A World Gone Mad: Rant Here!

[rarocks24]

About the WMDs. I got a little ticked off, and a little shocked, when some people said that the weapons weren't good anymore. I mean more than a little shocked. It's sulfur mustard gas, it's a nerve agent. The crap lasts for a very long time. Hell, you can go out to a civil war battlefield, find a packet of gunpowder, use it, and the gun will still shoot. How that's related to nerve agents, it's not.

If shells filled with mustard gas can get brought up by the cold weather and be set off by farmers in the present (and it still be lethal), I can damn sure tell you that those shells filled with mustard gas found in Iraq are still good. Lastly, no matter what, it proves that Saddam didn't give up all his WMDs to begin with. Therefore, there was always a violation of the treaty, and Bush's argument is still justified.

These are the same things that 5 of these devices are estimated to kill about 5,000 people?

Even if Saddam didn't have any affiliation with AQ, he still harbored declared terrorists. One of the terrorists from the Achille Lauro were protected by Saddam. Even one of the 1993 WTC bombers were protected in Iraq.

As an aside, for those calling Bush a warmongerer, Clinton seemed to get into just as many wars, actually, as it stands, Clinton, 3....Bush, 2.

[Arative]

You couldn't be more wrong. Stop telling me I don't believe in the rights of minorities. Saying it doesn't make it so; another lesson the Dems havent' learned yet. I have already stated that minority citizens rights should be protected the same as everyone's rights. What I do not agree to is making up new laws, or performing tea leaf readings to find unintended meanings into old ones to suit their minority causes; that means causes that the majority of people do not agree with, not causes taken up by minorities in case you don't see the difference. Living in a democracy (which is really a republic) means that the majority wins. Their ideas should prevail; yes over the ideals of the minority vote. If not, why have elections at all?

I think you should read up on our system of government, just because the majority wins doesn't mean they have absolute power, no matter how much the conservatives wish it was otherwise.

This is just another way for the Left to downplay what's been found. The bottom line is that Saddam lied to the UN. These and other wepons keep turning up, just not in the acceptible numbers that would allow the Dems to say the word "stockpile." (Who knows what number that would have to be)? I also note that their were at least 16 other reasons for going into Iraq. WMD just topped the list. If the war on terroism is so wrong, why can't the Dems agree on any timetable to get out, since they seem to want out sooo badly? And don't try to tell me that the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are 2 different things. Zarqawi, if he hadn't been killed, much to my delight, would argue differently.

See, the CIA actually said that these were not the WMD's that they were looking for, not the Democrats. But certainly the republican Rick Santorum was real quick to jump on the bandwagon, most likely because he is trailing 18 points in the poll to a Democratic contender. Since the only thing that Republicans have going for them is evangelical christians and scaring the rest of the nation into thinking there are WMD's everywhere, it wasn't surprising the republicans jumped on this story to say "see we were right, nananana"

The Democrats don't think the war on terror is wrong, they think that we actually need a plan to win in iraq and so far Bush hasn't shown a coherent strategy to win in iraq. And sadly yes, Iraq and the larger war on terror are two different things. Zarqawi didn't exist in Iraq until the US went into Iraq and infact Bin Laden had a death warrant signed aganist Sadaam because Sadaam ran a secular muslim state. No question though Sadaam was a despot. However linking Iraq and the global war on terror is a republican tatic to make the Democrats look weak on terror. What most Democrats understand, regardless of the reasons we got into Iraq we need to stay until Iraq can stand on its own or else we will just be going back in a few years. The others that want an immediate withdrawl are basically posturing to actually get the President to come up with a plan other to keep saying, "we're just going to stay until the job is done" but he never quite tells us how the job is going to get done.

Obviously. These houses legislate, not low level county seat judges. These are the "activist" judges to which I refer. Let these judges uphold the laws as written on the books. Changing them or striking them down should be left for the wiser intellects on appeals, circuits, and supreme courts, not local yahoos who with their hands out come election time.

Well here is the thing, you quite obviously don't understand how our judical system is designed to function. You see low level country judges can not rule on the constitutionality of a federal law. If a person brings a complaint aganist a federal law, its always going to be in a federal court. If a person brings a complaint aganist a state law, it will always be in the state court system.

It also appears to you still don't understand the basic of checks and balances. So I'll try to make it simpler. Congress passes the law, the Executive upholds the law and Judicial reviews the laws. Do you understand now? Congress just can't pass any bill it wants too on a whim because it will always be reviewed by the Judicial branch for its constitutionality.

