OT: Bush Speech

[NavyDave]

Dude for one thing not everyone has Lou Gherig's disease and lets not be naive to the point that some docs dont aid in some patients meeting their maker.

They do so without the fanfare of DR Death.

If you want to kill yourself go ahead but dont b@stardize the sanctity of the medical profession to do so.

I watched my dad wither away from emphysema(sp) and Diabeties smoking and hard drinking does that to you but he went out a man on my *** to make him proud to the end.

And on 60 minutes two they showed a 16 kid the size of Gary Coleman in pain 24/7 suffering from Sickle Cell Amnemia which I'm well acquainted with.

He dealt with it until they cured him with stem cells from a donors umblical cord.

[Ford]

Wow. I come back to see how truly pathetic this has gotten with everyone trying to tell ME what the hell I AM. I said I was a moderate slightly on the left. Yea if you had to label me liberal or conservative one of the two you'd call me liberal but in no way do i fully support either party nor does either even come close to representing my views.

As far as that guy not comparing me to hitler as was said in some post .. look at the site he posted. Click on the link that says 'i am in favor of gun control'. It says 'you are in the same company as .. ' and lists people like hitler and pol pot.

How can you label the support of the new deal liberal? I mean jesus, it's commonly accepted that the new deal reforms, along with the us entrance into the second world war, were what ended the great depression. I agree with lez'e fair (i have no idea how to spell that) politics to some extent, but would have rather it stayed the way hoover would have had it?

I have mixed views about welfare. I think it is generally a good thring, but is very poorly administered. I am young, but I work, and Mr FICA, Mr State, and Mr National come and take the same taxes away from me so of course I'd like to see the spending of money to be used more efficiently. It pisses me off that people abuse welfare, but I just don't see how you can think a single mother who's husband left her with two kids, who already works two jobs at minimum wage and can't get food on the table doesn't deserve some federal aid.

I don't hate all aspects of the bush administration. I like how he is more hands off about foreign affairs that clinton was, and I like the prospect of serious reforms to Title IX. As a wrestler, I could go on forever about how the OCR enforces title IX with the retarded standard of 'proportionality', but I won't. I also like Bush's appointee to the OCR, Gerald Reynolds and hope he makes serious reforms to quotas in affirmative action.

I never said the fact that my father was from oklahoma made me an expert on gun control, stop trying to twist my friggin words around. I said that I had had the oppurtunity to observe an environment where guns being common had worked, but I disagree with the notion that making them readily accesible to anyone will help the gun problem. I find it very hard to believe that anyone would trash the ACLU, and then promote the NRA. Gun control is alive in DC, but very poorly enforced. There is no crackdown on the black market and the city is pretty corrupt. I go to school in DC and spend most of my time there though and I disagree with your suggestion that noone would want to live there.

Obviously you guys disagree with me on many of these issues, but since this board appears to be frequented by a prodominatly conservative crowd, for some reason, you're using your numbers, rather than substance, to try and refute my posts and it's not appreciated.

You also trash the ACLU and say it gives terrorists all these rights .. BS. What the ACLU does is attempt to preserve the statutes on which the country was built ... many of which were established by federalists ... hardly liberal.

As I said to others Real Men cant be liberals; I can understand chicks saddled with kids or Westys boy toys wanting govt handouts but not real men.

Wow NavyDave, what a convincing argument, man, what was I thinking. Logic like that will get you far ... let's put all of our money into the soft military we have, screw people!

As far as the LBJ bashing .. he made some very bad mistakes but some incredibly important reforms. The civil rights bill of 1964 .. the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the voting acts right of 1965 .. and you're trying to make him out to be a racist who helped only whites? please.

[NavyDave]

No real man will sit on hs a$$ wanting the govt to do the job he should be more than capable of doing.

Lets not go there about the military because I will always have issues with moderates and liberals especially when all I have seen from them is disrespect.

The voting rights Act passed because of the GOP.

Lets not forget that Al Gore SR voted He11 No to the Act.

[Hersh]

I've just got to get into some of these points that are being made.

1. About what Senator Clinton said: if you would've read or heard everything, you would know that she said that she understands Bush's job and that she wasn't placing blame on him at all.

2. There is a slippery slope argument that can apply to any issue you want.

3. Bush and Clinton are very much alike. The are both very politically shrewd. Clinton stole the welfare bill from the Republicans. Bush claims to be a free trader than attempts to secure Pennsylvania with steel tariffs and welfare for farmers. I'm not saying that I agree or am opposed to either position, it's just a fact that these guys are politically driven. Neither lifted the embargo with Cuba because that want/ed to win Florida.

4. Clinton didn't do anything about Bin Laden and what did the democratic leaders of the intelligence committees in the senate do? What lame arguments. We don't know all the covert operations that go on and what about WHEN THE REPUBLICANS controlled both houses of congress. I didn't hear anything about bin laden from them.

Face it, these guys know about one thing only. Getting re-elected.

[Hersh]

and one more thing. I love how Republicans complain about democratics ruining the military and how clinton dodged the draft. Now I'm a big believer the the democrats should be doing more for the military, but our current president is no military man. I didn't hear one Republican complain that he avoided service and didn't show up his assignment protecting Texas. What a joke.

