Are liberals becoming terrorists?

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you lost me on that. I was speaking of the hypocrisy from both sides and the inevitable argument of who started what, then the general grouping of all into the worst. If I mentioned Kerry in there, please point it out to me, same with Clinton.

Sorry, I may have misread that,

I'm looking forward to clearing out the bullshit from the current government and getting back to where the spirit of law is what mattered.

that's what was confusing to me, the bold. When was the time you're referring to 'getting back to'?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and yet those of us (you and I, as well as some others) point this out, we're looney nutcases with conspiracy theories. Sad state, is it not?

Agreed.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
that's what was confusing to me, the bold. When was the time you're referring to 'getting back to'?

There was a time, shortly after WW1, and ended right after JFK was assassinated, that the spirit of the law is what mattered. Since then, its become a 'letter of the law' government, that whatever isn't said is allowed, because theres nothing to say that it isn't.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Republicans respect law. Libs don't; they subvert it at every chance. They've given up on the electoral process, because they've been losing. They vote for the war, now act like it was wrong. They say they'd do better, but give no concrete description of how. They say they'd be able to get the world to respect us again? How? By backing down from our national security interests? No thanks.

The threat of socialism is much more real than the threat of corpocracy.

There is a clear choice for the sane minded. Bush/Cheny '04!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
There was a time, shortly after WW1, and ended right after JFK was assassinated, that the spirit of the law is what mattered. Since then, its become a 'letter of the law' government, that whatever isn't said is allowed, because theres nothing to say that it isn't.

-Not to mention the numerous meanings in every law written based solely upon letting that happen.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
There was a time, shortly after WW1, and ended right after JFK was assassinated, that the spirit of the law is what mattered. Since then, its become a 'letter of the law' government, that whatever isn't said is allowed, because theres nothing to say that it isn't.

After giving that some thought, not sure that I can agree with that in a general sense. You have the runs around the Europeans with Versailles, rather than making them come to terms with the unfairness of it. You have the union busting tactics and business out of control. In the 30's the New Deal opened doors to corruption in government, that had not been there, simply because the size was so small.

Can you give a few examples of what you are getting at? Interesting thesis...

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Republicans respect law. Libs don't. They subvert it at every chance. They've given up on the electoral process, because they've been losing. They vote for the war, now act like it was wrong. They say they'd do better, but give no concrete description of how. They say they'd be able to get the world to respect us again? How? By backing down from our national security interests? No thanks.

The threat of socialism is much more real than the threat of corpocracy.

There is a clear choice for the sane minded. Bush/Cheny '04!

Explain Bush continuing to violate the Constitution.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Explain Bush continuing to violate the Constitution.

No. You explain it.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
No. You explain it.

It's your quote.

You bear the burden of proving your point:

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Republicans respect law. Libs don't. They subvert it at every chance. They've given up on the electoral process, because they've been losing. They vote for the war, now act like it was wrong. They say they'd do better, but give no concrete description of how. They say they'd be able to get the world to respect us again? How? By backing down from our national security interests? No thanks.

The threat of socialism is much more real than the threat of corpocracy.

There is a clear choice for the sane minded. Bush/Cheny '04!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
It's your quote.

You bear the burden of proving your point:

First tell me which part you think is off base, then we'll proceed from there. I never mentioned the constitution, you did.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
First tell me which part you think is off base, then we'll proceed from there. I never mentioned the constitution, you did.

Unless you determine the Constitution as NOT being law, prove your point:

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Republicans respect law.

The threat of socialism is much more real than the threat of corpocracy.

There is a clear choice for the sane minded. Bush/Cheny '04!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Unless you determine the Constitution as NOT being law, prove your point:

Republicans have more respect for it than Dems. That's my point. I'm not saying the republicans are 100% constitutional; we, as a nation, abandoned that long ago. Now we must make decisions on which party deviates in the most acceptable ways from the intent of the constitution and also what is "best". It's called the real world, look into it.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Republicans respect law.

Thats why Bush, Cheney, Delay, Rove, and almost every other republican leadership position uses the argument that its not written anywhere they can't so its perfectly legal. If republicans truly respected the law, they wouldn't stonewall investigations, they wouldn't use 'loopholes' to create legal blackholes like gitmo, and they wouldn't use executive orders and directives to circumvent the constitutional process.

Libs don't;

the far left democratic branch you mean.

The threat of socialism is much more real than the threat of corpocracy.

how wrong you are. they are both a threat, yes, but at this very moment there has been no greater threat to our way of life from the beginning than corporate elitists takeover of our country.

There is a clear choice for the sane minded. Bush/Cheny '04!

wrong again, there is the lesser of two evils at this point. Bush and Cheney will drive us down the road to ruin, but Kerry/Edwards would fly us there. Its only a matter of time.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth


Thats why Bush, Cheney, Delay, Rove, and almost every other republican leadership position uses the argument that its not written anywhere they can't so its perfectly legal.

That's how laws work. Until there's a law against it, you can do it.