[rarocks24]

It also appears to you still don't understand the basic of checks and balances. So I'll try to make it simpler. Congress passes the law, the Executive upholds the law and Judicial reviews the laws. Do you understand now? Congress just can't pass any bill it wants too on a whim because it will always be reviewed by the Judicial branch for its constitutionality.

I think the point he's trying to make is that the Courts shouldn't be overstepping their boundaries by using their position to make laws that aren't really laws. The Miranda Rule is not a law, yet it has to be said otherwise the charges against the criminal are dropped. Just the same as the Supreme Court used Roe v. Wade, saying that it's legal when there was no area in the Constitution that declared it to be so.

[Arative]

I think the point he's trying to make is that the Courts shouldn't be overstepping their boundaries by using their position to make laws that aren't really laws. The Miranda Rule is not a law, yet it has to be said otherwise the charges against the criminal are dropped. Just the same as the Supreme Court used Roe v. Wade, saying that it's legal when there was no area in the Constitution that declared it to be so.

The courts don't make laws that aren't laws. They review constitutionality of existing laws and determine if those laws are legal under the Constitution. In the case of Miranda, it was determined by the Supreme Court that a suspect must be made aware of the rights that they already had under the law. So no new law was created, just that a person had to be informed of the rights they already possesed, such as right to an attorney or right to remain to silent under the 5th and 6th amendments respectivly. And since I really don't want to get into a whole abortion argument here, I'll just say that Roe v. Wade was ruled on the grounds of the due process clause of the 14th amemdment that guarnteed the right to privacy. Essentially its not states right to determine medical decisions but a persons right. That fact is conveniently ignored by both sides of the arguement.

Since you want to talk about big decisions the courts made, how about the 1954 case Brown v Board of Education. Should the Supreme Court not have gotten involved and just allowed segration to continue until the legislature changed its laws? Without that case, in all likelyhood it would have been decades later that the civil rights movement began. Or the 1963 case of Gideon v Wainwright, which guarnteed a persons right to counsel, without this ruling people that couldn't afford lawyers might not have on appointed for them.

If laws are meant to be laws as Ancient1 says and they should never ever change then why are there so many strange ones that are still on the books? Such as in Texas, it's against the law for anyone to have a pair of pliers in his or her possession or In Memphis, Tennessee, a woman is not to drive a car unless a man warns approaching motorists or pedestrians by walking in front of the car that is being driven. (I agree with this one by the way, my girlfriend is a horrible driver!). In Oklahoma, no baseball team can hit the ball over the fence or out of a ballpark and my favorite in Virginia, the Code of 1930 has a statute which prohibits corrupt practices or bribery by any person other than political candidates.

And why are both the right and the left always trying to pack the courts in their favor by appointing either conservative or liberal judges if all laws are suppose to stay the same until the legislature changes them? The term "activist judge" didn't come into play until people actually started to question some of the things George Bush was doing in the office of the President and how dare some one question him let alone some judge whose job is to actually interept the law according to the Constitution.

Granted, judical review isn't expresly written into the Constitution but most poeple that the intent of the framers was to have judicial review. It is possible that the framers thought the power of judicial review was sufficiently clear from the structure of government that it need not be expressly stated. Another possibility is that the framers didn't think that the issue would ever come up, because Congress would never pass legislation outside of its enumerated powers. It must be noted that over half of the orignal states gave their judges the power of judical review, so it was a generally accepted practice of the time.

[uknesvuinng]

the Code of 1930 has a statute which prohibits corrupt practices or bribery by any person other than political candidates.

A practice that continues on the national level to this day. We just call it campaign donations.

[Exiled Master]

[QUOTE]rarocks

I dislike how the media has to show any bias at all. Here's an idea, tell the frakking news, the honest frakking truth, not the sick, twisted, politically biased crap and cut out all opinions whatsoever. I don't want to know what you think, that's not what the news is about. I don't want to hear, well, I think...as this is not news. The moment you say I think, it goes from being news to editorials!!! I don't frakking care what you frakking think about the frakking world. Just report the damn news.

Ahhh, but there's the problem. The media isn't biased, it's corporate; yet another exhibit to the rapid acceleration of our society to a cyberpunk world. The media conglomerates that own everything can't afford to be political, only to look out for themselves. They do that by keeping their audiences glued to the TV, where they eat up every fear inducing news byte.

