How do you feel about this democrats and republicans? - GoFuckYourself.com

blackfeet · 06-25-2006, 07:33 AM

Seems to me stuff goes on behind our backs we know nothing about!
Are you for or against???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060625/.../eavesdropping

12clicks · 06-25-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackfeet

Seems to me stuff goes on behind our backs we know nothing about!
Are you for or against???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060625/.../eavesdropping

I want the government eavesdropping on terrorists and their friends. I'm glad liberal, US hating, terrorist sympathizers are being ignored.

pussyluver · 06-25-2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackfeet

Seems to me stuff goes on behind our backs we know nothing about!
Are you for or against???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060625/.../eavesdropping

This is news to you?

blackfeet · 06-25-2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pussyluver

This is news to you?

i knew about the patriot act.
i thought it was a done deal
and nothing else to vote on.

Tdog · 06-25-2006, 07:42 AM

democrats and republicans, they are one in the same.

EdgeXXX · 06-25-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackfeet

Seems to me stuff goes on behind our backs we know nothing about!

And you are just now figuring this out?

gooddomains · 06-25-2006, 07:44 AM

fuck them all

blackfeet · 06-25-2006, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tdog

democrats and republicans, they are one in the same.

spanky part 2 · 06-25-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

I want the government eavesdropping on terrorists and their friends. I'm glad liberal, US hating, terrorist sympathizers are being ignored.

You are so blind to the real world, you FOX loving Bush blowing conservative idiot.

Do you actually believe that all this shit including the patriot act, was done to protect us from terrorism?

This shit has been ready for the past 20 years, all they needed was an excuse to put it into play. Now i'm not saying that they planned 9-11, but they definately used it to further their cause. Fucking Neocons

November can't come soon enough.

Matt 26z · 06-25-2006, 08:58 AM

Now is a prime time for some Democrats and Republicans to step forward and form a third major party.

12clicks · 06-25-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

You are so blind to the real world, you FOX loving Bush blowing conservative idiot.

Do you actually believe that all this shit including the patriot act, was done to protect us from terrorism?

This shit has been ready for the past 20 years, all they needed was an excuse to put it into play. Now i'm not saying that they planned 9-11, but they definately used it to further their cause. Fucking Neocons

November can't come soon enough.

hahahaha, their cause?
please, tinfoil, explain what their cause is.

SuckOnThis · 06-25-2006, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

hahahaha, their cause?
please, tinfoil, explain what their cause is.

To have dumbasses like you buy into their bullshit.

dig420 · 06-25-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

hahahaha, their cause?
please, tinfoil, explain what their cause is.

Their cause is a police state which quashes dissent, the elimination of civil liberties and an independent press and the consolidation of money and power into the hands of a lucky few.

GatorB · 06-25-2006, 08:53 PM

"Bush and senior officials in his administration have said they did not think changes were needed to empower the National Security Agency to eavesdrop ? without court approval ? on communications between people in the U.S. and overseas when terrorism is suspected."

So basically Bush can say "I don't lie that GatorBs posts on GFY. So I think he a 'terrorist' wink wink. I need to spy on him"

Thomas Jefferson advocated overthrowing the government when it got to big for it's britches. We may be nearing that time.

GatorB · 06-25-2006, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Now is a prime time for some Democrats and Republicans to step forward and form a third major party.

They could join the Libertarian Party.

spanky part 2 · 06-25-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

hahahaha, their cause?
please, tinfoil, explain what their cause is.

God you are a tool. Why don't you go and get a library card and start reading instead of watching FOX all day. Know this, they are tracking what you are reading.

As for their cause:

1: Haliburton has gone from $20 a share to $60 since the Iraqi war started.
2: Exxon-mobil has the highest profits quarter after quarter of any US company ever.
2: No more bankruptcy for the regular folk. Lord help ya if you have a major sickness and can't pay your bills, you are now a servant of the banking industry.
4: The military complex is loving all that expended ordinance.
5: The reduction of any environmental oversight on any industry
6: Tax cuts for the top 10%

Shall I go on.

Republicans used to be a great party, but your party has been hijacked and you don't even realise it.

12clicks · 06-25-2006, 10:01 PM

[QUOTE=spanky part 2]God you are a tool. Why don't you go and get a library card and start reading instead of watching FOX all day. Know this, they are tracking what you are reading.

As for their cause:

1: Haliburton has gone from $20 a share to $60 since the Iraqi war started.
2: Exxon-mobil has the highest profits quarter after quarter of any US company ever.
2: No more bankruptcy for the regular folk. Lord help ya if you have a major sickness and can't pay your bills, you are now a servant of the banking industry.
4: The military complex is loving all that expended ordinance.
5: The reduction of any environmental oversight on any industry
6: Tax cuts for the top 10%

Shall I go on.

