R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Speaking of Jefferson  (Read 15399 times)

lucey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #60 on: November 14, 2004, 12:03:17 pm »

David,

You are being defensive ant not reading my posts.

Yes the flaws were fixed.  Yes Ohio was not in play after Nov 2.

Yet The Republican congress blocked the paper trail.  If I have time to care further about your denial of irresponsibiity in the Government, I'll find you some things, but this is commmon knowledge.



And about 3 houses all I mean is that we should have extra dillegence when the checks and balances intended by the founders CANNOT be relied upon.

If it were a Supreme Court, President and Congress of Democrats I'd be voting for a Republican.  


The problem with looking at Bush in a historical context is that he is a (R) in name only.  As Clinton was a (D) in name only.   These monikers are blurring the realities behind walls of conflict.

New Con zealotry is at work here, and any real Conservative will tell you that.
Logged
Brian Lucey
Magic Garden Mastering

"the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecology" - unknown

t(h)ik

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 998
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #61 on: November 14, 2004, 12:59:05 pm »

Analog Tom,

You have some really good points on this issue....

I would now like the pleasure of helping you get past them (grin)

Firstly, I really respect the anti-war guys, I just don't understand them...

Ding Dong Bush did not create the war...

I wanna keep it short so as not to insult or lecture you...

I don't have any idea what your take is because of the limitations of this medium...but it is clear that Bush has some real problems.  In your posts on this or other threads, at least I think it was you, it doesn't matter though 'cause all you liberals are the same....(joking) Um, you seem to make  very lucid arguments against the administration, fair enough, this however does not erase the fact that we have been dealing very fairly with the pan-arab types for the last hundred years and they have benefitted tremendously.  Due to the limitations of our system and their current religious induced fog things are a bit complicated.

I guess what my current opinion aided by many really good posts from the anti-bush crowd is...

OK

Um

Here goes...

The anti-Bush crowd are the owners of a very simplistic argument.  I believe the actual problems are people like you and people like me.  It is not a question of intellect but a question of action.   I am sure I don't know the whole story but from what I have read Sean Penn may be one example of ultra-citizenship worthy of note. He took out a full page add to denounce what he thought was wrong and then flew to Iraq twice to make a difference.

To make Bush the target is absurd.  He was elected by America.  He is somewhat limited as a statesman.  It is quite possible ding dongs like he and Clinton get elected because the general public can't be bothered.  

Our boys were stuck in fukken Kuwait since the Gulf War, and had to do the heavy lifting while pretty much ignored by activist types.  After 9-11 it was a matter of contention whether or not the fukkbags in Bagdad were plotting against us, Bush acted....I guess shooting at our pilots enforcing a UN mandate isn't good enough for most ding dongs in NYC or LA...

So we could still be there in Kuwait hoping that our intelligence was wrong...

I believe blaming Bush is the easy way out...because you and I are innocent and so are those poor Arab gentlemen who just want to gas some Kurds....

Like Republicans who repeat their mantra and wave their gay flags the left ignores the complexity of the situation and throws reason and accountability out the window by blaming Bush for doing the right thing on foreign policy

Please lemme havit between the eyes bro, as I am interested in improving my conception of this whole tragedy....

This forum is really the best exchange of ideas I have seen....I have right wing friends that send me posts off of forums where everyone sits around and tells each other how great they are because they all agree... and I have many more left-wing friends (I live in Europe and cavort with musciians) who well....they mostly mumble and shit themselves.....a lot...but I'm lucky that anyone talks to me at all...



with respect and love


TIK

Logged
I used to be self effacing, but I couldn't even do that right....
www.pmtstudios.com

t(h)ik

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 998
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #62 on: November 14, 2004, 01:21:44 pm »

Hey Tom,

You have to get over this Haliburton thing....

They do their job well...

really well, especially with troop support.

The defense contracting thing is less than perfect.  Repeating propaganda is like bouncing a ball against the garage....it really has a limited effect...

If they fukked up they will have to answer for it, what is the problem.....Kenneth Lay is a perfect example or don't you think 175 years in the slam is justice and the American way....