[Ancient 1]

I think you should read up on our system of government, just because the majority wins doesn't mean they have absolute power, no matter how much the conservatives wish it was otherwise.

Another case of losers trying to assume power that they do not hold. Such is their senate litmis test for SC candidates.Why am I not surprised? The only reason Dems get away with this stunt is because Reps have still not gotten used to the idea that they do have much, if not all, the power. The liberal ideas are really being made known to the people these days thanks to the internet and other media sources. Hence the decline of the liberal agenda in politics these days. Of course the true test will come in October this year.

See, the CIA actually said that these were not the WMD's that they were looking for, not the Democrats. But certainly the republican Rick Santorum was real quick to jump on the bandwagon, most likely because he is trailing 18 points in the poll to a Democratic contender. Since the only thing that Republicans have going for them is evangelical christians and scaring the rest of the nation into thinking there are WMD's everywhere, it wasn't surprising the republicans jumped on this story to say "see we were right, nananana"

I too would jump on any band wagon that points to the truth of Saddam's lies. If these older munitions are not dangerous, perhaps we can just store them at the Kennedy Compound, but then again I'm not sure if I want that dude having WMD either. He's already killed one woman armed with only an empty bottle of vodka.

The Democrats don't think the war on terror is wrong, they think that we actually need a plan to win in iraq and so far Bush hasn't shown a coherent strategy to win in iraq. And sadly yes, Iraq and the larger war on terror are two different things. Zarqawi didn't exist in Iraq until the US went into Iraq and infact Bin Laden had a death warrant signed aganist Sadaam because Sadaam ran a secular muslim state. No question though Sadaam was a despot. However linking Iraq and the global war on terror is a republican tatic to make the Democrats look weak on terror. What most Democrats understand, regardless of the reasons we got into Iraq we need to stay until Iraq can stand on its own or else we will just be going back in a few years. The others that want an immediate withdrawl are basically posturing to actually get the President to come up with a plan other to keep saying, "we're just going to stay until the job is done" but he never quite tells us how the job is going to get done.

For all the Dems saying Bush has no plan, I've yet to hear them come up with one of their own. "We need to move in another direction." is not a plan. "Redeployment" is not a plan; unless it is to lose. The Dems don't like it to be analyzed too much but to "move in another direction" is the direction of a retreat as opposed to winning the war...as you claim they want to do.

Well here is the thing, you quite obviously don't understand how our judical system is designed to function. You see low level country judges can not rule on the constitutionality of a federal law. If a person brings a complaint aganist a federal law, its always going to be in a federal court. If a person brings a complaint aganist a state law, it will always be in the state court system.

Bottom feeders should not rescind laws. That's why there are STATE & FEDERAL appeals, circuits, and supreme courts. Locals at the bottom rung should just follow the law as written. Then it can be appealed to the higher courts. That's how it's supposed to work. The checks and balances still apply.

It also appears to you still don't understand the basic of checks and balances. So I'll try to make it simpler. Congress passes the law, the Executive upholds the law and Judicial reviews the laws. Do you understand now? Congress just can't pass any bill it wants too on a whim because it will always be reviewed by the Judicial branch for its constitutionality.

Judicial review should not be done by magistrates or judges sitting at county seats where local agendas become conflicts of interest because the position itself is an electible one.

[Ancient 1]

I don't mean to interrupt or be a "buttinsky" (No slur intended to our Pole friends here), but...

The courts don't make laws that aren't laws. They review constitutionality of existing laws and determine if those laws are legal under the Constitution. In the case of Miranda, it was determined by the Supreme Court that a suspect must be made aware of the rights that they already had under the law. So no new law was created, just that a person had to be informed of the rights they already possesed, such as right to an attorney or right to remain to silent under the 5th and 6th amendments respectivly. And since I really don't want to get into a whole abortion argument here, I'll just say that Roe v. Wade was ruled on the grounds of the due process clause of the 14th amemdment that guarnteed the right to privacy. Essentially its not states right to determine medical decisions but a persons right. That fact is conveniently ignored by both sides of the arguement.
Since you want to talk about big decisions the courts made, how about the 1954 case Brown v Board of Education. Should the Supreme Court not have gotten involved and just allowed segration to continue until the legislature changed its laws? Without that case, in all likelyhood it would have been decades later that the civil rights movement began. Or the 1963 case of Gideon v Wainwright, which guarnteed a persons right to counsel, without this ruling people that couldn't afford lawyers might not have on appointed for them.