[\QUOTE]
no, you've embarrassed yourself enough I think.

life has to suck when you honestly believe this stuff.

dig420 · 06-25-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

no, you've embarrassed yourself enough I think.

life has to suck when you honestly believe this stuff.

Your weak reply does no justice to his honest effort to teach you something important.

spanky part 2 · 06-25-2006, 10:49 PM

[QUOTE=12clicks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

God you are a tool. Why don't you go and get a library card and start reading instead of watching FOX all day. Know this, they are tracking what you are reading.

As for their cause:

1: Haliburton has gone from $20 a share to $60 since the Iraqi war started.
2: Exxon-mobil has the highest profits quarter after quarter of any US company ever.
2: No more bankruptcy for the regular folk. Lord help ya if you have a major sickness and can't pay your bills, you are now a servant of the banking industry.
4: The military complex is loving all that expended ordinance.
5: The reduction of any environmental oversight on any industry
6: Tax cuts for the top 10%

Shall I go on.

[\QUOTE]
no, you've embarrassed yourself enough I think.

life has to suck when you honestly believe this stuff.

The more posts I read of yours the more attracted I am to your conservative love vibe. Lets get together and have the love that only 2 men can share. You might have to give up your membership in the nazi party, but love hurts.

spanky part 2 · 06-25-2006, 11:06 PM

[QUOTE=12clicks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

God you are a tool. Why don't you go and get a library card and start reading instead of watching FOX all day. Know this, they are tracking what you are reading.

As for their cause:

1: Haliburton has gone from $20 a share to $60 since the Iraqi war started.
2: Exxon-mobil has the highest profits quarter after quarter of any US company ever.
2: No more bankruptcy for the regular folk. Lord help ya if you have a major sickness and can't pay your bills, you are now a servant of the banking industry.
4: The military complex is loving all that expended ordinance.
5: The reduction of any environmental oversight on any industry
6: Tax cuts for the top 10%

Shall I go on.

[\QUOTE]
no, you've embarrassed yourself enough I think.

life has to suck when you honestly believe this stuff.

Yep facts really piss me off. I wish I could live my life blind like you, but some of us have to make sure the country doesn't fall apart. That way you can still drive your 1972 amc gremlin to the waffle house every friday night, wearing you finest from walmart, and have a good time with your toothless girlfriend marge.

12clicks · 06-26-2006, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

God you are a tool. Why don't you go and get a library card and start reading instead of watching FOX all day. Know this, they are tracking what you are reading.

As for their cause:

1: Haliburton has gone from $20 a share to $60 since the Iraqi war started.
2: Exxon-mobil has the highest profits quarter after quarter of any US company ever.
2: No more bankruptcy for the regular folk. Lord help ya if you have a major sickness and can't pay your bills, you are now a servant of the banking industry.
4: The military complex is loving all that expended ordinance.
5: The reduction of any environmental oversight on any industry
6: Tax cuts for the top 10%

Shall I go on.

Republicans used to be a great party, but your party has been hijacked and you don't even realise it.

1: Halliburton is a publicly traded company. (this means you could use your lunch money to become an owner of this company) They've also been around since WWII working with the government. Only now, while under a republican president, are they suddenly evil.
2: Exxon Mobil is a publicly traded company. how exactly do the profits of a publicly traded company fit your conspiracy "cause" again?
3: uh, you've got it wrong here too. I know its comforting for you to know you could walk away from your obligations but responsible people pay what they owe.
4: I know you'd rather spend money on frilly dresses than the military but again, what does this have to do with "their cause" their cause seems to be killing our enemies. You see something else yet have not been able to articulate what that is.
5: quite an exaggeration and again with no explaination of how this fits into their evil "cause"
6: to the uneducated, it seemed like a tax cut for the top 10% but thats just because you've drank your fill of the liberal koolaide. The tax cuts lowered EVERYONE'S taxes.

see diglet, my weak reply really was an attempt to not embarrass you and your buddy.

spanky part 2 · 06-26-2006, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

1: Halliburton is a publicly traded company. (this means you could use your lunch money to become an owner of this company) They've also been around since WWII working with the government. Only now, while under a republican president, are they suddenly evil.
2: Exxon Mobil is a publicly traded company. how exactly do the profits of a publicly traded company fit your conspiracy "cause" again?
3: uh, you've got it wrong here too. I know its comforting for you to know you could walk away from your obligations but responsible people pay what they owe.
4: I know you'd rather spend money on frilly dresses than the military but again, what does this have to do with "their cause" their cause seems to be killing our enemies. You see something else yet have not been able to articulate what that is.
5: quite an exaggeration and again with no explaination of how this fits into their evil "cause"
6: to the uneducated, it seemed like a tax cut for the top 10% but thats just because you've drank your fill of the liberal koolaide. The tax cuts lowered EVERYONE'S taxes.

see diglet, my weak reply really was an attempt to not embarrass you and your buddy.

You just made yourself look like a fool.

