Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 01:26:54 PM

Title: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 01:26:54 PM
a filibuster of a different color...the dems are swirling the toiletbowl...and it is obvious...the minority is blatantly weak.

look how the power was exercised with c.rice...bang up job, donkey kongs.

the indictment was not the answer the donkees were looking for...independent counsel was fishing and caught some fish...not big enough for democrats.  cry-baby obstructionist tactics...muuuuhuuuuhhhaaaa.. ..aye smell monica lewinsky...


stalling session has begun...

Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 01, 2005, 01:55:33 PM
can you "dimentionalist" your way to some point before the invention of the internet? or, failing that, bugger off?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 02:05:05 PM
can you "dimentionalist" your way to some point before the invention of the internet? or, failing that, bugger off?

the "dementia" is all yours...the "dimension" is for the savvy...not sure what dimentionalist is.

one way or another...the donkees are grasping at straws which they selected themselves...back when the idea of removing hussein was in their court.

the "in-fighting" looks good on the desk of "world affairs"...regardless of the outcome...hussein is gone...his sons are dead...people coming to power.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 01, 2005, 02:14:09 PM
can you "dimentionalist" your way to some point before the invention of the internet? or, failing that, bugger off?

the "dementia" is all yours...the "dimension" is for the savvy...not sure what dimentionalist is.

one way or another...the donkees are grasping at straws which they selected themselves...back when the idea of removing hussein was in their court.

the "in-fighting" looks good on the desk of "world affairs"...regardless of the outcome...hussein is gone...his sons are dead...people coming to power.

so you're happy that iran jr. is being set up with a likely civil war?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 02:57:23 PM
can you "dimentionalist" your way to some point before the invention of the internet? or, failing that, bugger off?

the "dementia" is all yours...the "dimension" is for the savvy...not sure what dimentionalist is.

one way or another...the donkees are grasping at straws which they selected themselves...back when the idea of removing hussein was in their court.

the "in-fighting" looks good on the desk of "world affairs"...regardless of the outcome...hussein is gone...his sons are dead...people coming to power.

so you're happy that iran jr. is being set up with a likely civil war?


a revolution has been going on in iran for a while now...it is in a convalescence period...

much like the democratic party is in a convalescence period...struggling to find a voice again and barking very loudly...

wmd=hussein/ba'ath regime...

and the democrats knew it...
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 01, 2005, 03:32:47 PM
maybe we could just find his plug and pull it.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 01, 2005, 03:33:42 PM
can you "dimentionalist" your way to some point before the invention of the internet? or, failing that, bugger off?

the "dementia" is all yours...the "dimension" is for the savvy...not sure what dimentionalist is.

one way or another...the donkees are grasping at straws which they selected themselves...back when the idea of removing hussein was in their court.

the "in-fighting" looks good on the desk of "world affairs"...regardless of the outcome...hussein is gone...his sons are dead...people coming to power.

so you're happy that iran jr. is being set up with a likely civil war?


a revolution has been going on in iran for a while now...it is in a convalescence period...

much like the democratic party is in a convalescence period...struggling to find a voice again and barking very loudly...

wmd=hussein/ba'ath regime...

and the democrats knew it...

will you be my nemesis? i'm supposed to have one, but i don't want one that could ever beat me, even if i was in a coma. i figure with you i don't have a chance of ever losing.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 01, 2005, 03:38:41 PM
can you "dimentionalist" your way to some point before the invention of the internet? or, failing that, bugger off?

the "dementia" is all yours...the "dimension" is for the savvy...not sure what dimentionalist is.

one way or another...the donkees are grasping at straws which they selected themselves...back when the idea of removing hussein was in their court.

the "in-fighting" looks good on the desk of "world affairs"...regardless of the outcome...hussein is gone...his sons are dead...people coming to power.

so you're happy that iran jr. is being set up with a likely civil war?


a revolution has been going on in iran for a while now...it is in a convalescence period...

much like the democratic party is in a convalescence period...struggling to find a voice again and barking very loudly...

wmd=hussein/ba'ath regime...

and the democrats knew it...

will you be my nemesis? i'm supposed to have one, but i don't want one that could ever beat me, even if i was in a coma. i figure with you i don't have a chance of ever losing.

he just challenge you to duel by light-saber.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Paikea on November 01, 2005, 03:50:14 PM
wmd=hussein/ba'ath regime...


Is that what the neo-cons are calling it this week?

I just can't seem to keep up.

Oh yeah, that *gurgling* sound you keep hearing...that's the continued sinking of the USS Republican.  Better jump ship while you can. 
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 01, 2005, 05:04:54 PM
you show unusually sound judgment.

plus, you pretty.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: lawstudent3 on November 01, 2005, 05:37:11 PM
maybe we could just find his plug and pull it.