Man dude you are getting it both barrels now....(goofy grin on my face)


Candidates bro....maybe we can finally get enough people interested so we don't have to keep voting against someone we can't stand to even look at.....



Kiss kiss


TIK
Logged
I used to be self effacing, but I couldn't even do that right....
www.pmtstudios.com

David Schober

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #63 on: November 14, 2004, 02:57:35 pm »

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your response.  I didn't mean to come off as defensive. I've been hearing such hysteria around here it hit me in that manner.

I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about in regard to the paper trail.  If you wish to elaborate I'll be waiting to hear about it.  The only thing I think you mean is regarding electronic voting machines.  Which of course have no paper trail.  However, there were plenty of Democrats that pushed for those after the 2000 election.  Is this what you're referring to?

As for the three houses being controlled by one party, I do understand and agree.  These things must be watched.  I'm still confident in the way the Constitution was written and that if needed, the people will "turn the bastards out" if they deserve it.  At best a run of one party can only go two years unfettered.

My only point was that this went on for most of the back half of the 20th century.  You sound more intellectually honest than most, but some appear, now that their party isn't in power, they seek to change the rules.  
Logged
David Schober

David Schober

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #64 on: November 14, 2004, 03:14:05 pm »

Okay Tom and TIK....

Please forgive me.  I did say "fifty+" thinking that would cover FDR and you'd get it.  My mistake.

I never imagined the phrase "fifty+ years" would end up being the issue your argument hangs upon.

Now that you've pointed out and corrected my generality, making it more specific, you actually helped make my point.  It's not just over the last fifty or so years that the Dems have had control of all three branches most of the time...it's over the last 71 years!

Are those facts you consider irrelevant?  Argue this point if you wish, but I'm afraid you can't get around historical facts.
Logged
David Schober

t(h)ik

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 998
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #65 on: November 14, 2004, 03:44:19 pm »

I forgive you David...

You need to stay away from the Sour Mash there in TN....

Your friend (not 1938 type) in Germany...

TIK

Logged
I used to be self effacing, but I couldn't even do that right....
www.pmtstudios.com

David Schober

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #66 on: November 14, 2004, 05:30:40 pm »

Ja mien freud,

(did I spell that right?)  You may have noticed my last name....Austrian heritage here...

Actually, I'm more of a single malt scotch man.  Tho at this time I'm sipping a bit if B&B.  After all, the French do have their finer points.
Logged
David Schober

t(h)ik

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 998
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #67 on: November 14, 2004, 06:47:40 pm »

I think I met her....
Logged
I used to be self effacing, but I couldn't even do that right....
www.pmtstudios.com

lucey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #68 on: November 16, 2004, 07:32:16 pm »

David Schober wrote on Sun, 14 November 2004 15:14

 It's not just over the last fifty or so years that the Dems have had control of all three branches most of the time...it's over the last 71 years!


And the DOW goes up more when Democrats are President too ... so what's your point?

Are you saying that the Democrats have had the Presidency, the Congress AND the Supreme Court for 71 years????

Are you saying the last 71 years have sucked?  Liberal women fought to get the vote.   Liberal blacks fought to get equal rights (at least in law, sorta).  Democrats like Clinton/Gore and a Republican Congress balanced the budget.

Liberals have just been ruining America, eh?




I'm saying that beyond any doubtm the Neo Cons have all three branches of Government for 4, now 8 years?  And how is that going?



Skipping opinions we can look at some polling.  How is the approval rating for Bush? Lowest in his 4 years?

What about the "Country in the Right Direction?" number? Under 40% at last count.

How about "Do you approve of Iraq" ? Under 50% and falling.
Logged
Brian Lucey
Magic Garden Mastering

"the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecology" - unknown

David Schober

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #69 on: November 16, 2004, 08:22:16 pm »

Brian,

you need to pay better attention to the threads.  You've totally missed the point that I made and raised a bunch of red herring thinking you're proving something.  ( I hope you like seafood)

It's time my friend for you and the lefites to get a life, move on, etc.  

