 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric, I have no intention of replying to your dumb, self-serving bigoted rhetoric and name-calling.
If you have a legitimate question to ask, perhaps I will deign to answer it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Eric, I have no intention of replying to your dumb, self-serving bigoted rhetoric and name-calling."
As always, the gutless little coward to the end just like your hero the Slickmeister. And so scared are you that you once again resort to that cop-out of using the term "bigoted" when the only bigot in this forum is you, with your obsessive hatred of conservatives and of Christians, and your contempt for the democratic process. What's really laughable is to see you develop a thin-skin about "name calling" when you have shown no such qualms with regard to the hate-filled invective you've hurled against all those you disagree with, and which lest we never forget, once included the advocacy of murder of those you disagreed with.
"If you have a legitimate question to ask, perhaps I will deign to answer it."
You've been given a legitimate question repeatedly that others in this forum have told you to answer (no one in this thread has called the question out of line) and you refuse to do so because it is now evident more than ever, that your positions are so intellectually and morally bankrupt, that your only option is to evade, obfuscate and duck and weave in true Clintonian tradition.
The question still stands: Explain the recent lies of Prince Albert in his speech about being "betrayed" in 1991 when Saddam was not overthrown, when the documented record shows he said or felt no such thing at the time.
Your answer is still awaited, Baghdad Booby. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bagdhad Booby's continued silence seems to indicate that he thinks it best to take Dr. Franklin's advice that the best contribution he can make to his cause is to keep his flap shut.
But alas, silence is anything but golden when it comes to avoiding a direct question he doesn't want to answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also get a kick out of the fact that the one Democrat in the US Senate who is trying to hold up action on a bipartisan resolution on Iraq, just happens to be the one member of Congress who is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan.
It has always struck me as amusing how Democrats try to use phony charges of "racism" in the distant past of George W. Bush's judicial nominees yet they for years have countenanced the presence of this miscreant who only a year ago openly used the n-word to describe Black Americans in one interview.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Y'know, I've never been a big fan of George I, but right about now I thank heavens for his mediating influence on the cowboy impulses of his son George II."
Actually, it's because the President isn't following his father's advice, that he's come up with a more sound approach to the problem facing us today. Bush 41 was a failure because he was only interested in preserving outdated status quos and had no conception of the changing world that was happening. Not only did this cause Bush to not recognize the importance of getting rid of Saddam it also accounted for his being slow to recognize that Mikhail Gorbachev's days were numbered, and for his inexcusable slowness in recognizing the break-up of the Soviet Union (Brent Scowcroft showed off his incompetence by pushing a long-term refusal to recognize Baltic independence among other things for several months)
"But then this approach in general appears to be a speciality of the extreme right, based on the evidence in this thread."
Conservatives in this instance, simply know how to show some common sense with regard to recognizing where the threats to American security lie, unlike the extreme left such as Hanoi Jane McDermott who believe Saddam's word is worth more than our President's.
"George II's ill-conceived "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war to achieve peace (how Orwellian!)."
Would it have been "Orwellian" if the British had launced a preemptive war against Hitler after the Munich Conference?
Just some food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I have no intention of replying"
That means that you have no intention of backing up your own rhetoric.
Unacceptable, original.
If I did that, you'd be all over me.
Even more, if Eric did it (and he hasn't!), you'd have plenty of insults to hurl at him, as you have previously demonstrated.
Unacceptable.
You have no credibility, and your posts are a meaningless waste of space.
You can still do the right thing, if you have the guts for it.
My guess is that you're all wind...hot air.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 10, 2002 - 11:01 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Essankay
(Member)
|
Actually, it's because the President isn't following his father's advice, that he's come up with a more sound approach to the problem facing us today.
Wrong. It was widely reported Monday that George II is consulting frequently with George I (sources close to both the President and the ex-President were quoted on this) and it's quite apparent to anyone paying attention that George II is listening more to daddy than he is to Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, & the other extremists in his administration. If he wasn't, we'd be at war right now.
Bush 41 was a failure because he was only interested in preserving outdated status quos and had no conception of the changing world that was happening. ...this cause[d] Bush to not recognize the importance of getting rid of Saddam...
All the more reason for George II to want to try to clean up daddy's mess and try to keep the Bushes from going down in history as the wrongheaded bunglers they in fact are.
Besides, I said I was no fan of George I. It's only in his role of restraint on George II's worst instincts that I'm grateful for him.