1.Haliburton is a publically owned company whos former ceo is the vp who still owns deffered stock with the company.

2.Exxon-mobil is an oil company in case you don't know. Hmmm if memory serves most of the administration are oil men.

3. If your a corporation, you can walk away no strings attached. If you are an individual you are fucked. Better hope you never have a long bout with cancer.

4. I'd rather spend money on a war with.a country that attacked us like Afghanistan. Not a war with a country that has lots of oil for the oil companies. You can wear the frilly dresses.

5. Look up who is in charge of oversight of the coal companies environmental protection.......a former coal company executive. You have no response for this statement, because you don't know fuck all.

6. You are dreamin if you think everyone got a tax cut. Keep eating up Fox news drivel. Did you even realise that the head of Fox news gives out things you can and can't talk about to his news crew every day. Now that's fair and balanced.

12clicks · 06-26-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

You just made yourself look like a fool.

only among the tinfoil hat crowd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

1.Haliburton is a publically owned company whos former ceo is the vp who still owns deffered stock with the company.

oh, ok. so we should stop doing business with the company we've been doing business with since WWII because the VP owns a little stock. do you understand that the percentage of the company he owns is hard to write as a decimal because its so small?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

2.Exxon-mobil is an oil company in case you don't know. Hmmm if memory serves most of the administration are oil men.

uh, among the educated, that would mean that the "oil men" in the administration have watched their competition make huge profits (unless of course, you can name administration men who also work for exxon mobil)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

3. If your a corporation, you can walk away no strings attached. If you are an individual you are fucked. Better hope you never have a long bout with cancer.

uh, a corporation is a business vehicle. the owner of the corporation (no matter how rich) must live under the same exact rules as tin foil hat internet guys. If I owe you money and come down wirth cancer, its ok not to pay you?
can I borrow some money?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

4. I'd rather spend money on a war with.a country that attacked us like Afghanistan. Not a war with a country that has lots of oil for the oil companies. You can wear the frilly dresses.

amazing that the conspiracy crowd can never remember we were at war with iraq before afgahnistan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

5. Look up who is in charge of oversight of the coal companies environmental protection.......a former coal company executive. You have no response for this statement, because you don't know fuck all.

I understand that the hippy, anti corporation crowd thinks that a tree hugger with no experience in the coal or other energy business should have oversite but I'd rather have someone with an understanding of the industry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

6. You are dreamin if you think everyone got a tax cut. Keep eating up Fox news drivel. Did you even realise that the head of Fox news gives out things you can and can't talk about to his news crew every day. Now that's fair and balanced.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/102.html
"Fiscal Fact No. 14
A wave of political ?tax fairness? rhetoric in recent months has swept aside reasonable assessments of the Bush tax cuts. Tax cut critics have argued that the cuts have only helped the wealthiest Americans. However, 7.8 million low and middle-income families had their entire income tax liabilities erased by the cuts.
The two provisions most responsible for removing these families from the tax rolls were the new 10 percent tax bracket and the doubling of the value of the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000.
Using the Tax Foundation?s Individual Tax Model and Matched IRS/Census Database, Foundation economists were able to compile a demographic profile of the 7.8 million families knocked off the tax roles because of the Bush tax cuts. Their results show that these families are overwhelmingly modest-income, married couples with children who work full-time and are younger than age 45. When all of the dependents of these households are counted, roughly 25.5 million Americans were taken off the tax rolls by the Bush tax cuts.
How the Bush Cuts Erase Tax Liabilities
Table 1 below illustrates the impact of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts on the income tax liability owed by a hypothetical family of four earning $40,000 per year (for simplicity figures are unadjusted for inflation). Under 2000 tax law, the couple would owe $2,158. But under 2004 tax law, they owe nothing?illustrating the large impact of the Bush extension of the child credit on reducing the tax liability of families with children to zero. "

I await your "proof" that there was not an across the board cut in tax rate.

spanky part 2 · 06-26-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

only among the tinfoil hat crowd.

oh, ok. so we should stop doing business with the company we've been doing business with since WWII because the VP owns a little stock. do you understand that the percentage of the company he owns is hard to write as a decimal because its so small?

uh, among the educated, that would mean that the "oil men" in the administration have watched their competition make huge profits (unless of course, you can name administration men who also work for exxon mobil)

uh, a corporation is a business vehicle. the owner of the corporation (no matter how rich) must live under the same exact rules as tin foil hat internet guys. If I owe you money and come down wirth cancer, its ok not to pay you?
can I borrow some money?

amazing that the conspiracy crowd can never remember we were at war with iraq before afgahnistan.