Frist must give diagnosis before that, though.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 01, 2005, 05:41:14 PM
uh oh.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 01, 2005, 06:11:15 PM
nice idea.  julie see headline now:  "rove to fry!"
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 01, 2005, 06:26:28 PM
"rove found doing to chickenhawk what he been doing to country all along!"
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 08:16:49 PM



a revolution has been going on in iran for a while now...it is in a convalescence period...

much like the democratic party is in a convalescence period...struggling to find a voice again and barking very loudly...

wmd=hussein/ba'ath regime...

and the democrats knew it...

you do realize he wasn't talking about Iran... and nice spin on the wmd... most bushies are afraid to bring up those three letters unprovoked.  you constantly bring up democrats as if they matter ... i think you have several wires crossed.

aye was writing about the convalescence of the democratic party machine.
aye add new wires from time to time...untie the gordian knot...and clarity.


Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 01, 2005, 08:28:21 PM
subhead:  "rove sexual partner pretends nothing happened"
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 08:37:55 PM
subhead:  "rove sexual partner pretends nothing happened"

x.  rove is a side issue...and aye guess...not important to the independent lawyer.

w.  the president gonna get ...roberts...and alito...through congress...ouch that hurts the spiraling dems.

z.  constitution voted on by kurds and other iraqis

y.  hussein and sons gone from iraq

z.  bush is still president...priceless. 

find the enigmatic vowel. 
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Paikea on November 01, 2005, 10:12:29 PM
subhead:  "rove sexual partner pretends nothing happened"

x.  rove is a side issue...and aye guess...not important to the independent lawyer.

w.  the president gonna get ...roberts...and alito...through congress...ouch that hurts the spiraling dems.

z.  constitution voted on by kurds and other iraqis

y.  hussein and sons gone from iraq

z.  bush is still president...priceless. 

find the enigmatic vowel. 

rove on his way to joining the indicted club.

alito symbolic of bush running home with his tail between his legs after being scolded by his own party (and Roberts has already been confirmed.)

civil war breaking out in Iraq, despite the recently voted on Constitution.

Hussein trial actually increasing more support for anti-american sentiment.

bush still president

and lets not forget...

Hariet Miers

Bin laden still running loose

US causalties continue to rise

Currrent Al Queida larger than pre 9-11

No exit strategy

1 functioning unit of Iraq soldiers

Tom Delay arrested

Frist investigation

US borders still unprotected

Gas price gouging

Poverty continue to rise

US jobs continue to be exported

FEMA

Katrina

Wilma

Valerie Plame


I'll just stop the list now.  But let me know if you need more.

Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 01, 2005, 10:23:19 PM
he didn't take my challenge. :(
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 11:31:40 PM
subhead:  "rove sexual partner pretends nothing happened"

x.  rove is a side issue...and aye guess...not important to the independent lawyer.

w.  the president gonna get ...roberts...and alito...through congress...ouch that hurts the spiraling dems.

z.  constitution voted on by kurds and other iraqis

y.  hussein and sons gone from iraq

z.  bush is still president...priceless. 

find the enigmatic vowel. 

rove on his way to joining the indicted club.

alito symbolic of bush running home with his tail between his legs after being scolded by his own party (and Roberts has already been confirmed.)

civil war breaking out in Iraq, despite the recently voted on Constitution.

Hussein trial actually increasing more support for anti-american sentiment.

bush still president

and lets not forget...

Hariet Miers

Bin laden still running loose

US causalties continue to rise

Currrent Al Queida larger than pre 9-11

No exit strategy

1 functioning unit of Iraq soldiers

Tom Delay arrested

Frist investigation

US borders still unprotected

Gas price gouging

Poverty continue to rise

US jobs continue to be exported

FEMA

Katrina

Wilma

Valerie Plame


I'll just stop the list now.  But let me know if you need more.




hussein and sons...gone...what part of that did you miss?(legacy)

civil war in iraq?...kurds and iraqi people exercising choices...in power. kurdistan...bout time! ah...civil war been going on in iraq for a long time...no break-out there.

al quedah...now publicly advocates killing muslims.

roberts...through the congress.{bush appointed}(legacy)

alito...going to go easily through the congress...ah..unless the dems start crying for filibuster again...{bush appointed}(legacy)

as for the rest...they are side issues...in the same vein as clinton lying to the american people...they are smokescreen issues...

harriet miers is symbolic of trying to hoist a trusted and supportive  friend...and a small smokescreen to get a conservative judge in the seat.

did the stock market crash since fema failed...wilma hit...katrina exposed the state of fraud in louisiana...delay arrest and libby indictment...


did the stock market even hic-cough?

aye think not.

democrats in congress realized that the indictments had miniscule effect on wall street and minimal effect on ruffling "pubs" feathers...so they had to create a fibrilation.

so, ms. ya better come up with something better than that... ;)

oh yeah...bush is still your president...priceless. 8)

Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2005, 11:52:28 PM
wmd=hussein/ba'ath regime...


Is that what the neo-cons are calling it this week?

I just can't seem to keep up.

Oh yeah, that *gurgling* sound you keep hearing...that's the continued sinking of the USS Republican.  Better jump ship while you can. 

wmd= hussein sons/hussein sr./ba'ath regime...

aye am an independent and aye never bought the weapons of mass destruction fear...aye think hussein/ba'aath party/hussein's (then) younger sons...should have been taken out after he tried to annex quwait...usa should never have let the regime off the hook...

unfortunately the republicans are not gurgling...they are about to put two conservative judges on the bench...how is that a sinking ship?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 02, 2005, 12:26:09 AM
you show unusually sound judgment.

plus, you pretty.

keep it in your pants, mister.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 02, 2005, 12:31:48 AM
he didn't take my challenge. :(

listen...if you think barbara boxer aka "the babysitter" should be sent packing...and if you think the less of michael moore we live with today is good...we got no arguments...

aye just can't stand the blind blankets of labels people braile themselves under.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Paikea on November 02, 2005, 12:45:45 AM
um, unfortunately Hussein is not gone.  His trial is only creating more animosity towards the US.