If republicans truly respected the law, they wouldn't stonewall investigations, they wouldn't use 'loopholes' to create legal blackholes like gitmo, and they wouldn't use executive orders and directives to circumvent the constitutional process.

Yes. It is unfortunate that a whole army of liberal lawyers and pundits attack our presidency during war.

the far left democratic branch you mean.

Support for judicial activism, legislating law from the bench, is a fairly mainstream dem position lately. Actual election results should matter to dems, but the MAINSTREAM dems still insist the 2000 election was illegitimate, because they lost. ALL subsequent recounts showed they lost. That's a total disrespect for the law to go around chanting lies.

how wrong you are. they are both a threat, yes, but at this very moment there has been no greater threat to our way of life from the beginning than corporate elitists takeover of our country.

No. I'm right. Corporate elites are not TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY; that's a scare tactic the left uses to get you to vote socialist.

wrong again, there is the lesser of two evils at this point. Bush and Cheney will drive us down the road to ruin, but Kerry/Edwards would fly us there. Its only a matter of time.

So you're voting for Bush? That's all that matters at this point.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

No. I'm right. Corporate elites are not TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY; that's a scare tactic the left uses to get you to vote socialist.

how is the economy measured? GDP, Stock Market, and corporate profits, right? guaranteed loans for airlines, train systems, tax breaks for energy companies in exchange for campaign contributions.....its not a scare tactic, its reality. keep your head in the sand though.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
....at this very moment there has been no greater threat to our way of life from the beginning than corporate elitists takeover of our country.

You can't be serious? If you are, you know nothing of American history. Wealth is probably more evenly distributed in America right now than at any time in our history. All those Generals during the revolution, Civil war, etc. got there because they were the business owners of the day. They were the "corporate" elite as you like to call them. What about Carnegie, Getty, Rockerfeller, etc.? There were times in our history where we WERE taken over by corporate elitists.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
how is the economy measured? GDP, Stock Market, and corporate profits, right? guaranteed loans for airlines, train systems, tax breaks for energy companies in exchange for campaign contributions.....its not a scare tactic, its reality. keep your head in the sand though.

Plus unemployment numbers, and "standard of living" indices. I'm not sure how the metrics used relate to your point. No, it's a scare tactic, plain and simple.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
You can't be serious? If you are, you know nothing of American history. Wealth is probably more evenly distributed in America right now than at any time in our history. All those Generals during the revolution, Civil war, etc. got there because they were the business owners of the day. They were the "corporate" elite as you like to call them. What about Carnegie, Getty, Rockerfeller, etc.? There were times in our history where we WERE taken over by corporate elitists.

Don't impugn my knowledge of american history because you don't like that I speak the truth. Are we currently in danger of being a socialist country? I think not. The dems are not in charge, are they? Do they have their puppet hands up the republicans asses? I think not.

If 'wealth redistribution' were as prevalant as you say, then I wouldn't have lost my home two years ago, my wife wouldn't have had to go without medical treatment, and worrying about job security would not be an issue, would it?

corporate elitism runs rampant in our nation right now, if you can't see it, thats all of our problem. The military industrial complex, energy corporations, telecommunications companies, and transit enterprises buy and sell legislation like they are buying candy bars at the local 5 and dime.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Don't impugn my knowledge of american history because you don't like that I speak the truth. Are we currently in danger of being a socialist country? I think not. The dems are not in charge, are they? Do they have their puppet hands up the republicans asses? I think not.

If 'wealth redistribution' were as prevalant as you say, then I wouldn't have lost my home two years ago, my wife wouldn't have had to go without medical treatment, and worrying about job security would not be an issue, would it?

corporate elitism runs rampant in our nation right now, if you can't see it, thats all of our problem. The military industrial complex, energy corporations, telecommunications companies, and transit enterprises buy and sell legislation like they are buying candy bars at the local 5 and dime.

So all you want from life dk, is guaranteed security? That's all? Income redistribution would kill our nations economy. Then there'd be no jobs at all. How's that for security?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Don't impugn my knowledge of american history because you don't like that I speak the truth. Are we currently in danger of being a socialist country? I think not. The dems are not in charge, are they? Do they have their puppet hands up the republicans asses? I think not.

If 'wealth redistribution' were as prevalant as you say, then I wouldn't have lost my home two years ago, my wife wouldn't have had to go without medical treatment, and worrying about job security would not be an issue, would it?

corporate elitism runs rampant in our nation right now, if you can't see it, thats all of our problem. The military industrial complex, energy corporations, telecommunications companies, and transit enterprises buy and sell legislation like they are buying candy bars at the local 5 and dime.

as I said, have you forgotten about the railroad barrons, the oil barrons, etc. of the turn of the century? You ignore history to support your position today. Do you think you are the first person to lose a home? Nope. And you won't be the last. I am sorry for what happened to you, but you cannot blame one segment of society for that. There really was a time in this country where a few coroporation controlled almost everything. How many corporations are there in America today? More than you can count. So don't try to feed me tripe please.