There are only two plausible choices in this election, given the
climate, the character and the tumultuous times we are living in. It
will either be President Clinton or President McBush. This is an
election where all the votes should be counted, it is not about
staging the biggest rally money can buy in Tampa, to claim victory
after a pathetic voter tally in Kentucky. This is an election, not a
Madonna concert, get real, get serious, cut the stage production and
count all the votes.

http://surftofind.com/obama

On May 21, 7:16*pm, tobetbaa wrote:
There are only two plausible choices in this election, given the
climate, the character and the tumultuous times we are living in. It
will either be President Clinton or President McBush. This is an
election where all the votes should be counted, it is not about
staging the biggest rally money can buy in Tampa, to claim victory
after a pathetic voter tally in Kentucky. This is an election, not a
Madonna concert, get real, get serious, cut the stage production and
count all the votes.

http://surftofind.com/obama

In the game of life there are few 'do overs'. Florida and Michigan
were warned of the consequences, did it anyhow and now they want a 'do
over'...well actually, a whiney, crying bitch wants a 'do over'.

I do not want a presidenct who is incapable of recognizing a loseing
position...to say nothing of her stated goals "nuke Iran" indeed!

Harry K

On 5/21/2008 7:39 PM Harry K spake thus:

I do not want a presidenct who is incapable of recognizing a loseing
position...to say nothing of her stated goals "nuke Iran" indeed!

Yes; thank you for that.

The problem being, of course, that none of the 3 candidates really
differ at all w/respect to attacking Iran, which is apparently the next
irrational* imperative of the (dying) American Empire, but whatever.

*Or not: I think Noam Chomsky has it right when he says that such things
are, basically, to show 'em who's the boss.

As in, "how did our oil get under your land?".


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

Harry K wrote:

In the game of life there are few 'do overs'. Florida and Michigan
were warned of the consequences, did it anyhow and now they want a 'do
over'...well actually, a whiney, crying bitch wants a 'do over'.


Not for Democrats. Usually.

Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally "goal
oriented."

Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats
tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results.

On May 22, 5:46*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

In the game of life there are few 'do overs'. *Florida and Michigan
were warned of the consequences, did it anyhow and now they want a 'do
over'...well actually, a whiney, crying bitch wants a 'do over'.

Not for Democrats. Usually.

Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally "goal
oriented."

Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats
tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results.

Right. Just consider their 'super delegates' who can overrule
whatever the voters decide. Why have primaries at all if they don't
count?

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
On May 22, 5:46 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

In the game of life there are few 'do overs'. Florida and Michigan
were warned of the consequences, did it anyhow and now they want a
'do over'...well actually, a whiney, crying bitch wants a 'do over'.

Not for Democrats. Usually.

Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally
"goal oriented."

Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules,
Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results.

Right. Just consider their 'super delegates' who can overrule
whatever the voters decide. Why have primaries at all if they don't
count?


Because of the "Madness of Crowds." The Super-Delegate business was put in
to temper the frenzy of the easily excited electorate following Gene
McCarthy's nomination. It was thought that seasoned professionals - cooler
heads, if you will - could prevail.

Obama, for example, maintains that the Super Delegates should follow the
will of their home states. But when Clinton won West Virginia 65-35%, Obama
didn't decline the support of Harry Byrd.

Which brings up another interesting idea: A Klansman supporting a Negro. Is
this a great country or what?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Obama, for example, maintains that the Super Delegates should follow the
will of their home states. But when Clinton won West Virginia 65-35%, Obama
didn't decline the support of Harry Byrd.

Which brings up another interesting idea: A Klansman supporting a Negro. Is
this a great country or what?

Heck the leader of the group that tried to stop the Voting Rights Act
of '65 supporting an AA. Didn't want him to be able to vote at the time,
but wants to vote FOR him. Is this a great country or what?

It's still a waste of time.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Harry K wrote:

In the game of life there are few 'do overs'. Florida and Michigan
were warned of the consequences, did it anyhow and now they want a 'do
over'...well actually, a whiney, crying bitch wants a 'do over'.


Not for Democrats. Usually.

Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally "goal
oriented."

Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats
tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results.

Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring the law and
the constitution when it suits their purposes.

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring the law
and
the constitution when it suits their purposes.

The only differences between the wingnuts on both sides is the number
of the amendment they think is expendable.

Bob F wrote:

Not for Democrats. Usually.

Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally
"goal oriented."

Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules,
Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results.

Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring
the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes.

Huh?

wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:46:47 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring
the law and
the constitution when it suits their purposes.

The only differences between the wingnuts on both sides is the number
of the amendment they think is expendable.

And this has what to do with home repair ???????

Politics affects everything.

Some activists want to ban nailguns, oppose cutting down trees for lumber,
decry the use of oil to make insulation, roofing materials, and the like.