Conservatives in this instance, simply know how to show some common sense with regard to recognizing where the threats to American security lie, unlike the extreme left such as Hanoi Jane McDermott who believe Saddam's word is worth more than our President's.
Please don't conflate the Iraq issue with the change in policy now tentatively being called "The Bush Doctrine". There are compelling arguments for dealing firmly and decisively with Iraq (whether or not that means war is another matter), but this expansive new "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive defense (which sounds mighty like offense to me) is fraught with so many possible horrible unintended consequences that I can't believe any sane person would think this was a good idea. Many Republicans as well as Democrats are disturbed by the implications of the U.S. striking first at perceived (or imagined, or possibly even trumped-up) threats. It is, as I have said, a Pandora's Box, and a very bad precedent for the U.S. to be setting.
Would it have been "Orwellian" if the British had launced a preemptive war against Hitler after the Munich Conference?
Just some food for thought.
Not Orwellian, but certainly suicidal, given the disparity in military strength between Great Britain and Germany in 1938.
I've heard this "Hussein = Hitler" analogy used over and over, and while it's convenient and glib, it's just too superficial to really be instructive. If anything, it should serve as an impetus to get George II working harder to develop an international coalition to deal with the situation. But that's not going to be easy given his past disdain for international cooperation. After having repeatedly spit in the eye of the rest of the world, little Georgie's got his work cut out for him. So any food for thought your rhetorical question might contain is, it seems, only empty calories.
The grotesque arrogance, the presumptuousness of George II & Co., is really quite astonishing given that he wasn't even elected by the people of this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 10, 2002 - 11:20 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Khan
(Member)
|
I figured I should mention this, since it was discussed on the Neil Boortz radio show today, and it makes a good point.
In 1936, Hitler broke the treaty saying he could not have troops in the Rheinland by, guess what, moving his army there. He didn't have much of an army then, but it was a gamble he risked. He knew that the French had a massive army at the time, far stronger than his, and if they had decided to take action on the treaty breaking, the Nazis would have had to turn around back into Germany, their collective tails between their legs. However, the French did nothing, and that, as we say, is that. If the French had taken pre-emptive measures, World War 2 may never have happened. And, this is what Bush is trying to prevent, by moving on Iraq sooner rather than later.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 12:16 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Khan
(Member)
|
This is no hyperbole, this is just a plain and simple fact, one which you seem to have trouble accepting. The current occupant of the White House was not elected by the people of this country. He was elected by the Electoral College (after an unconstitutional intervention by the Supreme Court). You seem to have some kind of mental block when it comes to understanding that the Electoral College is not the people of this country.
And please spare us your hypocritical squawking about "the constitutional system that has guided us since the beginning of this country", since that same constitution has a clearly stated method of resolving disputed Presidential elections and it does not involve the Supreme Court.
Oh and BTW, show me *one* recount in Florida that ever had Prince Albert ahead in the vote count.
A quick lesson in history for you. The United States is NOT a democracy. Never has been. The United States is a republic. The Founding Fathers did not want a democracy in this country because it would eventually result in mob rule. Article II of the United States Constitution lays out the law for how the president is elected. No where in that article is any mention of the people, the popular vote, choosing the president. Electors, i.e. the Electoral College, do. Just because Gore had more popular votes than Bush means nothing because he failed to win more electors. Is that not clear enough to you?
And while we're at it, yes, the Constitution has a section, in Article II, for what should happen in the event a majority is not found. The House is supposed to choose the President. And, since the House was controlled by the Republicans at the time, don't you think that they would vote for Bush, a Republican, to put him in the White House? Nice try at being slick, but you just stumbled into a trap of your own making.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 12:45 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Essankay
(Member)
|
A quick lesson in history for you. The United States is NOT a democracy. Never has been.
A quick lesson in reading for you. I never said it was. I simply pointed out that "the people" of the U.S. did not elect George W. Bush to be the President of the United States, which you then rushed to reiterate, along with evidence that in fact they can't. My point is that they expressed a preference that George W. Bush not be their President, a fact which seems to stick in your craw.
Just because Gore had more popular votes than Bush means nothing because he failed to win more electors. Is that not clear enough to you?
That Gore had more popular votes than Bush does in fact "mean something", as much as you may hate to admit it. It means that more of "the people" wanted Gore to be President than Bush. And while it may not change the outcome, it is not "nothing". Is that clear enough for you?
