fully support or ban it, it's just a great way to attract voters. People should really focus on prospective justices's stances on privacy and property rights. It might be grand and all that our Supreme Court reflects our majority Christian values, but it's not going to be all that great when you're homeless because Wal-Mart wants an electronics department where your house stands (the Supreme Court said that's totally legal, take that individual property rights). |
| _____________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 9:58pm - hungtableed ""] BobNOMAAMRooney said:Focusing on Roe v. Wade is a complete waste of energy, since neither party will fully support or ban it, it's just a great way to attract voters. I cannot help but agree with you 100% here. Of coarse everyone has their own opinion on it, but using this issue as the platform for one's campaign or judicial confirmation is a crock of shit. |
| ________________________________________ [Feb 1,2006 11:10pm - DomesticTerror ""] pam nli said: All I'm saying is I'd rather hear mass complaining and whining than silence. one of the best statements in this thread. Yes, whining doesn't do a hell of a lot, but then again, this isn't exactly the forum for a movement. It is merely the 5% on this board who actually give a shit about what is going on. Regardless of anyone's political affiliation, i'm just gald that these few of us who actually pay attention take the time out of our 10 minutes a day on this board to express/vent/respond to eachother. For example, I may not agree with Hungtableed most of the time, but I'm glad the two of us go at it. Maybe it will stimulate someone else's interest in the subjects. Just because someone makes political statements on a metal board, it doesn't necessarily constitute whining/inaction. Maybe some of us just care enough to spread the word or at least provoke thought. Most people here can't seem to grasp anything beyond "death to false metal" and "such and such is gay." Bovine America is everywhere... |
| ___________________________________ [Feb 2,2006 2:01am - infoterror ""] RACE WAR QUICK BEFORE THE CHINESE INVADE AND ENSLAVE US ALL |
| _____________________________________________ [Feb 2,2006 7:20am - armageddanne i Oslo ""] I'm glad I'm back in Europe, socialized health care sucks, yeah, but it sucks less than no health care. Health costs are much much lower here, even in Norway. At least school and universities are more or less free. Politicians sucks no matter you put them. Grass is not greener on the other side, shit is everywhere. At least I'm not paying taxes and living in a country whose politics and way of life are totally against my believes, my conscience feels much better now. |
| ________________________________ [Feb 2,2006 8:54am - soloman ""] BobNOMAAMRooney said:...It might be grand and all that our Supreme Court reflects our majority Christian values, but it's not going to be all that great when you're homeless because Wal-Mart wants an electronics department where your house stands (the Supreme Court said that's totally legal, take that individual property rights). Yeah there should be more people pissed off about this. It's pretty fucked up. |
| _____________________________________ [Feb 2,2006 11:28am - HailTheLeaf ""] Plan B sounds good to me... http://www.alternet.org/story/31679/ |
| _____________________________________ [Feb 2,2006 11:46am - Josh_Martin ""] Dankill said:Pam. It's not gonna happen. Trust me. It's a scaretactic. Reversing Roe V Wade is political suicide and much harder in terms of law then people think. Supreme court justices can't just wave a wand and change laws they may not like. It has nothing to do with liking a law, they decypher the laws and would have to prove that a law broke other laws by it's presence, therefore is null. People were scared of Regan doing this and they put fuckin Ginsberg in the court. Yeah, I could really see Ruth Ginsberg overturning Roe V Wade. Any party that tried that would create a political firestorm in America that would seriously eclipse the Iraq war debate, protests and civil unrest. The Republicans would be crippled as a party after taking away a hotly contested law that is over thirty years old. Boy are you wrong about that. Clinton put Ginsberg on the court, not Reagan. |
| ____________________________________ [Feb 2,2006 12:50pm - anonymous ""] Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor, who, in the Michigan University case favor of affirmative action, although pointed out that the country was fast approaching a time when affirmative action wouldn't be something that could be legal anymore, voted to bounce abortion decisions back to states and to NOT overturn Roe v. Wade. Of note, the republican nominated Alito just voted to NOT execute a man who Clarence Thomas, a democrat nominee (Bill Clinton) voted TO execute. What someone says up front, before appointment can be very different from how they actually vote. You see, once you are on there you can't be removed...so, you are actually free to vote however you feel is legally responsible, not how the party who nominated wants you to. |
| ______________________________________ [Feb 2,2006 12:59pm - hungtabreed ""] Dankill said: Yeah, I could really see Ruth Ginsberg overturning Roe V Wade. You're being sarcastic here right? If not, you are ill-informed. Ginsberg is arguably the most hardline left wingers that has even occupied the bench. I would go as far as saying that she was put on to affirm that abortion laws NOT be overturned. |