Sod houses are fine. Maybe concrete block.

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:46:47 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring the law
and
the constitution when it suits their purposes.

The only differences between the wingnuts on both sides is the number
of the amendment they think is expendable.

And this has what to do with home repair ???????

Wing nuts are often used in home repair. Just a couple days ago, in
fact.

Bob F wrote:

Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules,
Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results.

Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring
the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes.

I've heard this before. Usually regarding the folks at Guantanamo and always
by people who have only rudimentary understandings about the Constitution
they say is being trashed.

1. The constitutional rights that are said to be being violated are those
that apply to criminals (i.e., "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial...").

2. The people being detained by the military are not criminals. They have
broken no criminal law nor have they been arrested. They are "unlawful enemy
combatants" (UEC) and not entitled to the constitutional protections
afforded criminals: no lawyer, no trial, no indictment by a grand jury, no
witnesses, nada. Neither are they POWs. They fall into the same group as
spys, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and other nasties caught on
the battlefield. They are not protected, nor even mentioned, by the Geneva
Conventions on War nor any of the similar protocols. Our nation's UEC was
Major Andre, who was hanged by George Washington.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


2. The people being detained by the military are not criminals. They have
broken no criminal law nor have they been arrested. They are "unlawful enemy
combatants" (UEC) and not entitled to the constitutional protections
afforded criminals: no lawyer, no trial, no indictment by a grand jury, no
witnesses, nada. Neither are they POWs. They fall into the same group as
spys, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and other nasties caught on
the battlefield. They are not protected, nor even mentioned, by the Geneva
Conventions on War nor any of the similar protocols. Our nation's UEC was
Major Andre, who was hanged by George Washington.

Actually they are mentioned in the Geneva Conventions. I always get a
kick out of people who suggest that the UEC should be treated according
to the GC. The GC authorizes summary execution.

In article ,
wrote:


The Bush administration CLAIMS that's what they are. That does not
make it so. This is the same administration that declared working at
McDonald's was a "manufacturing job" to make employement figures look
better.

The others also CLAIM that. You have a point buried in there some
place?

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


2. The people being detained by the military are not criminals. They have
broken no criminal law nor have they been arrested. They are "unlawful
enemy
combatants" (UEC) and not entitled to the constitutional protections
afforded criminals: no lawyer, no trial, no indictment by a grand jury, no
witnesses, nada. Neither are they POWs. They fall into the same group as
spys, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and other nasties caught on
the battlefield. They are not protected, nor even mentioned, by the Geneva
Conventions on War nor any of the similar protocols. Our nation's UEC was
Major Andre, who was hanged by George Washington.

Actually they are mentioned in the Geneva Conventions. I always get a
kick out of people who suggest that the UEC should be treated according
to the GC. The GC authorizes summary execution.

I can't seem to find that section, now. I might have it confused with
something else, so I'll withdraw the comment until I find some time to
look at it more in depth. We now rejoin the flame fest already in
progress.

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 08:39:23 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


The Bush administration CLAIMS that's what they are. That does not
make it so. This is the same administration that declared working at
McDonald's was a "manufacturing job" to make employement figures look
better.

The others also CLAIM that. You have a point buried in there some
place?

That's about as intelligent a response as I would expect from you.
And this response is worthy of Shakespeare? Maybe Pee Wee Herman.

Good doggy!

Hey, you can't answer the question, I understand. I mean I can
understand why you might not want to undergo the cognitive dissonance
actually required to answer it. Don't worry, I won't bother you again.

wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 07:09:47 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Bob F wrote:

Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules,
Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired
results.

Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring
the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes.

I've heard this before. Usually regarding the folks at Guantanamo
and always by people who have only rudimentary understandings about
the Constitution they say is being trashed.

1. The constitutional rights that are said to be being violated are
those that apply to criminals (i.e., "In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial...").

2. The people being detained by the military are not criminals. They
have broken no criminal law nor have they been arrested. They are
"unlawful enemy combatants" (UEC) and not entitled to the
constitutional protections afforded criminals:


The Bush administration CLAIMS that's what they are. That does not
make it so.

Yes it does. The President, or his representative, has the sole authority to
designate anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant." This ability cannot be
gainsaid by the courts or anyone else. Courts have ruled on this very issue
to the extent that the courts say "we have no ability to authority to say
anything about how the President exercises his Article II powers."

One appellate court in New York even went so far as to say (paraphrasing):
"If the citizens don't like how the President is exercising his Article II
powers, they are free to replace him at the next election. That is the only
remedy available."

