Sure, I exaggerate a little, but I’m an ACLU liberal…
If there were a parody website about me, and I didn’t like it, oh well. It’s protected by the U.S. Fair Use Agreement (I think that’s the one, anyway) which says that it’s okay to do things based on humor and parody. I like that law (I’m an aspiring satirist), I like “freedom of expression” and don’t like Bush. So I do have a biased opinion.
Oh, and on the conservatism of Texans: have any of you taken a look at their state’s Republican platform? They oppose a repeal of the sodomy law, they mentioned God 13 times in a 9 page document, almost everything was “designed by God” or “ordained by God”, and that was the reason they gave for not allowing homosexuals to marry, adopt children, or have their “values taught” in schools. They supported criminal prosecution for people who as much as researched human cloning, and wanted to ban anything taught in schools that went against “tradtional” values in several areas, including religion and sexual orientation.
Arnold Winkelried said:
I took a look at the website. I don’t know how much, if any of it, is true…and even if I assume it’s all true, it wouldn’t change my mind. I believe Gore has been up to his ears in corruption, and he has been so as myVice President–he was representing me(and all other Americans) at the time. I find that a personal affront, and I will not vote for him. If in fact Bush misused his power as Governor of Texas, he was not representing mewhen he did so.
(The other stuff–accusations that Bush used drugs, partied a lot, avoided being sent to Vietnam–can’t possibly be used as a basis to convince somebody to vote for Al Gore, since Clinton has been accused of the exact same things. If Gore found it acceptable for his buddy Bill, then he must by definition not mind them for Bush. And the accusation that Bush traded on his name to get into politics is hilarious–like, say, Al Gore?
cmkeller said:
I believe Richards was only governor for one term–Bush defeated her when she ran for her second.
VarlosZ said:
I dunno–I’m certainly voting for him as the lesser of two evils. But then I don’t understand why anyone whould think any better of Gore, either.
Arnold BLINKEReid:
How consistently one sided of you to quote all the dirty allegations about Bush without even mentioning ONE about Gore from the very same website!
Why don’t you apply for a job with the NBC News or Al Gore’s campaign? You seem to have all the prerequisites: a total lack of honesty, zero intellectual integrity, and a propensity for presenting only half the story (coincidentally enough, the one that supports only your side of the issue).
You, sir, aren’t engaged in a debate; you are engaged in blatantly partisan mud-slinging.
JELLO:
Then that makes you a hypocrite of the first order.
What esteemed company you keep, with the likes of Michael Douglas, Warren Beatty, Martin Sheen, etc, etc,…
How can you (or your friends) tell me or anyone else, with a straight face, that all the Bill of Rights except the Second Amendment count?
The Bill of Rights are inviolable; immutable. Neither you, Bill Clinton, Mr. Meat-Sock [Gore] or Sarah Brady gets to pick-and-choose what the rest of us Americans can and cannot have as “inalienable” rights.
On To Texas!
I live in Texas.
I am barely a Christian; mostly through inertia, not any conscious belief in the Christian doctrine. When I do go to church, it’s the obligatory once-a-year Christmas visit to see old friends back in St. Louis. Other than that, I don’t think much about church, not even the several I drive by every day of the other 364 days a year.
I am pro-life by conscience, but pro-choice by politics.
I am a gun owner and enthusiast, an anti-“Flag Burning Amendment” free-speech advocate, and am a fiscally conservative civil libertarian.
If Texas were even half as horrible as some of you Bush-bashing, Gore-humping idiots (the vast majority of which, I am willing to bet, haven’t even been to Texas, much less lived there a substantive amount of time so as to form an informed opinion) claim, then I wouldn’t be living there!!!
I enjoy my freedoms and liberties, and will not voluntarily live someplace where they are curtailed by religious fundamentalists.
Such is not the case with TEXAS!
To expand a tad upon what Lemur said concerning the NRA:
Mr. LaPierre was speaking at a fund-raising pep-rally, to encourage NRA members, where he was noting the one-sidedness concerning treatment by the current administration with regards to the various pro/anti gun groups.
HCI has had ready, immediate access to this administration;
The Million Mom Farce was lent an incredible amount of money and organizational talent by this administration, including a “Control/Board” room right in the West Wing;
All the time proclaiming to anyone who will listen that they only wanted “reasonable” compromise, but the “evil gun lobby” wouldn’t even return their calls.
As we Texans have been known to say: Horseshit!