The election is over.  You're like the Japanese soldiers still fighting the war after the peace treaty was signed.  

In the words of Don Henley, "Get over it!"
Logged
David Schober

Gideon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #70 on: November 17, 2004, 12:23:15 am »

Logged
Gideon Egger
May Ying Music, Inc.
Hell's Kitchen NYC

I put 4 compressors in series and i got more Milk and Cream and Thick sound out of the audio but why?

-Walters

lucey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #71 on: November 17, 2004, 04:18:43 pm »

David Schober wrote on Tue, 16 November 2004 20:22


The election is over.  You're like the Japanese soldiers still fighting the war after the peace treaty was signed.  



So instead of clarifying a vague point you go and get all glib about the election.  Way to go.

The government is still running Mr. Schober ... and being a responsible citizen in a Democracy is not about winning  or losing elections, it's about due dilligence 365 days a year.

You must be a fair weather Citizen?  

Had Kerry won I'd be on him right now to live up to his word and to have integrity in his actions as my President.   Same things go for W, he's my President too, and the Liberals are not going away.
Logged
Brian Lucey
Magic Garden Mastering

"the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecology" - unknown

David Schober

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #72 on: November 20, 2004, 06:53:46 pm »

Brian,

Your post:

"So instead of clarifying a vague point you go and get all glib about the election. Way to go."  

I'm frankly getting tired of arguing something that everyone else, including Dems, know is a done deal.  The election is over.  Your guy lost.  Get over it.  

But so you know that I can deal with your post, here ya go....

After losing a math test about which party has held Congress and the Exec. branch longer, you switch your argument to saying it was okay...because, in essense, "look at all this good that happened."  Remeber it was you who first proposed the danger of as you put it, "all 3 brances of govt" being under one party.  My response was clear.  During the modern political era, the Dems have held the majority more than Republicans.   A more honest liberal would complain, not that one party had so much control, but they wanted their party to have that control.


Oddly enough it would appear that again you have a math/history problem.  

You said "Are you saying the last 71 years have sucked? Liberal women fought to get the vote."  

The 19th Amendment (women's right to vote) was passed in 1920...13 years before FDR took office in 1933.  That would make your now revised number 84 years ago.  After chastising me over the "fifty+" comment, you have the obligation to get your facts straight.

Of course the Civil Rights mvt. was a good thing, yet there were some colossal failures as well.  But that's not the point I made, nor was it your original response.  I was addressing the hysteria I hear about the conservatives having control of the Legislative and Exec. branch.  It was only a reminder this is nothing new.

"Liberals have just been ruining America, eh?"
Yes...absolutely.  

The idea that a anyone would allow partial-birth abortion is unconscionable.  Just imagine getting a liberal to consider banning all PBA, unless the mother's life is in danger. (this point was well argued by KK Proffitt....reality is, C-Section will be done in those cases, not PBA)  Surely that would be a resonable compromise.  But even at this, liberals won't concede.  This is truly an inhuman practice that ranks with anything done by the Third Reich.

Liberals have given power to the teacher's unions so an incompetent teacher can keep their job at the expense of the student.  (And don't go carping about No Child Left Behind.  I have a family of educators in TX that, to their frustration, are dealing with massive improvements to the education system thanks to NCLB.  I'll be happy to discuss that in another post if anyone wants.)   I remember years ago when I lived in LA, the LA Times did a story on the fact that the LA Unified School district had too many failing students.  Their plan to fix this problem?  Stop giving failing grades! From then on, nobody got a grade below a "C."  You may think I'm joking, but this was no joke.  Liberal education beliefs have said we can't tell a student they got an answer wrong.  Because it might hurt their self-esteem.  Thus, in some classes 2+2 can equal 5.  If the student tried, they considered that to be as good as a correct answer.  Similarly, just two nights ago I saw a report on TV the other night where a black college was giving freshmen students passing grades just for attending class...even if they didn't do any assignments and failed their exams.  The story centered around a black professor who was fired for refusing to go along with the program.  Imagine!  You can't be fired for being an incompetent teacher, where kids aren't learning...but you can be fired for requiring students to actually do the work!  