...I would note that you use my case of "higher courts" settling these issues of law to back up your own arguments; in these cases it was the Supremes. Check & mate.

If laws are meant to be laws as Ancient1 says and they should never ever change then why are there so many strange ones that are still on the books? Such as in Texas, it's against the law for anyone to have a pair of pliers in his or her possession or In Memphis, Tennessee, a woman is not to drive a car unless a man warns approaching motorists or pedestrians by walking in front of the car that is being driven. (I agree with this one by the way, my girlfriend is a horrible driver!). In Oklahoma, no baseball team can hit the ball over the fence or out of a ballpark and my favorite in Virginia, the Code of 1930 has a statute which prohibits corrupt practices or bribery by any person other than political candidates.

I would suggest that these laws are not inforced and it's a waste of everyone's time to go through all the legal loopholes & motions to have them stricken from the books. Otherwise should someone base an unlawful action citing one of these laws you mention, it would then get the recognition for the absurd that it rates and then be removed. Or so one would hope.

The term "activist judge" didn't come into play until people actually started to question some of the things George Bush was doing in the office of the President and how dare some one question him let alone some judge whose job is to actually interept the law according to the Constitution

That one is a big Whopper. Did you actually type it without laughing? George Bush ran on the platform that he would appoint conservative judges if elected to be President. People voted. He won...both times. Those on the left have only one real concern in this matter and it can be seen every time a SC judge nominee is named: Uphold Abortion on demand as in the ludicrus finding in Roe v Wade. This is a case where it would seem that most, at least in many states, want the law to be changed, but those on the left do all they can to prevent it from happening. With the federal umbella of abortion gone, those on the left fear what will happen if it becomes a states rights issue. I think SD's latest referendum on the subject will bring the issue of Roe v Wade back in front tof the Supreme Court. We shall see then what politics play out.

New Stuff: theTreason Times has done it again: Putting on display, in print, another counter-terrorist tactic for the terrorists to dodge.

Let's go here, Mr. Peabody."

An Observation: Did you notice that the blood types of liberals is mostly "B Negative?

Political Humor: A couple weeks ago Israeli forces killed the PRC founder. The PRC expressed their anger over Samhadana's death, promising to "open the gates of hell" in response.
Well, yeah. How else would he get in?

I had just finished reading Godless by AC when I came across this little gem of truth and wisdom: "The only person taking more cheap shots than Ann Coulter is Congressman Patrick Kennedy!"

How 'bout another round, Pat?

[Ancient 1]

More proof that today's world of PC is a world in decline:

(1) The Marriage Protection Amendment has nothing to do with discriminating against same-sex couples and everything to do with preserving for future generations the fundamental institution that has sustained society throughout history. Courts should not be allowed to suppress the voices and votes of the American people by permanently redefining marriage in America. In a statement indicative of Democratic double-speak, Sen. Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts said, “A vote for this (marriage) amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple.” For the government to say that marriage should be safeguarded as a union of a man and a woman is not bigotry. It’s common sense. It’s also an attempt to protect order in an increasingly disordered world.

(2) A culture that elevates tolerance over its own survival is suicidal. A culture that views dissent against itself as the greatest calling has given its enemies the tool in which to anesthetize the inhabitants. A society cannot recognize an enemy when it’s always pointing to itself as the enemy. EDIT: This is what the left does in a "blame America" society.

Pro-Life, Common Sense
Nat Hentoff, The Washington Times:
A friend of mine told me of a recent conversation at his family's dinner table that keeps reverberating in my mind. His wife, a physician, also performs abortions. And their 9-year-old son -- hearing the words and curious about its meaning -- looked up from his plate and asked, "What is an abortion?" His mother tried carefully to describe it in simple terms.
"But," said her son, "that means killing the baby." The mother then explained that there are certain months during which an abortion cannot be performed, with very few exceptions. The 9-year-old shook his head. "But," he said, "it doesn't matter what month. It still means killing the babies." Hearing the story, I wished it could be repeated to the justices of the Supreme Court, in the hope that at least five of them might act on this 9-year-old's clarity of thought and vision. The boy's spontaneous insistence on the primacy of life also reminded me of a powerful pro-life speaker and writer who, many years ago, helped me become a pro-lifer. He was a preacher, a black preacher. He said: "There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life.
"That," he continued, "was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore out of your right to be concerned." This passionate reverend used to warn: "Don't let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn't a human being. That's how the whites dehumanized us... The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify what they wanted to do and not even feel they'd done anything wrong." That preacher was the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Later, he decided to run for the presidency, and it was a credible campaign that many found inspiring in its focus on what still had to be done on civil rights. But Mr. Jackson had by now become "pro-choice," much to the appreciation of most of those in the liberal base. Pro-life just makes sense.