Kurds, Sunnis et al only know one way to settle disputes...war.  Constitution is just a meaningless piece of paper in Iraq.

Again, Al Queida larger today than pre 9-11. Oops.

"We will stand down when the Iraqi's stand up."  With only one viably trained Iraqi military unit in 3 years, looks like we will be standing for a long time.

Roberts and Alito are side shows.  Did you really think a non conservative was going to be nominated?  No surprise to Dems.  Could have been far, far worse.

Stock market didn't crash...its just still a lame duck.  Nothing to be proud of.

Meanwhile, gas prices still at all time high, and gas heating bills to increase by %25 (all while Bush's oil cronies rake in record profits)

Closed door sessions just the beginning of Dems saying "you are no longer calling the shots."  Nothing neocons can do about it.  Nothing like Frist crying to the press "they are not being nice."

Oh, with rove investigation still going, indictments couldn't have gone better for Dems.

Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 02, 2005, 12:56:47 AM
um, unfortunately Hussein is not gone.  His trial is only creating more animosity towards the US.

Kurds, Sunnis et al only know one way to settle disputes...war.  Constitution is just a meaningless piece of paper in Iraq.

Again, Al Queida larger today than pre 9-11. Oops.

"We will stand down when the Iraqi's stand up."  With only one viably trained Iraqi military unit in 3 years, looks like we will be standing for a long time.

Roberts and Alito are side shows.  Did you really think a non conservative was going to be nominated?  No surprise to Dems.  Could have been far, far worse.

Stock market didn't crash...its just still a lame duck.  Nothing to be proud of.

Meanwhile, gas prices still at all time high, and gas heating bills to increase by %25 (all while Bush's oil cronies rake in record profits)

Closed door sessions just the beginning of Dems saying "you are no longer calling the shots."  Nothing neocons can do about it.  Nothing like Frist crying to the press "they are not being nice."

Oh, with rove investigation still going, indictments couldn't have gone better for Dems.



hussein AND his military regime ARE GONE.

hussein's heirs to iraq ARE DEAD.

kurds ARE moving to power in iraq...the tribes are not under one "murdering despot regime" anymore.

the market IS status quo...leveling.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 02, 2005, 01:10:11 AM
i win, you didn't accept my challege.

j00 1053
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 02, 2005, 01:19:08 AM
i win, you didn't accept my challege.

j00 1053

come up with some "clever" ways to spell wordz...maybe we can be friends...aye'll recommend u for a poetic license...it won't be "bwack".
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 02, 2005, 01:21:14 AM
son, you've already been dismissed and denied. run along.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 02, 2005, 01:26:09 AM
son, you've already been dismissed and denied. run along.

daughter...why did you respond then?  now, this is dismissive... 8)
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 02, 2005, 01:27:26 AM
because i love you daddy. *smooch*
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Paikea on November 02, 2005, 11:29:45 AM

hussein AND his military regime ARE GONE.

hussein's heirs to iraq ARE DEAD.

kurds ARE moving to power in iraq...the tribes are not under one "murdering despot regime" anymore.

the market IS status quo...leveling.


Military regime is not gone...they are now fighting for the insurgency.  Probably the greatest mistake Bush made, once inside Iraq, was disbanding the guard.

Sunnis will never submit to Kurds, which is why the Constitution will never truly work.  Symbolically, sure it looks good.  But it is not practical.  Civil War is imminent.

Saddam's hiers are not important.  Saddam himself was unimportant (except to US oil and contracting corporations)  Bin Laden is who is important.  Where is he?  Oops, we have no idea.

Stock market doesn't mean anything since people do not have money to play the market.  Middle class drives the economy, and the middle class has been hammered by exportation of jobs to China, India etc.  And "leveling" is relative.  Gas prices are also leveling...leveling at about $2.75/gallon.

We are in Iraq as a result of a lie.  People are dying overseas and at home.  This administration doesn't know what to do. It's inept both in handling domestic issues and international issues.  Homeland security is a failure.  People cannot afford gas, heat, health insurance, prescription drugs.  One by one the neocons are being dismissed...Delay, Libby, soon to be Frist and Rove, in near future Bush and Cheney.  The GOP has been hijacked by fundamental conservatives.  The neocons have sunk the GOP.

We will still love you though.   ;) 

     
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 02, 2005, 11:41:45 PM

hussein AND his military regime ARE GONE.

hussein's heirs to iraq ARE DEAD.

kurds ARE moving to power in iraq...the tribes are not under one "murdering despot regime" anymore.

the market IS status quo...leveling.


Military regime is not gone...they are now fighting for the insurgency.  Probably the greatest mistake Bush made, once inside Iraq, was disbanding the guard.