Get Your News From Something More Substantive Than A Five-Second CNN Soundbite!
As has been already noted, Texas is largely a Democratic state, that has twice elected this man to be our Governor.
And yes: Democratic does not equate to “liberal”; in Texas, or anywhere else in America except for academia and the media.
So if George W. is the right-wing fundamentalist puppet some of you seem to think he is, then answer the rest of America this:
Why Is He Still Governor Of A Largely Democratic State?
ExTank
“Now I have to wipe my spleen off my monitor.”
Lemur…
Wow. Half of your rebuttals are based on the notion that Bush Jr. will follow in his father’s footsteps. Do I really need to debunk this kind of logic? Start with their backgrounds, which are entirely different, and one should see that it’s obvious that such a comparison is ridiculous.
As for being in the pocket of the Christian right…Bush is a born again Christian who credits his spirituality to numerous personal conferences with Christian leaders. Call it what you will, but that is an intimate relationship that will make a lot of people uncomfortable.
If you think abortion is a dead issue, then you are incredibly ignorant of the attitudes prevalent in this country. Thousands of people make this issue the center of their lives, spending hours protesting, pamphletting, debating, etc. A small minority of this mass even believes that it is their moral duty to sacrifice their live/commit murder over this.
On the legal side, there have been several post-Roe v Wade cases that have significantly altered the abortion rights (most of them curtailing the access to it). It is constantly debated on the state and federal level. There are foundations whose primary and tertiary concerns are to advocate for restricting/expanding abortion rights.
Does this seem like a dead issue to anyone here?
On a grander scale, the abortion issue is about the right to privacy. Which never has been and never will be a “dead issue”.
And yes, I would find someone attempting to entirely dismantle your 2nd Amendment scary.
But what does that have to do with what I said?
I was making the point that it is scary, in my opinion, for someone to say that they don’ care about constitutional issues, but take an interest in how much they are being taxed.
ExTank:
That’s the nature of a debate; he’s arguing his side of it, so he doesn’t have to make your points for you. Besides, the corruptions of Bush’s office (moslty related to the fact that he’s a two-term whore for the oil industry) have been well documented. When they went looking for this kind of stuff on Clinton 8 years ago, they found out he was an adulterer; with Bush they found bribes and kickbacks – which bothers you more?
The ACLU position on the Second Amendment is not that it “doesn’t count.” They maintain that it’s primary, if not it’s exclusive, purpose is to ensure that states can have militias that are essentially independent of the federal government. Since, they reason, no one could reasonably argue that the right to keep and bear nuclear warheads or tanks (which are “arms”) is enshrined in the Constitution, the question is merely one of how much to limit arms ownership, not whether or not we are allowed to (which we clearly are). This is an entirely reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; in fact, it has been the exact interpretation used by the Supreme Court since 1939 (Rehnquist & Co. included). Since then, every restriction on gun ownership, including the complete ban of handguns w/in town borders, has been upheld as constitutional by State and Circuit Courts. I think that gun ownership should be legal, but the language of the second amendment is clear to any unbiased observer. It protects your right to have a gun while in the employ of the state. Beyond that, you’d better petition your legislature.
Well then you’re hardly a model Texan, are you? Do most Texans favor legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gambling (which is what, in part, it means to be a civil libertarian)? Hell, that state would ban flag burning if it weren’t blatantly unconstitutional to do so (as decided in, surprise surprise, Texas v. Johnson).
No one here said that Texas was controlled by hardcore Christian Fundamentalists, merely that Texas is an unusually conservative state. This is true (as it is true for most of the deep south).
It’s like I pointed out: Southern Democrats don’t count. Or, to make that statement more accurate, being a Democrat in Texas or Alabama is not the same thing as being a Democrat in New York, Massachussettes, Wyoming, California, or most anywhere else. Georgia is very conservative, yet it hasn’t had a Republican Governor once in the 20th Century (it’s the only state that hasn’t, in fact). There are lots of holdovers from the “Solid South,” when you boys were a little sore about that whole, how should I say, “losing the Civil War” business. I jest, of course.
On a separate note, you said the following about people who disagree with you in good-natured sort of way:
Look, just your being a Texan provides me ample opportunity to taunt you with 3rd Grade insults, but I refrain from doing so. Kindly extend us in the opposition the same courtesy.
MysterEcks:
I stand corrected.
