Rep.Stark (D) Should apologize!

[OrlandoMike]

Geesh Rudi has done it three times....


So have Rush and Newt....


Fred twice....


But you would think I could try it at least once.

 

[NYBlue1]

Because I have criticized members of your profession, does not mean that I have taken "cheap shots". I have criticized members of DH's profession, my own profession, DSs future profession. I don't assume that all nurses, physicians and teachers are trustworthy, competent and honest. I don't assume that all police officers are either.

They were cheap shots complete with . I have always maintained bad apples in every bunch. Back on a thread topic, Rick asked you a question about a womans right to vote, Im waiting for the responce from you.

 

[cardaway]

 

[disneyfan67]

Then do we all get to say, "Well, Bush did..." the way the Bush supporters use Bill Clinton now?

All I know that I'm going to call them out on their hypocrisy and clearly show how much of a hopeless ideologue they are. It won't be too hard to do though, because some have provided enough proof in their posts.


Ya know Fits, I don't want Hillary to be my President, never have, never will. I'm just being open and honest and want to make sure you know my position. But and there's that word again... It will provide though me with great satisfaction to see the blind supporters of Bush who defend every decision he does, to crap a brick the size of a Buick, when Hillary gets elected because of the what Bush has done. There's a price to be paid for all the mistakes and missteps that man has done and the bill is coming due. When taxes are raised to pay for a war that was only supposed to cost 80 to 150 Billion dollars and the out of control spending, I'll be laughing at some of those complaining. I hope their eyeballs roll at the higher tax bill they will be receiving. They might even have to stop listening to talk radio at home and get a day job to cover the extra expense.

Mind you, I'll be paying somewhat higher taxes as well, but at least I saw it coming. I saw the iceberg in the distance and warned the S.S Bush to change course and reduce speed, but the passengers ignored me and said "Stay the course".

Don't worry about Bush though, he gets to ride off in the sunset with a 400 grand a year pension, paid protection, million dollar book deals, speeches, etc and won't feel the pinch of those who have to pay for his mistakes.

 

[DawnCt1]

Oh and prior to a hundred years ago, women didn't have the right to vote. Do you vote Dawn? Because you are enjoying a right established by your own people that had to fight pretty long and hard.

The right to vote was acheived through the amendment process, which was certainly the correct thing to do.

 

[Fitswimmer]

All I know that I'm going to call them out on their hypocrisy and clearly show how much of a hopeless ideologue they are. It won't be too hard to do though, because some have provided enough proof in their posts.


Ya know Fits, I don't want Hillary to be my President, never have, never will. I'm just being open and honest and want to make sure you know my position. But and there's that word again... It will provide though me with great satisfaction to see the blind supporters of Bush who defend every decision he does, to crap a brick the size of a Buick, when Hillary gets elected because of the what Bush has done. There's a price to be paid for all the mistakes and missteps that man has done and the bill is coming due. When taxes are raised to pay for a war that was only supposed to cost 80 to 150 Billion dollars and the out of control spending, I'll be laughing at some of those complaining. I hope their eyeballs roll at the higher tax bill they will be receiving. They might even have to stop listening to talk radio at home and get a day job to cover the extra expense.

Mind you, I'll be paying somewhat higher taxes as well, but at least I saw it coming. I saw the iceberg in the distance and warned the S.S Bush to change course and reduce speed, but the passengers ignored me and said "Stay the course".

Don't worry about Bush though, he gets to ride off in the sunset with a 400 grand a year pension, paid protection, million dollar book deals, speeches, etc and won't feel the pinch of those who have to pay for his mistakes.

True, and he'll have accountants to hide all that lovely money from the tax man so he won't have to face the reality that those of us in the lower middle class will. I know the Dems are talking about how they are going to put the pain on "the rich", but I also know how easy it is for those same rich people to make it look like they are making less money than I am!

I'm living the results of "tax the rich" and help the middle class in NJ. My property taxes went up $720 a year, my gas and energy bills have DOUBLED since last year and groceries are up 5-10%. After the holidays, the condo goes up for sale, and I'll be looking to move to an apartment in Florida-which will cut my housing costs in HALF. I'm glad our NJ Democrats were so interested in helping the middle class...right out of the state.

 

[DawnCt1]

Dawn, since you request a direct question, then I will question you directly, directly.

I proved you wrong. Busch DID try to amend the Constitution and I provided you with his words as proof. To keep this thread back on track, are you going to apologize to me directly?

President Bush rightly attempted to introduce an amendment to the Constitution so Massachusetts for example could not impose on Georgia gay marriage. "Changing" the Constitution implies that he issued an edict, which of course he did not.

 

[NYBlue1]

President Bush rightly attempted to introduce an amendment to the Constitution so Massachusetts for example could not impose on Georgia gay marriage. "Changing" the Constitution implies that he issued an edict, which of course he did not.