Sunnis will never submit to Kurds, which is why the Constitution will never truly work.  Symbolically, sure it looks good.  But it is not practical.  Civil War is imminent.

Saddam's hiers are not important.  Saddam himself was unimportant (except to US oil and contracting corporations)  Bin Laden is who is important.  Where is he?  Oops, we have no idea.

Stock market doesn't mean anything since people do not have money to play the market.  Middle class drives the economy, and the middle class has been hammered by exportation of jobs to China, India etc.  And "leveling" is relative.  Gas prices are also leveling...leveling at about $2.75/gallon.

We are in Iraq as a result of a lie.  People are dying overseas and at home.  This administration doesn't know what to do. It's inept both in handling domestic issues and international issues.  Homeland security is a failure.  People cannot afford gas, heat, health insurance, prescription drugs.  One by one the neocons are being dismissed...Delay, Libby, soon to be Frist and Rove, in near future Bush and Cheney.  The GOP has been hijacked by fundamental conservatives.  The neocons have sunk the GOP.

We will still love you though.   ;) 

     

okay? is a neocon another term for old school?   because all aye am getting is "not new" party...or is it a term for "new consciousness"?

in any case "grassroots conservatives" get away with shite because the donkees are in chapter 1...the footnotes...the table of contents...the appendix...the illustrations...

hey man...if liberals want to have a say once again...they better move a little closer to the center...and take a course in history and geography.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Paikea on November 03, 2005, 12:07:45 AM

okay? is a neocon another term for old school?   because all aye am getting is "not new" party...or is it a term for "new consciousness"?

in any case "grassroots conservatives" get away with shite because the donkees are in chapter 1...the footnotes...the table of contents...the appendix...the illustrations...

hey man...if liberals want to have a say once again...they better move a little closer to the center...and take a course in history and geography.


neocon = merging of state and corporate interests under extreme nationalism = facism = new conservatives = today's republican party.

It's funny that people think liberals have moved way to the left and that they need to move back to the center.  Liberals actually haven't really moved at all. It's just that the conservatives have moved so far to the right (in order to try and reclaim "traditional values"), that to them, the liberals are now far, far to the left.   

The reality with the todays conservatives, though, is that anything that doesn't move to the right with them is now "liberal."  In actuality, us liberal progressives want to "progress" and move forward in areas like fuel efficiency, human/civil rights, technology, science, medicine etc etc.  Neo-cons want to turn back time to the 1930's where white men ran the county, women stayed in the kitchen, people went to church, and no one questioned authority.

Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 03, 2005, 12:30:53 AM

okay? is a neocon another term for old school?   because all aye am getting is "not new" party...or is it a term for "new consciousness"?

in any case "grassroots conservatives" get away with shite because the donkees are in chapter 1...the footnotes...the table of contents...the appendix...the illustrations...

hey man...if liberals want to have a say once again...they better move a little closer to the center...and take a course in history and geography.


neocon = merging of state and corporate interests under extreme nationalism = facism = new conservatives = today's republican party.

It's funny that people think liberals have moved way to the left and that they need to move back to the center.  Liberals actually haven't really moved at all. It's just that the conservatives have moved so far to the right (in order to try and reclaim "traditional values"), that to them, the liberals are now far, far to the left.   

The reality with the todays conservatives, though, is that anything that doesn't move to the right with them is now "liberal."  In actuality, us liberal progressives want to "progress" and move forward in areas like fuel efficiency, human/civil rights, technology, science, medicine etc etc.  Neo-cons want to turn back time to the 1930's where white men ran the county, women stayed in the kitchen, people went to church, and no one questioned authority.



okay then...what if:
 
a person was for removing hussein directly after he crossed into quwait...and is pro maintaining roe vs. wade?
supports aa 
owns antique weaponry ;)
owns property
protests military recruitment in schools?

is that a progressive conservative
a liberal republican
a conservative democrat
a grassroots conservative
a liberal democrat
an ad lib or a neo con?

 
or an independent?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 03, 2005, 03:02:51 AM

hussein AND his military regime ARE GONE.

hussein's heirs to iraq ARE DEAD.

kurds ARE moving to power in iraq...the tribes are not under one "murdering despot regime" anymore.

the market IS status quo...leveling.


Military regime is not gone...they are now fighting for the insurgency.  Probably the greatest mistake Bush made, once inside Iraq, was disbanding the guard.

Sunnis will never submit to Kurds, which is why the Constitution will never truly work.  Symbolically, sure it looks good.  But it is not practical.  Civil War is imminent.

Saddam's hiers are not important.  Saddam himself was unimportant (except to US oil and contracting corporations)  Bin Laden is who is important.  Where is he?  Oops, we have no idea.

Stock market doesn't mean anything since people do not have money to play the market.  Middle class drives the economy, and the middle class has been hammered by exportation of jobs to China, India etc.  And "leveling" is relative.  Gas prices are also leveling...leveling at about $2.75/gallon.

We are in Iraq as a result of a lie.  People are dying overseas and at home.  This administration doesn't know what to do. It's inept both in handling domestic issues and international issues.  Homeland security is a failure.  People cannot afford gas, heat, health insurance, prescription drugs.  One by one the neocons are being dismissed...Delay, Libby, soon to be Frist and Rove, in near future Bush and Cheney.  The GOP has been hijacked by fundamental conservatives.  The neocons have sunk the GOP.