I understand that the hippy, anti corporation crowd thinks that a tree hugger with no experience in the coal or other energy business should have oversite but I'd rather have someone with an understanding of the industry.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/102.html
"Fiscal Fact No. 14
A wave of political ?tax fairness? rhetoric in recent months has swept aside reasonable assessments of the Bush tax cuts. Tax cut critics have argued that the cuts have only helped the wealthiest Americans. However, 7.8 million low and middle-income families had their entire income tax liabilities erased by the cuts.
The two provisions most responsible for removing these families from the tax rolls were the new 10 percent tax bracket and the doubling of the value of the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000.
Using the Tax Foundation?s Individual Tax Model and Matched IRS/Census Database, Foundation economists were able to compile a demographic profile of the 7.8 million families knocked off the tax roles because of the Bush tax cuts. Their results show that these families are overwhelmingly modest-income, married couples with children who work full-time and are younger than age 45. When all of the dependents of these households are counted, roughly 25.5 million Americans were taken off the tax rolls by the Bush tax cuts.
How the Bush Cuts Erase Tax Liabilities
Table 1 below illustrates the impact of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts on the income tax liability owed by a hypothetical family of four earning $40,000 per year (for simplicity figures are unadjusted for inflation). Under 2000 tax law, the couple would owe $2,158. But under 2004 tax law, they owe nothing?illustrating the large impact of the Bush extension of the child credit on reducing the tax liability of families with children to zero. "

I await your "proof" that there was not an across the board cut in tax rate.

Your proof is from a conservative think tank website

Now for being at war with Iraq, you conservatives need to get your act together. Tony Snow has been saying it's not a war, it's a conflict.
I'm thru with you, and will be with the rest of your ilk in november.

12clicks · 06-26-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

Your proof is from a conservative think tank website

Now for being at war with Iraq, you conservatives need to get your act together. Tony Snow has been saying it's not a war, it's a conflict.
I'm thru with you, and will be with the rest of your ilk in november.

typical liberal.
when your nose is rubbed in the facts, you run.
no surprise.

Linkster · 06-26-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

only among the tinfoil hat crowd.

uh, among the educated, that would mean that the "oil men" in the administration have watched their competition make huge profits (unless of course, you can name administration men who also work for exxon mobil)

I await your "proof" that there was not an across the board cut in tax rate.

OK Here's your proof: Condoleezza Rice - First Bush's administration she served as Director of a division of the Natl Security Council - oh - yeah and then in between she was placed on the board of Directors of Chevron Oil - until she then came to the 2nd Bushs administration - they even named an oil tanker after her at Chevron (yeah - she only looks like a man)

As far as the tax cuts - there can be no proof since there have been none approved by congress so far in the last two years - earlier "tax cuts" that were touted as across the board have been proven by the conservative think group (Brooking Institute" to have not been tax cuts at all but service cuts.

To explain (Im assuming you have some economics background) in any tax cut you have to pay for the tax cut somehow - in the Bush administration this has been financed by increasing the debt ceiling and borrowing against it - that debt in the long run has to be paid off somehow - and so far based on recent history, that has happened by reducing benefits for those same lower 10% that supposedly got the tax cuts, which in real money results in the only ones getting a true benefit is the upper 10% (in todays dollars)
If you would like more of an explanation Id be happy to provide it.

12clicks · 06-26-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

OK Here's your proof: Condoleezza Rice - First Bush's administration she served as Director of a division of the Natl Security Council - oh - yeah and then in between she was placed on the board of Directors of Chevron Oil - until she then came to the 2nd Bushs administration - they even named an oil tanker after her at Chevron (yeah - she only looks like a man)

just so I understand, when people leave public office, they're not supposed to work?
um, ok.
also, the last liberal hack was talking about exxon mobil as part of "their cause" don't bail him out by muddying the water with a different company.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

As far as the tax cuts - there can be no proof since there have been none approved by congress so far in the last two years - earlier "tax cuts" that were touted as across the board have been proven by the conservative think group (Brooking Institute" to have not been tax cuts at all but service cuts.

To explain (Im assuming you have some economics background) in any tax cut you have to pay for the tax cut somehow - in the Bush administration this has been financed by increasing the debt ceiling and borrowing against it - that debt in the long run has to be paid off somehow - and so far based on recent history, that has happened by reducing benefits for those same lower 10% that supposedly got the tax cuts, which in real money results in the only ones getting a true benefit is the upper 10% (in todays dollars)
If you would like more of an explanation Id be happy to provide it.