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


2. The people being detained by the military are not criminals. They
have broken no criminal law nor have they been arrested. They are
"unlawful enemy combatants" (UEC) and not entitled to the
constitutional protections afforded criminals: no lawyer, no trial,
no indictment by a grand jury, no witnesses, nada. Neither are they
POWs. They fall into the same group as spys, saboteurs, guerrillas,
fifth-columnists, and other nasties caught on the battlefield. They
are not protected, nor even mentioned, by the Geneva Conventions on
War nor any of the similar protocols. Our nation's UEC was Major
Andre, who was hanged by George Washington.

Actually they are mentioned in the Geneva Conventions. I always get
a kick out of people who suggest that the UEC should be treated
according to the GC. The GC authorizes summary execution.

I think the conventions and protocols define "lawful enemy combatant" as
someone who evidences four specific requirements: 1) Wears a uniform or
distinctive regalia, 2) Carries arms openly, 3) Has a defined chain of
command, and 4) Conducts themselves according to the rules of war. Any other
combatant is, by definition, an "unlawful enemy combatant," and our U.S.
Supreme Court says they can be executed out-of-hand. (U.S. v Quinn).

There are provisions in the conventions for dealing with non-combatants
captured on the battlefield: Medical personnel, construction workers,
transport drivers, and others who may be aiding a war effort as well as
exceptions for hastily-organized militias. But other combatants, spys,
guerrillas, saboteurs, and the like, by any other name, are "unlawful."

wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:29:25 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
The Bush administration CLAIMS that's what they are. That does not
make it so.

Yes it does. The President, or his representative, has the sole authority to
designate anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant."

It still doesn't make it so. The president does not dictate what the truth is.

You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you?

--
Black candidate endorsed by former Exalted Cyclops and Grand Kleagle of the
KKK! Film not at 11 or any other time... you're not supposed to know this.

clifto wrote:
wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:29:25 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

The Bush administration CLAIMS that's what they are. That does not
make it so.

Yes it does. The President, or his representative, has the sole authority to
designate anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant."

It still doesn't make it so. The president does not dictate what the truth is.


You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you?


You mean allowing the President to lie and get away with it is making me
safer? I don't think so.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

clifto wrote:
wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:29:25 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

The Bush administration CLAIMS that's what they are. That does not
make it so.

Yes it does. The President, or his representative, has the sole
authority to designate anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant."

It still doesn't make it so. The president does not dictate what the
truth is.


You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you?


You mean allowing the President to lie and get away with it is making
me safer? I don't think so.

nate


yeah,he just picks someone at random and says he's going to be an "enemy
combatant".Just like they listen to random phone calls and then send the
FBI after them.Better read some of what Andrew McCarthy has written so
you'll have a better understanding of what's going on.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote:
clifto wrote:
wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:29:25 -0500, "HeyBub"

You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you?


You mean allowing the President to lie and get away with it is making
me safer? I don't think so.


What you or I believe or what you or I think is irrelevant. What can be
proven is all:


There's an interesting timeline on terroristic activities available. It
concludes with:

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against
American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against
American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against
American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against
American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or
against American interests abroad.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../05/020600.php

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Bob F wrote:

Not for Democrats. Usually.

Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally
"goal oriented."

Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules,
Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results.

Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring
the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes.

Huh?

Warrentless searches, torture, habius corpus,.....

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Nate Nagel wrote:
clifto wrote:
wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:29:25 -0500, "HeyBub"

You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you?


You mean allowing the President to lie and get away with it is making
me safer? I don't think so.


What you or I believe or what you or I think is irrelevant. What can be proven
is all:


There's an interesting timeline on terroristic activities available. It
concludes with:

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American
interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American
interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American
interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American
interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or
against American interests abroad.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../05/020600.php


Someone forgot to look at Iraq and Afganistan. Plenty of terrorist attacks on
American interests there.

Bob F wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote...
Nate Nagel wrote:
clifto wrote:
You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you?

You mean allowing the President to lie and get away with it is making
me safer? I don't think so.


What you or I believe or what you or I think is irrelevant. What can be proven
is all:


There's an interesting timeline on terroristic activities available. It
concludes with:

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American
interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American
interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American
interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American
interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or
against American interests abroad.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../05/020600.php


Someone forgot to look at Iraq and Afganistan. Plenty of terrorist attacks on
American interests there.

See, that's why allowing the President to tell the truth and get away with
it aggravates Nate so badly, because it obviously is making him safer.

--
"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes
- and I see many of them in the audience here today - our sense of patriotism
is particularly strong." -- Barack Obama's seance

Bob F wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Bob F wrote:

Not for Democrats. Usually.

Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally
"goal oriented."

Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules,
Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results.

Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring
the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes.

Huh?

Warrentless searches, torture, habius corpus,.....

Janet Reno was fired when Bush took office.

--
"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes
- and I see many of them in the audience here today - our sense of patriotism
is particularly strong." -- Barack Obama's seance