We will still love you though.   ;) 

     

husseins sons were of vital importance to be taken out of the equation...
although capturing them was not important...assasinating them and/or making sure they were dead was of grave importance...those two sons were the heirs to the regime.

you should be more progressive and read something about the modern history of iraq...go back to the 60's...at least...curl up with some british imperialism in mesopoetamia and british carving up of iraq...and the history of kurdistan.

have a nice day. ;)


px.o.rsta
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 03, 2005, 10:54:30 AM
looks like the republicans rolled over and handed the dems a big slice of "shut the &##2@@%%% up" and get back to work on getting the 2nd judge through to the super court.

that smokescreen subsided quickly.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Paikea on November 03, 2005, 11:38:23 AM

husseins sons were of vital importance to be taken out of the equation...
although capturing them was not important...assasinating them and/or making sure they were dead was of grave importance...those two sons were the heirs to the regime.

you should be more progressive and read something about the modern history of iraq...go back to the 60's...at least...curl up with some british imperialism in mesopoetamia and british carving up of iraq...and the history of kurdistan.

have a nice day. ;)


px.o.rsta



Heirs to a regime that had nothing to do with 9-11, nothing to do with WMD, and nothing to do with terrorism.

And where is Bin Laden?

And reading about British imperialism in the 60's is irrelevant to the current situation going on in Iraq. 

There is nothing progressive about revisionism.

Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: skaiserbrown on November 03, 2005, 02:02:37 PM

husseins sons were of vital importance to be taken out of the equation...
although capturing them was not important...assasinating them and/or making sure they were dead was of grave importance...those two sons were the heirs to the regime.

you should be more progressive and read something about the modern history of iraq...go back to the 60's...at least...curl up with some british imperialism in mesopoetamia and british carving up of iraq...and the history of kurdistan.

have a nice day. ;)


px.o.rsta



Heirs to a regime that had nothing to do with 9-11, nothing to do with WMD, and nothing to do with terrorism.

And where is Bin Laden?

And reading about British imperialism in the 60's is irrelevant to the current situation going on in Iraq. 

There is nothing progressive about revisionism.



the wobblies were the greatest union movement ever!

that's progressive AND revisionist!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Paikea on November 03, 2005, 04:03:17 PM

okay then...what if:
 
a person was for removing hussein directly after he crossed into quwait...and is pro maintaining roe vs. wade?
supports aa 
owns antique weaponry ;)
owns property
protests military recruitment in schools?



I assume these are reflective of yourself. 

One cannot truly come to a consensus of what type of person (politically) someone is based just on what you have provided.

Your going to have to dive deaper into what the reasons are for such beliefs.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 06, 2005, 05:48:31 PM
looks like the republicans rolled over and handed the dems a big slice of "shut the &##2@@%%% up" and get back to work on getting the 2nd judge through to the super court.

that smokescreen subsided quickly.

oh, republicans so masterful!  has ever been bigger pouter than bill "that some stock in your pocket, or you just glad to see me?" frist?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 06, 2005, 09:39:49 PM
looks like the republicans rolled over and handed the dems a big slice of "shut the &##2@@%%% up" and get back to work on getting the 2nd judge through to the super court.

that smokescreen subsided quickly.

oh, republicans so masterful!  has ever been bigger pouter than bill "that some stock in your pocket, or you just glad to see me?" frist?

frist? so what? get him for insider trading...bwack to work.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 07, 2005, 05:18:21 AM
not he one of your allegedly masterful republicans?  he just crybaby.  at least tom delay know how to smile while being humiliated.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 07, 2005, 07:58:22 PM
not he one of your allegedly masterful republicans?  he just crybaby.  at least tom delay know how to smile while being humiliated.

frist? come on...get real...

teflon tom?...he makes me laugh...he got a judge bounced...aye don't like him at all...but ya gottah admit...he's got some real moxie...

the closed session was comical...it made the dems look very weak...

now, fern, man...bwack to work!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 07, 2005, 08:22:54 PM

husseins sons were of vital importance to be taken out of the equation...
although capturing them was not important...assasinating them and/or making sure they were dead was of grave importance...those two sons were the heirs to the regime.

you should be more progressive and read something about the modern history of iraq...go back to the 60's...at least...curl up with some british imperialism in mesopoetamia and british carving up of iraq...and the history of kurdistan.

have a nice day. ;)


px.o.rsta



Heirs to a regime that had nothing to do with 9-11, nothing to do with WMD, and nothing to do with terrorism.

And where is Bin Laden?

And reading about British imperialism in the 60's is irrelevant to the current situation going on in Iraq. 

There is nothing progressive about revisionism.


the heirs to the hussein regime were one of the reasons special forces were sent into iraq...

british imperialism is very relevent to the western lines which carved up the land of mesopoetamia...and very relevent today.