You're so quick and eager to point out the obvious that I can only take it as contempt for the people and their will.
...yes, the Constitution has a section, in Article II, for what should happen in the event a majority is not found. The House is supposed to choose the President. And, since the House was controlled by the Republicans at the time, don't you think that they would vote for Bush, a Republican, to put him in the White House? Nice try at being slick, but you just stumbled into a trap of your own making.
How presumptuous! I'm not invoking the constitution just so "my side" can win. I want the constitution observed because it's the law of the land and the process should be followed, whatever the outcome. What a sad character you are, unable to imagine any motivation other than pure partisanship in a call to observe the constitution.
That the Bushes, who have shown their contempt for the constitution on more than one occasion, bypassed that document (for whatever reason) to get George II into the White House doesn't surprise me one bit. I'd certainly have more respect for George II's legitimacy if he'd followed the law of the land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 2:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
"This is no hyperbole, this is just a plain and simple fact, one which you seem to have trouble accepting."
No sir, the plain and simple fact is that George W. Bush received a majority of votes in states adding up to 271 electoral votes, which according to the Constitution of the United States, makes him the winner of the election, fair and square. Get over it and live with it.
"(after an unconstitutional intervention by the Supreme Court)."
Uh, no sir what the Supreme Court did was rescue the integrity of the process which was being spat upon by Prince Albert, who kept insisting the rules be changed after the fact just to suit him. And as it turned out, seven justices, including one Clinton appointee, ruled that what the Florida Supreme Court tried to do was a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution in which one narrow section of the country would get special recount privileges not available for the rest of the country.
"You seem to have some kind of mental block when it comes to understanding that the Electoral College is not the people of this country."
The Electoral College is how we choose presidents under the Constitution and those who are duly elected by that process have received the mandate proscribed by our Founding Fathers and those who dare to criticize that show contempt for the Constitution.
Oh and BTW, it will interest you to know that one week before the election, when the polls suggested that it was possible that Prince Albert might win the Electoral Vote and George Bush the popular vote, Prince Albert's campaign made a number of statements about the need for the Constitutional process to be respected under those circumstances.
"since that same constitution has a clearly stated method of resolving disputed Presidential elections and it does not involve the Supreme Court."
The Supreme Court only became necessary when the Florida Supreme Court refused to honor and abide by the clearly stated methods of resolving Presidential elections. The Florida Supreme Court attempted to rewrite the rules after the election in the hopes it could get their candidate elected. That was an act of judicial terrorism that the U.S. Supreme Court mercifully put in check and insisted on the written law standing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 2:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
"I simply pointed out that "the people" of the U.S. did not express their preference for George W. Bush to be President of the United States, a fact which seems to stick in your craw."
Doesn't stick in mine considering the vote fraud that Democratic machines indulged in in St. Louis (in which a dead man was used as a plaintiff to illegally keep polls open for several hours more than they should have), not to mention the fact that the networks irresponsible premature call of Florida drove down the Bush turnout on the West Coast. I just simply go by what our Constitution calls for, which is to protect us from the shenanigans that would happen in a nationwide popular vote determination, where big city machines would have an unjust influence over the outcome of the elections.
"That Gore had more popular votes than Bush does in fact "mean something", as much as you may hate to admit it."
Yeah, about as much as it means that the losing baseball team had more base hits than the winning team.
"How presumptuous! I don't invoke the constitution just so "my side" can win. I want the constitution observed because it's the law of the land and the process should be followed, whatever the outcome."
And the process was followed several times in the weeks following the election with state mandated recounts, counting of absentee ballots, and then the deadlines passed by the democratically elected legislature came in and which are proscribed by the Constitution, and what happened every time? Bush in the lead in Florida. Because Al Gore (who tried to disenfranchise the votes of servicemen) wouldn't accept this, he wanted to rewrite the Constitution to suit his personal political gain. And that is what the US Supreme Court put a stop to and rightfully so. Always remember that the Florida Supreme Court decision didn't even pass the smell test with Justice Stephen Breyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 3:31 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Essankay
(Member)
|
...the plain and simple fact is that George W. Bush received... 271 electoral votes, which... makes him the winner of the election...
You're pretty good at stating the obvious, too. But no one's disputing that George II is now President.
The Electoral College is how we choose presidents... and those who dare to criticize that show contempt for the Constitution.