VarlosZ:
Once that was true. By the mid-1980’s, though, though, most conservative Southern Democrats have switched to the Republican party.
Chaim Mattis Keller
And that’s perfectly your right. Just remember that there are probably many democrats that feel the same way you do, and ignore accusations of corruption against their chosen candidate.
Huh? Take a few deep breaths ExTank.
[ol]
[li]Please re-read the title of the thread. It seems to me that it was created for the purpose of discussing George W. Bush Jr. Why should I be posting about the other candidates? Or do you believe in the school of thought that proposes, when allegations of dishonesty about your candidate are raised, that you point at other people and say “they’re doing it too”?[/li][li]I see that you assert the value of “fair play”. I am now expecting that you will visit all of the many threads that mention Al Gore’s fund-raising practices and discuss the potential issues about George W. Bush Jr. I commend you for your bipartisanship.[/li]By the way, I notice that several posters in this thread mentioned the “corruption” of Al Gore, but said nothing against George W. Bush Jr. One can’t help but wonder why you did not charge them with «a total lack of honesty, zero intellectual integrity, and a propensity for presenting only half the story». I would hate to think that you yourself are biased.
[li]I am not planning on voting for Al Gore and do not support his candidature. With that being said, I freely admit that I agree with his views more than with those of George W. Bush Jr.[/li][li]As you pointed out, the site that provided me about the George W. Bush issues also has information on many other candidates, affiliated with a variety of political parties. One could interpret that to say that the site is unbiased and has no “axe to grind” against George W. Bush in particular.[/li][li]To tell you the truth, you are the one that seems to me to be an unreasoning supporter that tries to prevent a full discussion of the issues. If you think the accusations against what I assume to be your preferred candidate are unfounded, then refute them. The site that I mentioned lists sources for their allegations. If you think that negative campaigning is unwarranted, then as I mentioned before, please feel free to chastise as well those that mention Al Gore’s alleged corruption.[/li][/ol]
VZ said:
which is precisely wrong. THe Framers never said anything of the sort. THe supreme court has adressed this issue and state otherwise. from Presser V. Illinois
I can only say that it is gratifying to see how much I have managed to stir things up with this thread. My personal views aside, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this forum. That said, I will now address something that will appear to some as a minor and qualitative point. Namely, the speaking styles of the two candidates.
We’ll start with our android poster boy, Al Gore. This guy’s style couldn’t be more wooden if he had a pole strategically inserted up his… (you get the picture). This guy is about as impassioned as a sheet of gypsum drywall, and his monotone delivery would make a robot blush. However, this scares me quite a bit less than when I listen to Bush. Whenever I hear Shrub deliver his views without the benifit of prescripted replies, it seems that every other word is an, “um” or “er”. Frankly, this not only appalls me, but scares me as well. I cannot recall EVER hearing such a poor public speaker get this far in a presidential election. The ability to speak clearly with direct connection of thought and words is a critical function for anyone in a leadership position. Bush comes across as a nit wit who must have his own thoughts spoon fed to him. As an accomplished public speaker I know for a fact that the ability for someone to orate clearly and intelligibly requires convictions about what one is saying. Bush does not come across this way. The most distinct impression that this bumbler gives me is that of a person who is mouthing what is expected of him. This perception was first instilled in me when I watched Bush garner millions in early campaign contributions without taking a concrete stand on a single substantial issue. The only possible conclusion was that this Republican boy toy had hung a “For Sale” around his neck. (I can hear John Corrado booting up as I type this.)
Rest assured that Gore is up to his armpits in this sort of fundraising too. I was almost amused to see Clinton crash Gore’s nomination parties and raise several million for his stinking library (likewise Hillary with her fundraising) when those dollars were so sorely needed by Gore for his campaign. California’s governor Gray Davis has more money in his 2004 reelection war chest than Gore has for his Presidential campaign. Such are the vagaries of politics. It is sad commentary that I find myself voting for Al Gore solely to vote against George Bush. Alas, this is nonetheless the case.
To close, again, thank you to all sides for your contributions to this thread. Open debate like this is the cornerstone of our great Democracy. Keep up the good work.