Don't  even get me going about forced busing.

Liberal unions have made it illegal for fire fighters to give the same physical requirements to women as men.  This idiotic idea risks the lives of those of us who need help.  If you're ever in a burning building and need to be carried out, you'll be praying for a man to be the one to rescue you instead of a woman who couldn't do the strength requirements.  

The welfare state has proven to be a pit of quicksand trapping generations of young minorities to repeat the cycle they were raised in.  Despite the billiions spent, these kids are worse then when welfare started.  To his credit, Clinton jumped on the conservative band wagon and made it his own.  Over the objections of his own party.

Liberal lawyers like John Edwards have made OB doctors opt for a C-section in record numbers due to the massive chance of a lawsuit....driving up medical costs for everyone.

Shall I go on?

How about music and art?  Here's an interesting thing you can look at.  Go to the iTunes music store and click on the Billboard Hot 100 Charts for the year.  Start anywhere you want prior to 1990 or so and start clicking the year.  If your screen is like mine, you'll see the top 28 or so songs for the year.  Now start moving forward in time to 2003.  Notce anything? The number of explicit notices from 2000 goes up dramatically.  From none, to 2003, which had either a "clean" (as if you don't know what's being said) or an "Explicit" label.  In 2003 there were 11 out of the top 28 with this "status."  Young Buck is now being sought for stabbing somone at an awards show.  Rappers kill each other.  An art exhibit with elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary.  "Piss Christ"  a bottle containing a Crucifix in urine.  I'm aware enough to know that some music doesn't speak to me.  And that some art is a tough thing to understand.  But sometimes, like the art exhitibit with the elephant dung, it's just shit.

I'm not for censorship and I've been known to use a good word or two.  But what's bothersome is the modern liberal culture that ses this stuff and says, "Yeah!  That's art!"  But in 300 years that society will look back on us and see this crap is representative of the best we could offer??


Now I don't believe that liberals are evil bent on ruining society. (not all of them anyway)  And I also don't believe that conservatives are all good in every case.  I'm not a fan of everything Bush as done, but I'll be happy to take the current balance over what has been going on for most of my lifetime.

And a small correction....you keep referring to the Republicans having control over all 3 branches of govt.  It's really only 2.  #3, the Judicial, is more or less independent, and generally balanced.  If you think they Supreme Court is conservative, you didn't read the decision on the Univ of Michigan Law School case on affirmative action....another poorly conceived liberal idea that the Supreme Court strongly sided with!
Logged
David Schober

lucey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #73 on: November 21, 2004, 10:12:04 am »

David Schober wrote on Sat, 20 November 2004 18:53


And a small correction....you keep referring to the Republicans having control over all 3 branches of govt.  It's really only 2.  #3, the Judicial, is more or less independent, and generally balanced.  If you think they Supreme Court is conservative, you didn't read the decision on the Univ of Michigan Law School case on affirmative action....another poorly conceived liberal idea that the Supreme Court strongly sided with!


I guess this is where we disagree 100%

The Supreme Court is Conservative, and under Bush will be more so for the next 20-30 years.



On the whole, including with the 2000 election - they are Republicans.  If they had integrity I would be less conscerned about the Executive and Congress being Republican.

And if the MANY regulatory agencies like the NRC and FDA etc were not  in the pocket of big money I would be less concerned.




If the 2000 election is in any doubt to you, as being a political decision, you are in total denial.  The Judges LED THE GOVERMNENT LAWYER in his arguments!  Just read the transcripts.

He was headed in one direction and they kept taking him back to a winable point.
Logged
Brian Lucey
Magic Garden Mastering

"the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecology" - unknown

analog Tom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #74 on: November 21, 2004, 01:54:34 pm »

Quote:

"Similarly, just two nights ago I saw a report on TV the other night where a black college was giving freshmen students passing grades just for attending class...even if they didn't do any assignments and failed their exams. The story centered around a black professor who was fired for refusing to go along with the program. Imagine! You can't be fired for being an incompetent teacher, where kids aren't learning...but you can be fired for requiring students to actually do the work!"
 