NOW...some thoughts...

umm...sorry...weapons of mass destruction is what YOU believe...aye never...ever bought that as the primary reason for invading iraq...not for one minute...

this is how we independents do.

if you bought it...the onus is on you.

aye thought hussein and his regime should have been "taken apart" once they annexed quwait...

hussein said he would turn quwait city into a "graveyard" if anyone intervened






gassing kurds in halabja in 1988...

in august 1988...during the anfal campaign...iraqi forces attacked the kurdish town of Halabja with bombs containing a mixture of mustard and nerve gases...

an estimated 5,000 civilians, including women, children and babies, were killed in a single day...

gen majid ordered the attack, earning the notorious epithet chemical ali...

invasion of quwait...1990

on...2...august 1990 saddam hussein sent iraqi troops into quwait, which led to the gulf war in january 1991...

iraqi soldiers are alleged to have tortured and summarily executed prisoners and to have looted kuwait city and taken hundreds of kuwaiti captives back to baghdad...iraqi soldiers also set light to more than 700 oil wells and opened pipelines to let oil pour into the gulf and other water sources.


crushing the kurdish and shia rebellions after the 1991 Gulf War...

after the first gulf war, saddam hussein took revenge on the northern kurds and shia muslims in southern iraq, who rose up against the regime.

the iraqi army suppressed the uprisings using massive military force and drained the southern marsh lands which had sustained a way of life dating back around 5,000 years.

their habitat destroyed, many of the indigenous arabs fled to surrounding countries...

killing political activists over 30 years
evidence has emerged of 270 mass graves across iraq which are believed to hold the remains of possibly tens of thousands of people...

The un commission on human rights condemned the iraqi regime in 2001 for "widespread, systematic torture and the maintaining of decrees prescribing cruel and inhuman punishment as a penalty for offenses"...

thousands of shia muslims arrested on charges of supporting the 1979 Iranian Revolution have never been accounted for...


massacre of members of the kurdish barzani tribe in 1983...

in july 1983, iraqi security forces arrested about 8,000 male members of the barzani clan in the northern province of arbil. they were transported to southern iraq and have not been heard from since...


killing of religious leaders in 1974...

in july 1974, the iraqi regime arrested dozens of shia religious leaders, and executed five of them...



aye don't know...sounds like a dangerous regime to me...
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 08, 2005, 05:56:42 AM
not he one of your allegedly masterful republicans?  he just crybaby.  at least tom delay know how to smile while being humiliated.

frist? come on...get real...

teflon tom?...he makes me laugh...he got a judge bounced...aye don't like him at all...but ya gottah admit...he's got some real moxie...

the closed session was comical...it made the dems look very weak...

now, fern, man...bwack to work!


yes, it brave man who hide behind his lawyers.  we see how he look when they lead him off to prison.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 06:47:38 PM
Interesting read, and I've heard it all before.

One argument that has not been presented occured to me when Paikea said we are dying at home and abroad. I don't seem to remember any attacks in any of our states since 9/11. I don't know why that is; but I do know Islamic terrorists hate us and would love to see more Americans dead.

The fact that Bush is the head of the executive branch, the branch that protects us, means Bush should get the credit. If as stated in this thread al queda is larger now than before 9/11, then he should get even more credit. Perhaps they are too busy fighting us in Iraq, at least our soldiers get to fight back instead of us civilians. Perhaps there is another reason, but you can't persuade me terrorists haven't tried to hit us in the last 4 years.

As a side note I don't I'd be any good in politics if all these direct personal attacks are required. (11 against Blue/5 from him).
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 07:36:35 PM
it not julie's fault if bluecoward not keep up.

say, when you enlisting to fight war of which you so spprove?  hmmmmmmmmmm?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 07:56:42 PM
it not julie's fault if bluecoward not keep up.

say, when you enlisting to fight war of which you so spprove?  hmmmmmmmmmm?

I'll prolly join JAG sooner or later.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 08:01:38 PM
sure you will.  and julie hears navy jags see lots of combat.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 08:06:22 PM
No, but it is in the military and it utilizes my education. I don't see you in Sudan fighting to protect the innocents either...in fact you don't talk about it. I have written letters to my representatives regarding this matter and the funding the US has sent there. A much more useful way to promote change than debating on a law school discussion board.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 08:08:42 PM
you not know what julie do or not do, so bite julie.  fact remains that you wish send others fight war you not willing fight.  that make you hypocrite, in case you wondering.  try to change subject all you want.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 08:15:41 PM
Our boys are not being slaughtered, they are fighting and winning. The fact is I'd rather our soldiers fought terrorists over there than fight them here, where they can hurt unarmed US civilians or haven't you noticed we haven't been attacked in the past 4 years in our country?

Everytime you throw out an insult you change the subject.

BTW, you're right I don't know what else you do, when I defended my actions that's an opportunity for you to defend yours, not to throw insults. I didn't think I needed to spell it out, I probably didn't you chose to use an insult instead of responding civily.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 08:22:04 PM
call it insult if you want, but truth is that you all for others fighting war of which you approve.  get used to this being mentioned.

and war being lost.  "last throes" only one of cheney's more recent lies.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 08:24:10 PM
You just ignored everything I wrote...
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 08:27:23 PM
you certainly ignored julie's suggestion to enlist.  it all question of how you look at it.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 08:28:32 PM
it not julie's fault if bluecoward not keep up.

say, when you enlisting to fight war of which you so spprove?  hmmmmmmmmmm?