Ex-Tank:
[Moderator Hat ON]
Your comments are not appropriate in this forum; if you want fling personal insults, do so in the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
**VZ said:
which is precisely wrong. THe Framers never said anything of the sort. THe supreme court has adressed this issue and state otherwise. from Presser V. Illinois
**
Whew! I was almost worried there for a second. Could I have been mistaken? Thankfully, no. What Mr. Z (the other Mr. Z.) neglected to mention, or what he was not aware of, was that Presser vs. Illinois was argued in 1886(!). I was “precisely wrong”? Did I not say, “in fact, it has been the exact interpretation used by the Supreme Court since 1939.”? (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Presser decision upheld an Illinois statute prohibiting parading with arms by groups other than the organized militia (though the decision was based, admittedly, on what we would consider a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment). Trying to trip me up, eh? You’ll have to do better than that. U.S. v. Miller, 1939: look it up.
Zenster, gotta cite?
Wasn’t Lincoln a terrible speaker? From what I understand, he had a squeaky voice and poor mannerisms that made him difficult to watch and listen to. That didn’t seem to stop him from getting his point across and being sincere. In fact, I’m not sure how strongly one can tie public speaking ability to personal conviction. I don’t buy it.
Which, I believe, contributed to Lincoln’s unpopularity in much of the country, even in his Northen states.
VZ, case law is case law. But since you brought up Miller
THe court, investigating the discussions regarding the creation of the 2nd looked to the intent of the Framers. That intent is clearly to allow everyone ot be armed and not merely those in the employ of the state.
I don’t want to hijak this thread, but if you can show me that the Framers meant only to arm the national guard, please provide cites.
From 1990:
If you have any other doubts, Cecil wrote a column on this.
Unfortunately, JCGmoi, no cite. Heard it on the news, but we know how reliable that could be. As for you, Divemaster, I seem to recall that Abraham Lincoln ran for office around one hundred and fifty years ago. Back then, the English language was still in it’s formative stages (compared to modern American English). In addition, the media was predominately limited to the printed word and public speaking. Today, a child of ten probably has a larger vocabulary than a common adult of Lincoln’s era. It does not require any great leap of faith to consider that, today most people hear speeches and extended dialogue on a fairly routine basis. This exposure tends to engender (although not always) a similar ability in the listener. I refuse to think that I am the only one who has gained speaking skills from listening to other people orate. In short, you have to be pretty dense or have a speech impediment to not be able to talk without pausing continually to search for words like Bush does. Furthermore, the voting public is far more likely to judge a person on their speaking skills now than they once did 150 years ago. I freely admit that this is conjecture upon my part. At the same time, much of what I’m saying isn’t rocket science. Bush’s speech patterns strongly indicate a distinct lack of sincerity or diminished cognitive processes. You pick.
. . . I’ve got to correct some incorrect assertions made by Mr. Zambezi.
Here’s the Miller decision, by the way:
As noted in the Summary section of what? Miller’s application to the issue of gun control laws is completely germane. The case involved Miller’s failure to register his sawed-off shotgun. The court decided: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Since individual ownership of firearms does not contribute to the “preservation or efficiency” of a well-regulated militia, the right to keep and bear said weapons is not protected in by the second amendment. As the DoJ brief in the case puts it: “In both countries [the U.S. and England] the right to keep and bear arms has been generally restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security. Indeed, the very language of the Second Amendment discloses that this right has reference only to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people as members of the state militia or other similar military organization provided for by law.” Emphasis added. The whole DoJ brief: http://www.tiac.net/users/rickers/miller.htm
The quote from Miller that you give is taken completely out of context; indeed, if you had read the entire decision, you must have known this. The whole quote, which you cut short, is: “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Emphasis added (it’s the section you cut out). The purpose of this paragraph of the decision was to point out how very anachronistic was the second amendment; or, at the very least, how anachronistic a literal interpretation of the amendment would be.
The intent is clearly to ensure a means for the common defense; where private gun ownership does not contribute to this it is not constitutionally protected. Surely you don’t believe that Miller applied only to sawed-off shotguns?
As demonstrated, the framers’ intent regarding gun ownership is entirely anachronistic and specific only to the social conditions of 18th Century America. In any case, “framers’ intent” is by no means the last word in Constitutional interpretation (even if said intent could be reliably devined, which it cannot).
Finally, you mentioned the Verdugo-Urquidez case. The case is completely unrelated to the 2nd Amendment, which was mentioned only in passing. The apparent personal beliefs of the author of that decision (Rehnquist) not withstanding, the case has absolutely no impact on U.S. Constitutional law regarding the 2nd Amendment; the most recent decision that impacted that was U.S. vs. Miller, 1939, which, in practical terms, gives states (and Congress) a free hand in controlling gun ownership by private citizens.