What if these words were utterd today?
(3) "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival." -- Winston S. Churchill
Q:Would they be met with unity? Have they when paraphrased by Bush?

Why it is with the LSM, (that’s Lame Stream Media), that getting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a one-day story, and American "atrocities" are news forever, I shall never know.

[Exiled Master]

I don't mean to interrupt or be a "buttinsky" (No slur intended to our Pole friends here), but...

...I would note that you use my case of "higher courts" settling these issues of law to back up your own arguments; in these cases it was the Supremes. Check & mate.

I would suggest that these laws are not inforced and it's a waste of everyone's time to go through all the legal loopholes & motions to have them stricken from the books. Otherwise should someone base an unlawful action citing one of these laws you mention, it would then get the recognition for the absurd that it rates and then be removed. Or so one would hope.

That one is a big Whopper. Did you actually type it without laughing? George Bush ran on the platform that he would appoint conservative judges if elected to be President. People voted. He won...both times. Those on the left have only one real concern in this matter and it can be seen every time a SC judge nominee is named: Uphold Abortion on demand as in the ludicrus finding in Roe v Wade. This is a case where it would seem that most, at least in many states, want the law to be changed, but those on the left do all they can to prevent it from happening. With the federal umbella of abortion gone, those on the left fear what will happen if it becomes a states rights issue. I think SD's latest referendum on the subject will bring the issue of Roe v Wade back in front tof the Supreme Court. We shall see then what politics play out.

New Stuff: theTreason Times has done it again: Putting on display, in print, another counter-terrorist tactic for the terrorists to dodge.

Let's go here, Mr. Peabody."

An Observation: Did you notice that the blood types of liberals is mostly "B Negative?

Political Humor: A couple weeks ago Israeli forces killed the PRC founder. The PRC expressed their anger over Samhadana's death, promising to "open the gates of hell" in response.
Well, yeah. How else would he get in?

I had just finished reading Godless by AC when I came across this little gem of truth and wisdom: "The only person taking more cheap shots than Ann Coulter is Congressman Patrick Kennedy!"

How 'bout another round, Pat?

I flipped through AC's book a little bit myself, and from the little that I gleaned from it's pages, Ann Coulter is now dead to me. The fact that she is still moving makes her a zombie. And I have a strict policy on zombies.

[walterIsTheMan]

(1) The Marriage Protection Amendment has nothing to do with discriminating against same-sex couples

From Dictionary.com:

Discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.

Since the Marriage "Protection" Act most certainly would make treatments based on a specific class of citizens it is most definitely discrimination.

and everything to do with preserving for future generations the fundamental institution that has sustained society throughout history.

Prejudice: The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.

It is an unreasonable and preconceived notion that a same-sex couple cannot operate to equal or better standards of family values than a straight couple. Therefore it is prejudice.

Courts should not be allowed to suppress the voices and votes of the American people by permanently redefining marriage in America.

So the Courts cannot suppress the people, but the people can? Because a supression of the right of marriage to a certain group of people is exactly what this legislation would do. An interesting way of doing things the right has; the government's abilities change to suit their needs. When they need to pass a law, the government can't suppress the people. But when they want someones rights taken away, the government can suppress the people.

In a statement indicative of Democratic double-speak, Sen. Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts said, “A vote for this (marriage) amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple.” For the government to say that marriage should be safeguarded as a union of a man and a woman is not bigotry. It’s common sense.

Again, the English language begs to differ with you.
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You (and other conservatives) are partial to your way of life (straight marriage) and intolerant of others way of life (gay marriage). Sounds like bigotry to me.

And no, it's not common sense. Common sense would tell you that every single time in history that "traditions" continued to hold onto prejudice, that they have been stopped. Slavery was a tradition. Women being property or having limited rights was a tradition. Having to worship religion your government wants you to was tradition. Every time tradition holds onto prejudice, it loses. That's common sense. And it will lose this time as well.