oh please, only among liberal haters is a tax cut not a tax cut.
I think you missed this:

wave of political ?tax fairness? rhetoric in recent months has swept aside reasonable assessments of the Bush tax cuts. Tax cut critics have argued that the cuts have only helped the wealthiest Americans. However, 7.8 million low and middle-income families had their entire income tax liabilities erased by the cuts.
The two provisions most responsible for removing these families from the tax rolls were the new 10 percent tax bracket and the doubling of the value of the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000.
Using the Tax Foundation?s Individual Tax Model and Matched IRS/Census Database, Foundation economists were able to compile a demographic profile of the 7.8 million families knocked off the tax roles because of the Bush tax cuts. Their results show that these families are overwhelmingly modest-income, married couples with children who work full-time and are younger than age 45. When all of the dependents of these households are counted, roughly 25.5 million Americans were taken off the tax rolls by the Bush tax cuts.
How the Bush Cuts Erase Tax Liabilities
Table 1 below illustrates the impact of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts on the income tax liability owed by a hypothetical family of four earning $40,000 per year (for simplicity figures are unadjusted for inflation). Under 2000 tax law, the couple would owe $2,158. But under 2004 tax law, they owe nothing?illustrating the large impact of the Bush extension of the child credit on reducing the tax liability of families with children to zero. "

Linkster · 06-26-2006, 12:41 PM

You ought to post all of what the Center puts on its web pages about the real effect of the tax cuts:
http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.htm

As far as Rice - She didnt quit Chevron until after she was in the second Bushs administration - and still has all her stock options to exercise

To say no one in this administration is tied to oil - is totally ignoring the way that Bush got his first job (long time ago) when he had his oil company (Arbusto) - granted he totally screwed it up by being a lousy businessman. Cheney didnt just play with oil comapnies - in 1998 and 1999 when he was in charge at Haliburton, he negotiated deals with Saddam Hussein to sell 23.8 million in oil rigs and drilling equipment to him - and the list goes on from the Interior Secretary - on down the line to staff assistants.
If youve never seen the accounts of the parties they used to throw down in Texas for the Taliban when they were trying to get the trans-Afghanistan pipeline (amazing it was right before 9/11 - but then I only deal with real facts and not theories) project going - its amazing that Bush can say the things he does about the Taliban today

Some others - Khalilzad - works for the NSC under Rice - old advisor for Unocal and named special envoy to Afghanistan
L Lindsay - special consultant to Enron - now economic adviser to the president
D Evans - board of directors of Sharp Drilling - oil specialists contractors
and on and on - but then again - I dont subscribe to conspiracy stuff - I just look at facts - you can draw your own biased conclusions on your own - I am certainly not posting my opinions

Tom_PM · 06-26-2006, 12:44 PM

Clinton literally begged the republican controlled congress to approve a bill to expand roving wiretaps on suspected terrorists in 2000. The republicans refused. Fast forward to today. Spin spin spin.

Take 90 minutes of your life to get educated: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

12clicks · 06-26-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

You ought to post all of what the Center puts on its web pages about the real effect of the tax cuts:
http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.htm

no, negative impacts are not caused by tax cuts, they are caused by not cutting spending as well. how skewed does your reasoning have to be to get to the point where you think lowering taxes is bad. you understand that the opposite of that is "raising taxes is good"
you can buy into that, I don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

As far as Rice - She didnt quit Chevron until after she was in the second Bushs administration - and still has all her stock options to exercise

ok, so again. she shouldn't have had a job before she joined the second administration and she shouldn't be allowed to own stock?
or are you saying that the only way she can find a way to get rich is by starting a war?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

To say no one in this administration is tied to oil - is totally ignoring the way that Bush got his first job (long time ago) when he had his oil company (Arbusto) - granted he totally screwed it up by being a lousy businessman. Cheney didnt just play with oil comapnies - in 1998 and 1999 when he was in charge at Haliburton, he negotiated deals with Saddam Hussein to sell 23.8 million in oil rigs and drilling equipment to him - and the list goes on from the Interior Secretary - on down the line to staff assistants.
If youve never seen the accounts of the parties they used to throw down in Texas for the Taliban when they were trying to get the trans-Afghanistan pipeline (amazing it was right before 9/11 - but then I only deal with real facts and not theories) project going - its amazing that Bush can say the things he does about the Taliban today

Some others - Khalilzad - works for the NSC under Rice - old advisor for Unocal and named special envoy to Afghanistan
L Lindsay - special consultant to Enron - now economic adviser to the president
D Evans - board of directors of Sharp Drilling - oil specialists contractors
and on and on - but then again - I dont subscribe to conspiracy stuff - I just look at facts - you can draw your own biased conclusions on your own - I am certainly not posting my opinions

ok, so all of these people had jobs making them ideal for their current positions.
again, my original question was what is "their cause"
the fact that you think oil prices are going up because of actions of this administration is kinda silly.

12clicks · 06-26-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Clinton literally begged the republican controlled congress to approve a bill to expand roving wiretaps on suspected terrorists in 2000. The republicans refused. Fast forward to today. Spin spin spin.

Take 90 minutes of your life to get educated: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

yup, spin spin alright. are you saying you were for them then and against them now?
'cause I'm not. I'm always against the terrorists no matter who is in office.
can you say the same?

ElvisManson · 06-26-2006, 01:04 PM

Confirmation Bias:

"Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis. As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence."