[NavyDave]

Could it be because there was no letter stating how he LOATHED the military and how he actually went to a Socialist country and there ideals were in the same vein.

And dubba ya made it a point to embrace the men and women in uniform.

He is still going to have to make the decision to take my guys out of those squirmishes in Europe like Bosnia and Kosovo

[Skins24]

I am a Demican, a combo of both and a more fun way of saying Independent (and there is no cool way to put Republican 1st in my made up name)

Sure there is.

Republicrat!!

Remocrat?

This would make you:

Repocratic

[Art]

I've been gone too long.

Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm a Republican. I don't believe in God. I'm agnostic you see. Yet, I'm Republican. I believe aborition when a woman or girl has been raped or had incest committed against her is an absolute right. Yet, I'm Republican. I have never held a gun. I could care less about guns. I do know that the Constitution doesn't say everyone has a right to carry a gun though. Read the whole of the Bill, not just "right to bear arms". Yet, I'm a Republican.

You see, I am a Republican because despite these beliefs, I feel I'm moral. I feel abortion should not be used as a form of birth control and that women have a right to choose whether to open their legs or shut them and that's it. I believe that no crime has ever been committed by a person carrying a legally registered concealed firearm, and that most of the rampages gone on by criminals with illegal guns are usually stopped by citizens with legal guns.

In all, I'm clearly Republican, though, I have a touch of the left in some of what I may believe. FordHQ, you are as liberal as they come. Cloaking yourself in a moderate shield doesn't work for you my friend. I've seen it work for others. For you, it doesn't.

You'd enjoy yourself much more in these conversations if you could admit who and what you are and just deal with it. That you believe racial quotas may violate the Constitutional rights of all citizens is great. I'm happy you see that. I'm overjoyed that you believe Title IX in fact violates Brown v. the Board of Education and is also unconstitutional the way Clinton changed it and allowed it to be enforced. It is wrong. Absolutely and totally wrong.

Seeing right and wrong doesn't make you less liberal or more conservative. It just means you can see right from wrong in some cases. Interestingly, prior to Sept. 11, I thought Bush was doing a marvelous policy job. He was winning as if he had a mandate in the vote. He was working both sides of the isle and was well on his way to being a great president.

Sept. 11 came and I think it is generally true that most true conservatives who believe in what the Republican party stands for has found his job performance to have suffered greatly with some of the things he's allowed to go on. But, that doesn't make me a liberal.

You are what you are and you very clearly are a Democrat yet you avoid that as if it were a bad word. No matter though.

On the topic of investigations into Sept. 11, I find them to be pointless. Clearly we didn't bring together the bits of information we had. We don't need hearings on the topic. It's clear. We don't need Rawley to sit up there and tell us the FBI is a huge bureaucratic mess. We know that.

For a guy talking about Bush grandstanding for votes by giving his speech, it seems odd to me that you are so interested in meaningless investigations that will conclude with the precise same conclusion we already know. That sh!t didn't work as well as it could have.

Let the FBI and CIA and all other agencies fighting to protect us now go about their job. Reforms are underway, whether I agree with them or not. Let's not let the politicians have a dog and pony show for votes during an election year when we know we have a group of folks who need to be out protecting us instead of in front of Congress admitting what we already know.

[Art]

Hersh,

As to this....

"4. Clinton didn't do anything about Bin Laden and what did the democratic leaders of the intelligence committees in the senate do? What lame arguments. We don't know all the covert operations that go on and what about WHEN THE REPUBLICANS controlled both houses of congress. I didn't hear anything about bin laden from them. "

You've now mentioned this on more than one occasion. You seem to think there's some potency to the point. Really though, there isn't. The Congress can declare war to get the military moving. That's all it can do on its own. If you missed calls from Republicans and some Democrats to retaliate after each attack against us during the Clinton years, then you weren't paying attention and the media wasn't playing up the importance for you.

I'm not going to hold the Democratic chairs in the Senate responsible if we don't take action against Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Iran. That's the President's job. Clinton failed in his. Bush has not yet failed, but he may. Clinton's legacy was tied to peace in the Middle East and he was betrayed by Arafat. Had he been successful there you could overlook the general lack of policy direction he provided and the total lack of care with which he directed the military.

[Ford]

call me what you will but i will register republican and be as the trojan horse, attack from within

[Art]

Ford,

Knock yourself out my brother . And I won't ever call you what I will. That would be impolite . I will, however, call you what you are. And, there isn't a damn thing wrong with being what you are. I like my liberal and Democratic friends. They inspire a wonderful debate that is much fun.

Just be yourself brother. You spent so much time here proving what you were yet denying it as if it was some sort of negative that you got lost in the argument. Be yourself. Fight for what you believe in. Just know what you believe in is not one bit moderate .