Oh and how was the Senator's statement double-speak? Double-speak is usually incoherent rambling mixed with facts or has an ambiguous meaning. However his statement was quite coherent and his meaning clear: supporting the ban is bigotry.

It’s also an attempt to protect order in an increasingly disordered world.

That's a really interesting statement. Bringing order to disorder is often the words spoken by a fascist. And just some English FYI, a key facet of fascism is stringent social controls...like only certain people being allowed to marry for example.

It's interesting where the area of fascism falls on the political spectrum too:

(2) A culture that elevates tolerance over its own survival is suicidal.[b]

Suicidal is a relative term, because it refers to the end of ones life, which is also relative. Many people, that is, moral people, consider death to one's life/soul to stoop to those levels. So by being tolerant, they may lose their physical life, but their moral life, their soul, the important things, won't have been killed, hence it wouldn't be suicidal. But like I said, that's just something moral people believe.

A culture that views dissent against itself as the greatest calling has given its enemies the tool in which to anesthetize the inhabitants. A society cannot recognize an enemy when it’s always pointing to itself as the enemy.EDIT: This is what the left does in a "blame America" society.

Did it ever occur to you that the left might actually be blaming America for a good reason? We're the ones who couldn't do the job in Korea 50 years ago which has now left the world at the muzzle of a nuclear missile. We're the ones who supplied and trained the Afghan rebels against the Soviets in the 70s who many later became Taliban. We refuse to join the Kyoto Protocol even though we are the biggest polluters. We constantly ignore the UN despite the fact that we are one of the founding members. We put our military forces throughout the world which clearly only increases paranoia and hostility towards us. We're the ones that preech freedom and life but strip gay rights, torture and abuse prisoners, have the death penalty, etc.

Why is it that the right has a "don't blame America, we're always right, we never do anything wrong" mentality?

Pro-Life, Common Sense
Nat Hentoff, The Washington Times:
A friend of mine told me of a recent conversation at his family's dinner table that keeps reverberating in my mind. His wife, a physician, also performs abortions. And their 9-year-old son -- hearing the words and curious about its meaning -- looked up from his plate and asked, "What is an abortion?" His mother tried carefully to describe it in simple terms.
"But," said her son, "that means killing the baby." The mother then explained that there are certain months during which an abortion cannot be performed, with very few exceptions. The 9-year-old shook his head. "But," he said, "it doesn't matter what month. It still means killing the babies." Hearing the story, I wished it could be repeated to the justices of the Supreme Court, in the hope that at least five of them might act on this 9-year-old's clarity of thought and vision. The boy's spontaneous insistence on the primacy of life also reminded me of a powerful pro-life speaker and writer who, many years ago, helped me become a pro-lifer. He was a preacher, a black preacher. He said: "There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life.
"That," he continued, "was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore out of your right to be concerned." This passionate reverend used to warn: "Don't let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn't a human being. That's how the whites dehumanized us... The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify what they wanted to do and not even feel they'd done anything wrong." That preacher was the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Later, he decided to run for the presidency, and it was a credible campaign that many found inspiring in its focus on what still had to be done on civil rights. But Mr. Jackson had by now become "pro-choice," much to the appreciation of most of those in the liberal base. Pro-life just makes sense.

I agree that pro-life is common sense. It's too bad that just like government, the right uses the phrase "pro-life" only when it suits them. They have no problem with the death penalty. No problem starting preemptive wars. And they were the ones years ago who had no problem suppressing the lives of women or slaves. Pro-life? Puh-lease.

What if these words were utterd today?
(3) "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival." -- Winston S. Churchill
Q:Would they be met with unity? Have they when paraphrased by Bush?

Well you seem to have pulled that quote a bit out of context. There's a slightly different meaning. At the time Churchill was referring to WWII. England, his homeland, was being attacked, and their international neighbors were also under seige or occupied. Has that happened with Iraq lately? I don't seem to recall them dropping bombs on our cities, invading our closest allies. Besides, I doubt had Churchill been here today that he would have uttered those words because I would highly doubt he would start a preemptive war on sketchy intelligence. Comparing Churchill to Bush is like comparing Einstein to those kid scientists they bring on David Letterman.

Why it is with the LSM, (that’s Lame Stream Media), that getting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a one-day story, and American "atrocities" are news forever, I shall never know.