"The Political Brain
A recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias
By Michael Shermer"

"Pace Will Rogers, I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a libertarian. As a fiscal conservative and social liberal, I have found at least something to like about each Republican or Democrat I have met. I have close friends in both camps, in which I have observed the following: no matter the issue under discussion, both sides are equally convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position.

This surety is called the confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence. Now a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study shows where in the brain the confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions. Psychologist Drew Westen led the study, conducted at Emory University, and the team presented the results at the 2006 annual conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men--half self-described as "strong" Republicans and half as "strong" Democrats--were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook.
The neuroimaging results, however, revealed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning--the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex--was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions; the anterior cingulate, which is associated with conflict resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with making judgments about moral accountability; and--once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable--the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure."

taken from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...6183414B7F0162

EZRhino · 06-26-2006, 01:05 PM

I dont trust either side

Mr. Soul · 06-26-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

Their cause is a police state which quashes dissent, the elimination of civil liberties and an independent press and the consolidation of money and power into the hands of a lucky few.

The most pathetic thing is that 12clicks thinks he's going to be one of the few.

Tom_PM · 06-26-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

yup, spin spin alright. are you saying you were for them then and against them now?
'cause I'm not. I'm always against the terrorists no matter who is in office.
can you say the same?

lol, yes of course I can say the same. My point was that when someone in office TRIED to get our congress off their asses to be proactive, they voted against it. The reason? Politics.

Can you say that republican congress in 2000 should have gone along with the Clinton administrations roving wiretap on suspected terrorists bill?

Mr. Soul · 06-26-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

I'm always against the terrorists no matter who is in office.
can you say the same?

What a fucking hero.

Tom_PM · 06-26-2006, 01:16 PM

But let me be clearer. I dont think doing wiretaps in defiance of existing federal laws is very smart. I think it smacks of "above-the-law" thinking, and was a very poor way to execute the wiretaps. There have been no reasonable explanations as to why Gonzales could not get fisa court approvals for each and every instance. The only thing he's said is it takes time. And the only other thing thats been intimated is they were worried about leaks (from a fisa judge evidently)

12clicks · 06-26-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

lol, yes of course I can say the same. My point was that when someone in office TRIED to get our congress off their asses to be proactive, they voted against it. The reason? Politics.

Can you say that republican congress in 2000 should have gone along with the Clinton administrations roving wiretap on suspected terrorists bill?

I think it would be very resonable to question its necessity before 9/11. While there was certainly terrorism around the world and the trade center bombings, I don't know that the American people would think it necissary.
I think after 9/11, there should be no question.

I also wonder what clinton was asking for exactly.
Bush wants to be able to listen in on calls to and from suspected terrorists outside the country.

Tom_PM · 06-26-2006, 01:28 PM

Well thats what I mean, they tried to get it proactively, but instead had no choice but to do it reactively. Thats a bad pattern..

I absolutely cannot imagine any american citizen saying they would be against tapping terrorists phones with the *existing* laws that were already in place for drug dealers.. That was all Clinton was asking for, and it was in light of the first trade center bombing..

I believe it was pure politics. Dems wanted it, so Rep's were against it. I hate that petty kind of bullsh*t..

Thats why I dont like 1 power being in control of white house and congress. I want it half and half honestly, to bring some balance.

12clicks · 06-26-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

But let me be clearer. I dont think doing wiretaps in defiance of existing federal laws is very smart. I think it smacks of "above-the-law" thinking, and was a very poor way to execute the wiretaps. There have been no reasonable explanations as to why Gonzales could not get fisa court approvals for each and every instance. The only thing he's said is it takes time. And the only other thing thats been intimated is they were worried about leaks (from a fisa judge evidently)

but now you are getting off track. No one but politicians have called it defiance of existing law.
In fact, if memory serves, I read that he had every right to authorize it.

12clicks · 06-26-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Soul

The most pathetic thing is that 12clicks thinks he's going to be one of the few.

nah, the most pathetic thing is that you believe this horse shit.
yes, one day we're going to wake up and Bush will be our dictator.
just like one day we were going to wake up and ashcroft would have us all in jail.
that was a good call, eh?

12clicks · 06-26-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Well thats what I mean, they tried to get it proactively, but instead had no choice but to do it reactively. Thats a bad pattern..

I absolutely cannot imagine any american citizen saying they would be against tapping terrorists phones with the *existing* laws that were already in place for drug dealers.. That was all Clinton was asking for, and it was in light of the first trade center bombing..

I believe it was pure politics. Dems wanted it, so Rep's were against it. I hate that petty kind of bullsh*t..

ah, but here's my point. If you hated it then, you've got to hate it now.
in too many circles, that doesn't happen even though now the stakes are much much higher.

minusonebit · 06-26-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

The White House is nearing an agreement with Congress on legislation that would write
President Bush's warrantless surveillance program into law, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday.

Lots of caselaw on this point:

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2nd edition, Sec 177, late 2nd, Sec 256.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).