Da-, er, Darn! I’ve been booted three times trying to get this reply up. Must be a vast left-wing conspiracy. :rolleyes:
Okay, Arnold, I just saw your citation of specific allegations, as opposed to the general vague innuendo, and I had an atypical knee-jerk reaction.
I retract everything I wrote about you, and you have my apology. :o
Someone else said:
Well, it’s not like I exactly stand out as an abnormality either.
No one that I’ve spoken to has taken any real exception to the objective reality that the “war on drugs”, as currently waged, is a dismal failure, and that education is a better weapon than incarceration.
Or that Germany has legalized prostitution, and seems to be making it work pretty well. It would take care of blatant “approach” solicitations, keep the whores clean, and make a little money to pay for the doctors that inspect them for hygiene.
I find flag-burners the RL equivalent of internet trolls.
I dislike them. Immensely. (That I occasionally delve into that category when aroused is a personal weakness that I recognoize and apologize for, when I am called on it.)
I respect the individual right to freedom of expression; I do not respect their right to be provocative assholes.
Criticize America all you want; enumerate our faults; catalog our deficiencies; and shout them at the top of your lungs, from the highest rooftop, in every medium that you can beg, borrow or steal space on or from.
But to deliberately set fire to the symbol of your own country, to my way of thinking, is just as good as renouncing your citizenship.
On this I will not compromise; if you disagree, tell someone else other than me, as we’ll just have to agree to disagree, without being disagreeable.
And the ACLU is so out-of-sync with the vast majority of legal scholarship that it’s surprising Sarah Brady hasn’t come out and officially endorsed them with a “Good Guys!” smiley face sticker.
It is amazing to me the fundamental hypocricy of those 1st Amendment supporters who rail and cry against any moderation on their manner of expression, while at the same time wishing to severely curtail the 2nd Amendment, if not do away with it entirely.
Because, you see, to my way of thinking, the 1st Amendment is about Information, the communication and exchange of ideas.
And I believe that Ideas, Ideology and Ideologues have inspired more people to atrocity, launched more wars, and killed more people than any number of sociopaths, psycopaths, criminals or just severely pissed off people in the entirety of human history.
Don’t believe me? Well, Joe Stalin killed almost 3 times as many people as Hitler, and Mao wasn’t too far behind, I think; and both of them were confirmed Marxists; in other words, Ideologues.
There haven’t been as many criminal homicides, rapes, aggravated assaults, assaults and batteries in the history of the United States as were killed by Stalin in the name of Marxism.
So, if we really wanted a quiet, peaceful world in which to live, then maybe repealing the 1st Amendment would be the first logical step in the right direction.
And besides, for every 100,000 kids who just play videogames, who just download bomb instructions off the internet for the fun of it, who just watch the movie with cool gangsters murdering one another, there’s at least one kid who’s just itching to try it.
And if we can prevent even one needless, senseless murder, then supressing this information and imagery is a good thing. Right?
After all, it’s the exact same logic used by Susan Sarandon and Rosie O’Donnel for banning guns.
ExTank
“And sauce for the goose…”
Zenster, my point about Lincoln was not to debate how far oratorial expectations have come in the last 150 years, or the change in media outlets for conveying information, it was to challenge the link you made between oratorial skill and sincerity. Specifically, when you said
I’m sure there are many people who can charge up a crowd with inspired oratory, and can use language in a magical way–and not believe a word of what they are saying. Doesn’t debate class work this way? A good speaker can be persuasive on any side of an issue.
Ah, but the point is, Bush is not a good speaker. Okay, fine. I’ll turn it around. In my opinion, a person can be totally sincere on an issue; have convictions they would risk their life to defend, and have the devil of a time giving a speech or interview.
You later qualified with
That’s a tough choice. I don’t think Bush is any less sincere than any other politician, even those who speak much better (not a ringing endorsement, I know.). As for diminished cognition, are you talking about general IQ? I don’t think he’s dumb. Regardless of how you think he achieved such things, he does have an Ivy Leauge education and has governed a state. If you are talking about some of the more intangible aspects of intelligence (e.g., common sense, political savvy), I think Bush is probably better than average.
Look, I’m not saying he’s the next Marc Antony in front of a crowd. You certainly are entitled to your opinion of the man. I just think tying it to his lack of oratory skill is a stretch, at best.