Amend the constitution, change the constitution it all spells the same thing, adding something to the constitution that takes rights away from americans, that are all suposed to be equal.
You can argue verbiage all day long it still stinks and still is taking away an americans right making them unequal to the rest.

 

[DawnCt1]

Amend the constitution, change the constitution it all spells the same thing, adding something to the constitution that takes rights away from americans, that are all suposed to be equal.
You can argue verbiage all day long it still stinks and still is taking away an americans right making them unequal to the rest.

Not being able to marry a person of the same sex is not deprivation of rights. There isn't a basic right to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[yeartolate]

President Bush rightly attempted to introduce an amendment to the Constitution so Massachusetts for example could not impose on Georgia gay marriage. "Changing" the Constitution implies that he issued an edict, which of course he did not.

Attempting to change does not imply edict.

 

[RickinNYC]

The right to vote was acheived through the amendment process, which was certainly the correct thing to do.

Why was it the correct thing to do?

 

[yeartolate]

Have there ever been any amendments that limited freedoms rather than expand them?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Not being able to marry a person of the same sex is not deprivation of rights. There isn't a basic right to marry someone of the same sex.

I can imagine if there was a movement to take away the privileges that married couples have, the first comment against it would be about "rights". For many in this country, marriage comes under the heading of "pursuit of happiness", their path to happiness is having the ability to marry the person they love.

IMHO, I don't think GW cares one way or the other, I think it was all about appealing to "the base" when things were going badly for him otherwise.

 

[yeartolate]

IMHO, I don't think GW cares one way or the other, I think it was all about appealing to "the base" when things were going badly for him otherwise.

That ismy gut feeling as well.

 

[What the Heck]

I doubt the Founding Fathers envisioned a country without slavery, one where women would have the vote, work outside the home and live independently, one where we would communicate and discuss issues over the Internet, where someone could steal your identity electronically, where there were laws to protect children from abuse..and so on.

If we were going to stick to the world the Founding Fathers envisioned we REALLY shouldn't be in Iraq, because it's more than likely they wouldn't have envisioned pre-emptive war either....

Actually, for the part in bold, I'm sure they did.

Benjamin Franklin and John Adams in particular were pulling for a country without slavery, we almost didn't have a country because of it. The original Declration of Independence called for the freeing of the slaves, but it had to be removed or the Southern States would not have signed.

Abigail Adams, one of the strongest of will and mind patriots also looked for women suffarage. I'm sure she could envision such a thing as women voting. Working outside the home, though, when the Founding Fathers were around there weren't too many people who did work outside the home. We were something like 90% farmers.

To say that the Founding Fathers didn't invision the internet really isn't a fair statement, they didn't even have stable forms of electricity yet.

I'm not so sure you are right about the Iraq war as well. Although they would have wanted us to be sure that he did have the weapons, they probably would have wanted stronger proof. If Hussein did have the nuclear weapons, I don't think they would have not approved of the war. But he didn't.

For those who blame Bush for Iraq, would we be having the same discussions if nuclear weapons had been found?

 

[JennyMominRI]

For those who blame Bush for Iraq, would we be having the same discussions if nuclear weapons had been found?

I would feel the same way..Whether or not Iraq had nuclear weapons is irrelevant to me..Well, I take that back..I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons and that includes the USA...... but,I think it's rediculous for some posters to state that we should "nuke Iraq back to the stone age" when we started the war on the premise that they had nuclear weapons.
I don't think DO as I say, not as I do is helpful in any instance

 

[What the Heck]

I would feel the sameway..Whether or not Iraq had nuclear weapons is irrelevant to me..Well, I take that back..I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons and that includes the USA...... but,I think it'srediculous for some posters to state that we should "nuke Iraq back to the stone age" when we started the war on the premise that they had nuclear weapons.
I don't think DO as I say, not as I do is helpful in any instance

Honestly, I don't think I can say that I would feel the same way, it would have made a difference to me. As it would have made a difference to me in 2003 if I had known or thought that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, the fiasco in Iraq makes it difficult for us to keep Iran from going nuclear.

 

[Hound 109]

Not being able to marry a person of the same sex is not deprivation of rights. There isn't a basic right to marry someone of the same sex.

If someone isn't "married" would they then not be "next of kin"?

Could a life partner (of 20+ years) be denied entrance to a hospital bed (or death bead) because of the lack of this kind of basic right?

 

[Charade]

Have there ever been any amendments that limited freedoms rather than expand them?

Prohibition.

 

[Charade]

IMHO, I don't think GW cares one way or the other, I think it was all about appealing to "the base" when things were going badly for him otherwise.

Well IMHO, *all* politicians do that so it shouldn't surprise anyone what any of them do.