?Where rights secured by the Federal Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them?. Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442

spanky part 2 · 06-26-2006, 02:10 PM

12 clicks you don't seem to see the difference between Clinton ASKING congress for roving wire taps and Bush DOING wire taps without asking.

dig420 · 06-26-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

12 clicks you don't seem to see the difference between Clinton ASKING congress for roving wire taps and Bush DOING wire taps without asking.

he sees it, he just doesn't care. Most repubs realize that Bush Co. is completely corrupt, they don't care. Hardcore conservatism is a sort of psychosis, they'd rather see the NY Times prosecuted, the Constitution made obsolete by an all powerful executive branch and the supreme court justices they disagree with shot like dogs than admit they were ever proven wrong about ANYTHING. This even though history has NEVER shown a conservative position to be correct, from slavery to child labor laws to the poll tax. They're just evil, they're not idiots.

The reason why someone like Ronnie would support them is that it allows him to think to himself that he's smarter than all the rest of us, and that's very important to him. Small consolation when they throw his ass in jail for obscenity or spamming, but there it is.

Scootermuze · 06-26-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

Now for being at war with Iraq, you conservatives need to get your act together. Tony Snow has been saying it's not a war, it's a conflict.
I'm thru with you, and will be with the rest of your ilk in november.

The 10 year Viet Nam 'war' was actually a police action.. never a declared war, so.... the point?

dig420 · 06-26-2006, 03:02 PM

there is no point to this war. It's strictly a distraction to give Bubba something to focus on and thump his chest about and to write country music about while the conservatives rape and pillage the working class and the poor.

Linkster · 06-26-2006, 03:21 PM

To go back to the original question based on that news story - I think first off - that the administration will do it with FISC's permission or not no matter what - I do agree that they seem to put out a general feeling in their news conferences etc that they are above the law and the Constitution no matter what - which I disagree with. That said, its been going on since the early 1950s and by both parties so I dont agree that it is divided among parties.

If they really go to the FISC, which would in my opinion be a good faith step, then I might be comfortable with it.

Last point - anyone that is an US citizen that is commenting in this thread, although I support your right to speak freely, if you dont vote in elections from local to US - then you can all go fuck yourselves and your opinion means nothing whatsoever in the grand scheme of things

Miss Lissa · 06-26-2006, 03:37 PM

Wow, I learned a lot reading this thread...and I'm still a republician.

dig420 · 06-26-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Lissa

Wow, I learned a lot reading this thread...and I'm still a republician.

trying to convert a republican is like trying to convert a christian, it's impossible. It's not like you made a rational choice in the first place, and if you placed a high value on reason you wouldn't be a conservative to begin with, so debate is essentially pointless. We're all just venting.

06-25-2006, 07:33 AM	#1
blackfeet Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 589	How do you feel about this democrats and republicans? Seems to me stuff goes on behind our backs we know nothing about! Are you for or against??? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060625/.../eavesdropping

06-25-2006, 10:01 PM	#17
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,789	[QUOTE=spanky part 2]God you are a tool. Why don't you go and get a library card and start reading instead of watching FOX all day. Know this, they are tracking what you are reading. As for their cause: 1: Haliburton has gone from $20 a share to $60 since the Iraqi war started. 2: Exxon-mobil has the highest profits quarter after quarter of any US company ever. 2: No more bankruptcy for the regular folk. Lord help ya if you have a major sickness and can't pay your bills, you are now a servant of the banking industry. 4: The military complex is loving all that expended ordinance. 5: The reduction of any environmental oversight on any industry 6: Tax cuts for the top 10% Shall I go on. [\QUOTE] no, you've embarrassed yourself enough I think. life has to suck when you honestly believe this stuff. __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

06-26-2006, 12:41 PM	#28
Linkster Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DeltaHell Posts: 3,216	You ought to post all of what the Center puts on its web pages about the real effect of the tax cuts: http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.htm As far as Rice - She didnt quit Chevron until after she was in the second Bushs administration - and still has all her stock options to exercise To say no one in this administration is tied to oil - is totally ignoring the way that Bush got his first job (long time ago) when he had his oil company (Arbusto) - granted he totally screwed it up by being a lousy businessman. Cheney didnt just play with oil comapnies - in 1998 and 1999 when he was in charge at Haliburton, he negotiated deals with Saddam Hussein to sell 23.8 million in oil rigs and drilling equipment to him - and the list goes on from the Interior Secretary - on down the line to staff assistants. If youve never seen the accounts of the parties they used to throw down in Texas for the Taliban when they were trying to get the trans-Afghanistan pipeline (amazing it was right before 9/11 - but then I only deal with real facts and not theories) project going - its amazing that Bush can say the things he does about the Taliban today Some others - Khalilzad - works for the NSC under Rice - old advisor for Unocal and named special envoy to Afghanistan L Lindsay - special consultant to Enron - now economic adviser to the president D Evans - board of directors of Sharp Drilling - oil specialists contractors and on and on - but then again - I dont subscribe to conspiracy stuff - I just look at facts - you can draw your own biased conclusions on your own - I am certainly not posting my opinions __________________ Porn Links Crak for your bank account - Get Addicted FREE LIVE CAM SHOWS