I'll prolly join JAG sooner or later.

No I didn't.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 08:39:04 PM
you not interested in fighting war you endorse.  your approach risks nothing worse than paper cut.  it easy to be brave when it someone else's blood.  this country needs military draft!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 08:40:05 PM
If this country needed the draft, we would have it.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 08:42:02 PM
you certainly support whatever keeps you out of war, not you?  such conviction!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 08:46:32 PM
If I were drafted I would go, what do you think lawyers are exempt?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 08:52:08 PM
julie see you as someone who would try hard to stay behind lines, much like bush 0.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 08:58:00 PM
Ok, we play the game...at least Bush didn't dodge like Clinton.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 09:07:24 PM
no, he had rich and powerful daddy who made sure he not get shot at.

clinton, at least, not expect others to fight war he not want to fight.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 09:08:11 PM
no, he had rich and powerful daddy who made sure he not get shot at.

clinton, at least, not expect others to fight war he not want to fight.

hmmm, I seem to remember a few wars while he was Pres.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 09:12:48 PM
not even julie expect bush 0 to carry rifle in iraq, although u.s. do seem to be rather short of troops.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 09:13:19 PM
Short of troops? What proof do you have?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 09:20:12 PM
let's see.  we losing war, many national guard members reaching deployment limit, and army recruiting goals not being met.

they need you, man.  you can threaten enemy with lawsuit.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 09:21:13 PM
Losing? I always figured that had to do with body count and territory...we're not losing.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 09:25:01 PM
sure we not.  we won in vietnam too, right?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 09:26:14 PM
Nam was a draw. That's why there's a N. and S. Nam.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 11, 2005, 09:27:40 PM
Nam was a draw. That's why there's a N. and S. Nam.

Unless you consider the fact that S. Nam is doing alright and N. is having a ton of troubles.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 09:30:36 PM
Nam was a draw. That's why there's a N. and S. Nam.

what in hell you smoking?  alternatively, what map you viewing?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 09:34:43 PM
julie admit, that one draw.  thank god truman hosed off macarthur.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 09:45:09 PM
julie was keeping up with conversation.

man walk into house with handfull of dog *&^%.  "hey," he say, "look at what i almost stepped in."
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 11, 2005, 09:48:55 PM
some freak.

julie think he smart enough, he just got his nose stuck up arse of right-wing lunatic fringe.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 12, 2005, 09:58:19 AM
You're correct in that the communists won the land...but it was a phyrric victory, thus a draw.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 12, 2005, 03:54:11 PM
how you figure that?  commie view = we kicked your ass and you left.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 12, 2005, 04:29:37 PM
I don't doubt it. But they didn't "quick our A" we decided to leave.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 12, 2005, 04:33:14 PM
please.  and julie guess south not lose civil war, soldiers just decided to go home for spring break.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 12, 2005, 04:40:10 PM
Poor choice Julie, the N. didn't lose 10x what the S. lost and the S. did surrender - you know generals being tried and an occupying force on their land...last I checked Nam. never came near the US...

But all this is aguendo because we are winning the Iraq any way you cut it.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 12, 2005, 04:52:11 PM
vietnamese not trying to invade u.s., just to throw u.s. out of its country.  guess who succeeded there and who not.

what julie sees in iraq is insurgency that continues to operate.  insurgency bombs getting more powerful.  iraqis mostly support insurgency.

but julie must admit:  iraqis getting nowhere on invading u.s.  for now, cape cod safe.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 12, 2005, 05:50:02 PM
If Vietnam won the war, what did they win?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 12, 2005, 07:18:17 PM
again:  they threw us out.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 13, 2005, 12:47:35 AM
I don't want to quote Thirst from the Sprite commercials, but if you win "nothing," is it really winning?  Weren't we there to fight communism?  In the grand scheme of things, our position won, it just took waaaaaaay longer than expected.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 13, 2005, 11:51:45 AM
if some think that the american military casualties are at 2000+...they are sorely mistaken...one must take the war with iraq back to the invasion of quwait...

now...how many american lives were lost in vietnam?
how many american lives were lost in korea?
how many american lives were lost in the japan conflict?

lets see the numbers...
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: angmill08 on November 13, 2005, 02:58:53 PM
If Vietnam won the war, what did they win?

They won the unification of N & S Vietnam under communist rule. This is what they were fighting for. They were sucessful in achieving this goal. The US was fighting to prevent this from happening; to keep S. Vietnam out of communist rule and prevent re-unification under a communist government. The US was not able to achieve this. What is your argument here?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 14, 2005, 12:56:33 AM
Well, last I checked, Vietnam is not communist and communism only scarcely exists in the entire world.  If we were fighting communism in a de facto war with Russia, I guess history would call us the winner.  That is my argument.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 14, 2005, 06:53:44 AM
I don't want to quote Thirst from the Sprite commercials, but if you win "nothing," is it really winning? Weren't we there to fight communism? In the grand scheme of things, our position won, it just took waaaaaaay longer than expected.

when u.s. left, communist government in charge.  it still is.