[fansince62]

coming to this thread late.......geeez another "all over the map" but interesting nonetheless ramble....a few thoughts

1) the Congress does share in the direction of the military, albeit not from the executive point-of-view we are most familiar with. the PPBS process eventually culminates in 6-8 months of testimony ("enactment") before congress leading to appropriations and authorizations bills. the Congress, as the arbiter of the purse strings, is up to its earlobes in funding the equipment/personnel/services the military says it needs based on the National Military Strategy. anyone who has ever stood in the office of a service chief for any length of time will note with searing clarity/amusement the number of phone calls from "disinterested" congressmen and senators.

2) the current issues resonating over barriers to information sharing reflect origanizational structures and cultural attitudes that extend far beyond the intelligence communnities. they are prevalent in every social institution with a budget and turf to protect that I have ever been engaged with!!!! what is interesting, at least to me, is the discord between traditonal intelligence doctrine as practiced over the last 50 years and the new processes and interactions enabled by evolving/revolutionary information technologies. anyone who has ever worked in multi-level security, for instance, knows what I'm talking about. sad to say, but I think, as is often the case, a whole new generation of leaders who are familiar with the limitations and capabilities of new technology are going to have to move to the forefront before substantive progress can be made. these individuals, to remove any doubts, must not be technocrats, but operators and visionaries first. that said, they should also learn how the *amn stuff works!!!!

[DaFunky1]

Originally posted by Art

I have never held a gun. I could care less about guns. I do know that the Constitution doesn't say everyone has a right to carry a gun though. Read the whole of the Bill, not just "right to bear arms". Yet, I'm a Republican.

Art please pick these folks, I believe they are lawyers, and the statutes they list and the quotes of the founding fathers apart for me...

Myth: The Militia Mentioned in the Second Amendment Has Been Replaced by the National Guard (or in your opinion we don't necessarily have a right to keep and bear arms)

Not according to current federal law. Here it is:

United States Code (USC)

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

( The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Regarding the "unorganized militia" mentioned above, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Presser v. Illinois (1886) that, "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States."

Though this ruling is over 100 years old, no subsequent Supreme Court ruling has contradicted it.

According to the U.S. Congressional Subcommittee Report on the Constitution in 1982: "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

Although that pretty much settles it, there are a couple of other problems with the idea of relying on the National Guard for personal defense:

1) during times of civil uncertainty - LA riots '92, Florida's Hurricane Andrew '93, etc. - the citizenry is defenseless until the National Guard is mobilized, which usually takes a couple of days;

2) since the National Guard can be federalized and become an arm of the U.S. government, it won't be much good against government tyranny.

And those "dead white guys," the Founding Fathers:

"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789

"And that the said constitution be never construed to authorize congress...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."

- Samuel Adams, delegate, First and Second Continental Congresses

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

- George Mason, delegate, Constitutional Convention

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,

I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August 1789

Peace

[indyskinsfan]

Without stomping on anyone's 1st amendment rights, it's more like this to me on the speech. I don't need to be excused for my position and won't move from it.

1. Bush's administration to carry out the duties of the Presidency WILL be at times political and factual. It will involve numerous mind boggeling decisions that sometimes will couple with strategy, as he is a Republican.

Why even question a President's political ploy that was actually cool, on time and in the best interest of every American??

I have been a Democrat for most of my life. I have recently also cooled from them and didn't vote during both Clinton administrations. I saw what it may be like by traveling and talking with people in places most Presidents just don't go. To include George W. Bush. Still, what George Bush did was a good move, even though it was savvy and it beat some to the punch.

2, When the FBI was having it's day in Subcommittee hearings and the woman with the smoking gun arrived, White House strategists with Republican leadership, decided now was the time to strike a deal for support of revamping intelligence and operations of many key government agencies for the nation's future and current initiatives. Any and I repeat Any politician, no matter what political affiliate would have seized that moment for it's two prong reason, may three.

A. It took charge of the bad situation in the FBI, and communication problems throughout all agencies involved.

B. Politically, it was well timed to circumvent any attempts at poking holes in the Presidency and yes his party.

What's wrong with that. Bill Clinton, waited on polls before acting so much, it slowly but surely disoriented the young population that was looking to him for answers. The delays in acting on some foriegn issues and actions caused confusion and gave some of the very as*holes we're fighting, the time they needed to set up shop even further!

There isn't a President on the planet, that wouldn't take a chance on doing his job, while at the same time covering his a**!

[Art]

DaFunky,

Do you think the founding father's knew the difference between the word citizen and militia or do you think the words were meant to say the same thing? If the founding fathers had meant for every citizen of this nation to have a right to bear arms, they would have said that as they did throughout the Bill of Rights when they set aside a right that every citizen was supposed to have.

Again, there is not an absolute right to bear arms. But, even if you want to argue that there is, that's great. There isn't an absolute right to bear bullets. You can bear all the guns you want, but, bullets. So, while I'm not a fanatic on gun control in any way such that I feel that if you are going to allow bad guys to have guns you better allow good guys to have them too, the fact remains, that if you want to limit possession of weapons in this country, simply register each bullet with DNA coding and anyone found to have illegal bullets gets shot with it and you'll have no gun problems any more .

But, I'm a bit of a radical . Again, I believe the founding father's knew the difference between citizen and militia. I believe they wrote the second amendment with the distinction in mind. But, as long as criminals can have access to guns, we better not make it harder for good guys to get them.