06-26-2006, 12:44 PM	#29
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Clinton literally begged the republican controlled congress to approve a bill to expand roving wiretaps on suspected terrorists in 2000. The republicans refused. Fast forward to today. Spin spin spin. Take 90 minutes of your life to get educated: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/ __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

06-26-2006, 01:16 PM	#37
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	But let me be clearer. I dont think doing wiretaps in defiance of existing federal laws is very smart. I think it smacks of "above-the-law" thinking, and was a very poor way to execute the wiretaps. There have been no reasonable explanations as to why Gonzales could not get fisa court approvals for each and every instance. The only thing he's said is it takes time. And the only other thing thats been intimated is they were worried about leaks (from a fisa judge evidently) __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

06-25-2006, 07:42 AM	#5
Tdog Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,707	democrats and republicans, they are one in the same.

06-25-2006, 07:44 AM	#7
gooddomains Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,127	fuck them all

06-25-2006, 08:58 AM	#10
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Now is a prime time for some Democrats and Republicans to step forward and form a third major party.

06-25-2006, 08:53 PM	#14
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	"Bush and senior officials in his administration have said they did not think changes were needed to empower the National Security Agency to eavesdrop ? without court approval ? on communications between people in the U.S. and overseas when terrorism is suspected." So basically Bush can say "I don't lie that GatorBs posts on GFY. So I think he a 'terrorist' wink wink. I need to spy on him" Thomas Jefferson advocated overthrowing the government when it got to big for it's britches. We may be nearing that time.

06-26-2006, 01:04 PM	#32
ElvisManson Looking California Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 5,476	Confirmation Bias: "Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis. As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence." "The Political Brain A recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias By Michael Shermer" "Pace Will Rogers, I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a libertarian. As a fiscal conservative and social liberal, I have found at least something to like about each Republican or Democrat I have met. I have close friends in both camps, in which I have observed the following: no matter the issue under discussion, both sides are equally convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position. This surety is called the confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence. Now a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study shows where in the brain the confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions. Psychologist Drew Westen led the study, conducted at Emory University, and the team presented the results at the 2006 annual conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men--half self-described as "strong" Republicans and half as "strong" Democrats--were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook. The neuroimaging results, however, revealed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning--the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex--was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions; the anterior cingulate, which is associated with conflict resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with making judgments about moral accountability; and--once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable--the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure." taken from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...6183414B7F0162

06-26-2006, 01:05 PM	#33
EZRhino Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: couch Posts: 6,258	I dont trust either side

06-26-2006, 01:28 PM	#39
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Well thats what I mean, they tried to get it proactively, but instead had no choice but to do it reactively. Thats a bad pattern.. I absolutely cannot imagine any american citizen saying they would be against tapping terrorists phones with the existing laws that were already in place for drug dealers.. That was all Clinton was asking for, and it was in light of the first trade center bombing.. I believe it was pure politics. Dems wanted it, so Rep's were against it. I hate that petty kind of bullsh*t.. Thats why I dont like 1 power being in control of white house and congress. I want it half and half honestly, to bring some balance. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

06-26-2006, 02:10 PM	#44
spanky part 2 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,981	12 clicks you don't seem to see the difference between Clinton ASKING congress for roving wire taps and Bush DOING wire taps without asking.

06-26-2006, 03:02 PM	#47
dig420 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 9,240	there is no point to this war. It's strictly a distraction to give Bubba something to focus on and thump his chest about and to write country music about while the conservatives rape and pillage the working class and the poor.

06-26-2006, 03:21 PM	#48
Linkster Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DeltaHell Posts: 3,216	To go back to the original question based on that news story - I think first off - that the administration will do it with FISC's permission or not no matter what - I do agree that they seem to put out a general feeling in their news conferences etc that they are above the law and the Constitution no matter what - which I disagree with. That said, its been going on since the early 1950s and by both parties so I dont agree that it is divided among parties. If they really go to the FISC, which would in my opinion be a good faith step, then I might be comfortable with it. Last point - anyone that is an US citizen that is commenting in this thread, although I support your right to speak freely, if you dont vote in elections from local to US - then you can all go fuck yourselves and your opinion means nothing whatsoever in the grand scheme of things __________________ Porn Links Crak for your bank account - Get Addicted FREE LIVE CAM SHOWS

06-26-2006, 03:37 PM	#49
Miss Lissa Registered User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 97	Wow, I learned a lot reading this thread...and I'm still a republician. __________________ ICQ: 220721603 [email protected]