Again, I don't know what news stations you watch, but the thing about al-Zarqawi was talked about for a long time, still is talked about. Turn off Fox and Limbaugh and you might actually get a picture of whats going on in the world.

[Arative]

Another case of losers trying to assume power that they do not hold. Such is their senate litmis test for SC candidates.Why am I not surprised? The only reason Dems get away with this stunt is because Reps have still not gotten used to the idea that they do have much, if not all, the power. The liberal ideas are really being made known to the people these days thanks to the internet and other media sources. Hence the decline of the liberal agenda in politics these days. Of course the true test will come in October this year.

Wow, you really have zero clue how our system of government works. I suppose that shows a serious lacking in our nations education system but we can always hope that once no child left behind is abandoned, actually educating children will start again and you will actually learn something. Just point out though, elections are in November, not October and yes in November we will see if the nation has had enough the evangelical christian republicans pushing their world view on the nation.

I too would jump on any band wagon that points to the truth of Saddam's lies. If these older munitions are not dangerous, perhaps we can just store them at the Kennedy Compound, but then again I'm not sure if I want that dude having WMD either. He's already killed one woman armed with only an empty bottle of vodka.

ZING! You really got me on that Kennedy burn!!!!!11 Oh noes whatever will I do, you made fun of a Kennedy!!!! Point is, those were not the WMD's we were looking for. They don't prove Sadaam lied no matter how much the Republicans pray that it is otherwise.

For all the Dems saying Bush has no plan, I've yet to hear them come up with one of their own. "We need to move in another direction." is not a plan. "Redeployment" is not a plan; unless it is to lose. The Dems don't like it to be analyzed too much but to "move in another direction" is the direction of a retreat as opposed to winning the war...as you claim they want to do.

Bush doesn't have a plan but rest assured right around election time, probably September or October, Bush will announce a troop reduction. Probably about 7000-10000 troops. This is so all the Republicans up for reelection can say, look we're winning the war!! And unfortunantly the majority of the voting public are mindless and will believe the Republicans.

Bottom feeders should not rescind laws. That's why there are STATE & FEDERAL appeals, circuits, and supreme courts. Locals at the bottom rung should just follow the law as written. Then it can be appealed to the higher courts. That's how it's supposed to work. The checks and balances still apply.

Judicial review should not be done by magistrates or judges sitting at county seats where local agendas become conflicts of interest because the position itself is an electible one.

Again, you don't understand how the judicial system works in this country. I don't know how much clearer I can make it, short of getting a talking hand puppet. A case starts with the bottom feeder as you put it, where the judge will rule for or aganist a challenge to a law, it will then start the appeals process. The lower court makes it ruling, it is then appealed, this is how every single case starts in the US. This is how cases make it to the higher courts. Is that clear enough? The actual lower circuit court judges almost never make a binding ruling unless both parties do not appeal the case. Do try and let this sink in, its getting tiresome trying to explain basic government functions to you.

[Arative]

I don't mean to interrupt or be a "buttinsky" (No slur intended to our Pole friends here), but...

...I would note that you use my case of "higher courts" settling these issues of law to back up your own arguments; in these cases it was the Supremes. Check & mate.

Again this statement shows a fundamental lack of knowledge on how the judicial branch of government functions. A challenge to a law always starts at a lower court and then makes it way through the court system. You do understand how a case comes before the Supreme Court don't you? Someone just doesn't walk into the Supreme Court building and say "Hey will you hear my case?" A case always originates with a lower court, who always must decide on the challenge. Then either party in the case will appeal the case. Then the court of appeals can say yes we will hear the case or no we will not hear the case. Is that clear enough for you? Do I need to spell it out in simplier terms?

That one is a big Whopper. Did you actually type it without laughing? George Bush ran on the platform that he would appoint conservative judges if elected to be President. People voted. He won...both times. Those on the left have only one real concern in this matter and it can be seen every time a SC judge nominee is named: Uphold Abortion on demand as in the ludicrus finding in Roe v Wade. This is a case where it would seem that most, at least in many states, want the law to be changed, but those on the left do all they can to prevent it from happening. With the federal umbella of abortion gone, those on the left fear what will happen if it becomes a states rights issue. I think SD's latest referendum on the subject will bring the issue of Roe v Wade back in front tof the Supreme Court. We shall see then what politics play out.