This sounds truly terrible.  No school should remain anonymous after doing such a thing.  Please identify the school and the professor for us.  

Quote:

"Don't even get me going about forced busing."
 

Oh, Please do!  Tell us how upset you were, and how often you spoke out, back in the 1950s, when black children were bussed past 'white-only' schools to protect the white chldren from integration.  WHY is it that you and other racists only object to "forced busing" when it's used to integrate, and NEVER when it was used to segregate? As you said:  
Quote:

"After chastising,...you have the obligation to get your facts straight."


Quote:

"Liberal unions have made it illegal for fire fighters to give the same physical requirements to women as men. This idiotic idea risks the lives of those of us who need help."
 

Still in the category of 'getting your facts straight', why not explain how you got to this conclusion after all the years of fighting and LAWSUITS by conservative, male dominated firefighters' unions to PREVENT sexual integration of the force?  Why do you LIE about that history just to justify a slam against unions?  

Now that you've explained that LIE away, please move on to citing us to the verifiable statistics that support your pretense that there have been more injuries and deaths as a result of sexually integrating the firefighters.  

Maybe you'd also be willing to go back in time, since rewriting history appears to be one of your hobbies, and explain why you conservatives opposed racial integration of firefighter and police forces before you opposed sexual integration?  Remember, back when you didn't want any n****rs fighting fires or carrying a badge and gun, you argued that such integration would disrupt the force cohesiveness.  

Now, of course, that racial and sexual integration is a fact, you conservatives are looking for new scapegoats against whom to practice your beloved bigotry.  So you argue that public safety will be harmed if we let 'fags' into the police, the firefighters, the teachers corp., etc.  

Quote:

"The welfare state has proven to be a pit of quicksand trapping generations of young minorities to repeat the cycle they were raised in. Despite the billiions spent, these kids are worse then when welfare started."
 

Sure, just as established by census and other data.  NOT!  I guess this explains your support for Bush's opposition to Head Start and other programs with proven track records?  

Just a clarification, since you PRETEND to be opposed to the "welfare state", why not explain to us why there is NOT ONE bit of corporate welfare we have heard you criticise?  

Quote:

"Here's an interesting thing you can look at. Go to the iTunes music store and click on the Billboard Hot 100 Charts for the year. Start anywhere you want prior to 1990 or so and start clicking the year...Now start moving forward in time to 2003. Notce anything? The number of explicit notices from 2000 goes up dramatically. From none, to 2003, which had either a "clean" (as if you don't know what's being said) or an "Explicit" label. In 2003 there were 11 out of the top 28 with this "status." Young Buck is now being sought for stabbing somone at an awards show. Rappers kill each other. An art exhibit with elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary. "Piss Christ" a bottle containing a Crucifix in urine. I'm aware enough to know that some music doesn't speak to me."
 

I guess I'm having a senior moment here.  Please remind me, just which Rapper was it who made "An art exhibit with elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary."?  And which Rapper was it who made "Piss Christ"?  

I do appreciate you pointing out that these changes you find so horrifying happened from 2000 to 2003, the years when your beloved Saint George was overseeing the furter consolidation of media under huge WALL ST. CONSERVATIVE corporations.  I guess your point is that this kind of "explicit" music and art which conservatives want to increase?  

Quote:

"I'm not a fan of everything Bush as done,"
 

Why then do you lavish praise on everything he has done, and make up false claims about those who oppose him or who have opposed his parties policies in the past?  

Quote:

"the Judicial, is more or less independent, and generally balanced. "
 

OK, I see, I take back all my questions.  After reading this, I can see that your entire post is meant as sarcasm or a satire of "conservative" thought.  

Cordially,  
Tom

ps: If too challenged by any of the above, feel free to join IO, JO Mark and Philbeck in dismissing the questions and facts with slanders about my sexuality, as an attempt to change the subject.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up