Now there's some typical Paddon sophistry. Insinuate and smear. But it doesn't change the fact that the Electoral College is not the people of the U.S.
"..."the people" of the U.S. did not express their preference for George W. Bush to be President of the United States, a fact which seems to stick in your craw."
Doesn't stick in mine considering the vote fraud that Democratic machines indulged in in St. Louis...
Ahhh, now you get around to my point, but of course you dismiss the hundreds of thousands of people who preferred that George II not be their President by insinuating that they were voting fraudulently. Well guess what? U.S. servicemen have admitted voting after election day, and the Republicans were the ones to insist that those votes be counted (and haven't I heard you bleating about Gore "disenfranchising" those poor boys in uniform?). So it seems vote fraud is countenanced by both sides. But then you knew that.
And you must be pretty naive to think that vote fraud can't tip an election in spite of the Electoral College.
"That Gore had more popular votes than Bush does in fact "mean something", as much as you may hate to admit it."
Yeah, about as much as it means that the losing baseball team had more base hits than the winning team.
And there's the smirking contempt for the people's will that lurks in your dismissal of their votes as fraudulent.
The Florida Supreme Court attempted to rewrite the rules after the election in the hopes it could get their candidate elected. That was an act of judicial terrorism that the U.S. Supreme Court mercifully put in check and insisted on the written law standing.
The Florida case is, of course, not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. But you'll spin it that way, regardless. I note another patented Paddon debating trick in this passage - how you've slipped in the word "terrorism" to smear the Florida Supreme Court, whose opinion you oppose. Typical, typical...
I find it curious that you're not squealing about the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to intervene in the New Jersey Senatorial election case. Here's an instance where the law is quite clear and they should do something. But now they act like a bunch of nervous old ladies.
When they shouldn't, they do; when they should, they don't. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 3:44 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
"Now there's some typical Paddon sophistry. Insinuate and smear. But it doesn't change the fact that the Electoral College is not the people of the U.S."
The Electoral College is part of the Constitution of the United States, duly ratified by the sovereign states and their legislatures chosen by the people and recognized as the law of the land. Your contempt for that ideal with your sophistry about "the people" means that you believe we should be a nation of men and not laws.
"Ahhh, now you get around to my point, but of course you dismiss the hundreds of thousands of people who preferred that George II not be their President by insinuating that they were voting fraudulently."
I merely point out that the nationwide popular vote total is a flimsy thing to appeal to with regard to Prince Albert's supposed "mandate" from the people.
"Well guess what? U.S. servicemen have admitted voting after election day, and the Republicans were the ones to insist that those votes be counted"
Provide your source please. The votes that Prince Albert wanted to throw out were all legit. And there is no GOP counterpart to what happened in St. Louis, but there are also other instances of election shenanigans that took place in Wisconsin and other states that Gore carried narrowly. The difference is that the GOP chose to act with class and not challenge those results unlike the classlessness of the Democrats in Florida.
"And you must be pretty naive to think that vote fraud can't tip an election in spite of the Electoral College."
Like 1960 and Mayor Daley's tombstone vote for JFK? But alas, in that instance it was Republicans who once again chose to act with class and put the nation ahead of partisanship, unlike the Democrats in a case where there was no fraud with regard to the outcome. Richard Nixon, unlike Prince Albert, recognized that the people's needs came first and that also meant never questioning the legitimacy of JFK's election.
"And there's the smirking contempt for the people's will"
No sir, it is you who have a smirking contempt for the Constitution of the United States with your belief that we are not a nation of laws.
"The Florida case is, of course, not as clear-cut as you make it out to be."
It sure as heck was to seven members of the Supreme Court.
"how you've slipped in the word "terrorism" to smear the Florida Supreme Court, whose opinion you oppose."
What they did was judicial terrorism and can not be described any other way. This was a group of four judges arbitrarily rewriting the laws of this country to serve the partisan agenda of one man. And that is judicial terrorism and I make no apologies for using that phrase.
"I find it curious that you're not squealing about the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to intervene in the New Jersey Senatorial election case."
As a matter of fact, I am royally pissed that the Supreme Court, which did the right thing in 2000 is not doing the right thing now and stopping the act of judicial terrorism committed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. And I believe that in part, the constant braying of indignation by the leftists who denounced them for doing the right thing in 2000, intimidated them this time. I have already posted on this subject before and I believe that after being a profile in courage in 2000, the Court has now shirked its duty in this instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