I still say that the term "activist judge" didn't come into play until Bush. To him, its how dare some judge question what I'm trying to do. That activist judge better not question my authority, so he is appointing judges that will rubberstamp the religious right agenda. Many of the new abortion laws are designed to challenge Roe v. Wade, thats the evangelical christian strategy, to make up such restrictive and unamerican laws that they know will be challenged in court just to get their case heard before the Supreme Court. They've been trying that for a decade. I have no doubt that challenges will come across the Supreme Court and it will be a sad day when the Court takes away guarnteeed consitutional rights because that will signal the beginning of the end of freedom in the US.

[sarge]

snip...
I still say that the term "activist judge" didn't come into play until Bush.

I’d say you’re way off on that. I distinctly remember discussing “Activist Judges” in High School Gov class and that was way back in the mid eighties…

[Arative]

More proof that today's world of PC is a world in decline:

(1) The Marriage Protection Amendment has nothing to do with discriminating against same-sex couples and everything to do with preserving for future generations the fundamental institution that has sustained society throughout history. Courts should not be allowed to suppress the voices and votes of the American people by permanently redefining marriage in America. In a statement indicative of Democratic double-speak, Sen. Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts said, “A vote for this (marriage) amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple.” For the government to say that marriage should be safeguarded as a union of a man and a woman is not bigotry. It’s common sense. It’s also an attempt to protect order in an increasingly disordered world.

Its too bad that the decline of PC or freedom as I call it, is bringing the upsurge of fundamentalist evangelical christians who are hell bent on creating a theocracy in America. The Marriage Protection Amendment is nothing more than state sanctioned bigotry. If the amendment would ever pass and I doubt it will since it is mostly election year posturing, the founding fathers would rise from the grave in disgust as to what the evangelical christians have done the US. The Constitution is a document that grants people rights, it is not a document to remove rights. The government should have no say in two humans getting married.

(2) A culture that elevates tolerance over its own survival is suicidal. A culture that views dissent against itself as the greatest calling has given its enemies the tool in which to anesthetize the inhabitants. A society cannot recognize an enemy when it’s always pointing to itself as the enemy. EDIT: This is what the left does in a "blame America" society.

This is the most chilling statement that I have ever seen. A culture that elevates tolderance shows its compassion for its fellow humans. But then the religious right has no compassion except for those that fall prey to its misguided message of hatred.

You do realize of course that our entire society was based on the dissent from the British crown don't you? Without the founding fathers standing up to absolute despotism our soceity wouldn't exist today. You do realize that the cornerstone of our society is the ability to stand up to the government and say no more, you're wrong. If you want to live in a society without dissent, try going to a different country, where most likely you'd be shot for speaking out aganist the leader.

I would argue the 3rd point but there is no point in getting into an abortion arguement here. Suffice to say, the Supreme Court ruled that a person's personal choice outweighs the state's right to dicate medical decisions for someone.

What if these words were utterd today?
(3) "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival." -- Winston S. Churchill
Q:Would they be met with unity? Have they when paraphrased by Bush?

When Churchill said that, he wasn't forcing Brits to give up personal liberties to feel safer. Unlike Bush, who thinks the Constitution is just some peice of paper to be set aside when it is inconvientent. Like the illegal wiretapping of US citizens. Bush has done a masterful job of making people think that it is ok to give up personal liberites to feel safe. I've talking to a number of people who said it doesn't matter because I've got nothing to hide. The completely miss the point that the government doesn't have the right to spy on it citizens without court approval. They essentially given up their rights and once a right is lost, its very hard to get it back. Another thing I find extremely funny but disturbing, every time Bush gets caught trampling on the rights of the people of the US, he gets mad that he's caught. He critized the newspaper for revealing the fact that he's illegally wiretapped people, he gets angry for the newspaper revealing that the CIA is collecting informtion on every phone call made in the country. That says a lot about what Bush thinks of the inherent rights granted to the citizens of the United States under our Constitution. So when the left calls him on it, its not just to be complaining, its saying, Hey, why don't you find a way to protect the US without trampling on all our rights.

Why it is with the LSM, (that’s Lame Stream Media), that getting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a one-day story, and American "atrocities" are news forever, I shall never know.

That's because the average american has the attention span of a gnat. We live in a society that is constantly bombarded with news. We pay more attention to a 15 second sound bite than we do to an actual message. Zarqawi is dead, its time to focus on the next villian.