u.s. lost.  it just that simple.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 14, 2005, 06:55:14 AM
Well, last I checked, Vietnam is not communist and communism only scarcely exists in the entire world. If we were fighting communism in a de facto war with Russia, I guess history would call us the winner. That is my argument.

gee, have you notified chinese?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 14, 2005, 07:05:14 AM
I don't want to quote Thirst from the Sprite commercials, but if you win "nothing," is it really winning? Weren't we there to fight communism? In the grand scheme of things, our position won, it just took waaaaaaay longer than expected.

when u.s. left, communist government in charge.  it still is.

u.s. lost.  it just that simple.
Well, last I checked, Vietnam is not communist and communism only scarcely exists in the entire world. If we were fighting communism in a de facto war with Russia, I guess history would call us the winner. That is my argument.

gee, have you notified chinese?

Go read a book.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 14, 2005, 07:32:56 AM
what, now not even china communist anymore?  what come next, madison, wis.?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 14, 2005, 07:46:47 AM
hello there, julie's lil' commie!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: angmill08 on November 14, 2005, 12:23:54 PM
Well, last I checked, Vietnam is not communist and communism only scarcely exists in the entire world.  If we were fighting communism in a de facto war with Russia, I guess history would call us the winner.  That is my argument.

Where did you check? The CIA factbook lists them as a communist state. The government also self-identifies as communist. No changes in that. They are opening to economic reforms, but the state still owns and controls most industry.

Although the US considered Vietnam only a part of its larger policy of promoting world wide capitalism, the aim with the troops at that time was specifically to preserve a non-communist government in S. Vietnam. The Vietnamese were not fighting US troops to achieve the world wide supremacy of communism. They were fighting for unification under the north Vietnamese government. They achieved this, which is why they (and most of the international community) feels that they "won". But if it makes you feel better to focus on the fact that the US was successful in our larger economic strategy of worldwide capitalism rather than on the fact that we were not sucessful in preventing communism in S. Vietnam, that's OK with me. You can focus on whatever facts you want, as long as you acknowledge the facts you don't like.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 14, 2005, 02:46:22 PM
hey, maybe we fighting communism in iraq!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 14, 2005, 03:17:39 PM
Well, last I checked, Vietnam is not communist and communism only scarcely exists in the entire world.  If we were fighting communism in a de facto war with Russia, I guess history would call us the winner.  That is my argument.

Where did you check? The CIA factbook lists them as a communist state. The government also self-identifies as communist. No changes in that. They are opening to economic reforms, but the state still owns and controls most industry.

Although the US considered Vietnam only a part of its larger policy of promoting world wide capitalism, the aim with the troops at that time was specifically to preserve a non-communist government in S. Vietnam. The Vietnamese were not fighting US troops to achieve the world wide supremacy of communism. They were fighting for unification under the north Vietnamese government. They achieved this, which is why they (and most of the international community) feels that they "won". But if it makes you feel better to focus on the fact that the US was successful in our larger economic strategy of worldwide capitalism rather than on the fact that we were not sucessful in preventing communism in S. Vietnam, that's OK with me. You can focus on whatever facts you want, as long as you acknowledge the facts you don't like.

I can agree with this
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 14, 2005, 05:09:34 PM
so now you also agree that u.s. lost war?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 15, 2005, 04:14:44 AM
so now you also agree that u.s. lost war?

I'll tell you after you read that book...
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 15, 2005, 09:38:00 AM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 15, 2005, 10:48:20 AM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.

You don't need to read that book, you could write it.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 15, 2005, 03:22:31 PM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.

Never read it, perhaps you could give me the Reader's Digest version...
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 15, 2005, 03:49:02 PM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.

You don't need to read that book, you could write it.

julie sorry, sort of, that you wrong so often.  she feel your pain, sort of.  it get better if you take head out of ass.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 15, 2005, 03:50:38 PM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.

Never read it, perhaps you could give me the Reader's Digest version...

sure, here it is:  you wrong about vietnam, and not admit it.  everyone laughing at you.  however,it not affect julie's view of you one little bit.

you welcome.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 15, 2005, 10:39:57 PM
the nonsensical mayhem is blowing out of howard dean...

the dems are in need of sum serious political re-aligning...that no funny. :(
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 15, 2005, 10:44:04 PM
pakeia?...had some tests. :-\?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 15, 2005, 10:52:23 PM
oh yeah and freak...very funny...you had a fern losing a few leaves...


let the insults flyyyyyyyyyyyyy

away!!!!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 16, 2005, 12:24:34 AM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.

Never read it, perhaps you could give me the Reader's Digest version...

sure, here it is:  you wrong about vietnam, and not admit it.  everyone laughing at you.  however,it not affect julie's view of you one little bit.

you welcome.

Your ears look like train whistles.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 16, 2005, 06:09:15 AM
the nonsensical mayhem is blowing out of howard dean...

the dems are in need of sum serious political re-aligning...that no funny. :(

yeah, those republicans are ones who have it all together.

maybe they waiting to have summit in prison.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 16, 2005, 06:10:31 AM
oh yeah and freak...very funny...you had a fern losing a few leaves...


let the insults flyyyyyyyyyyyyy

away!!!!

you got some hydraulic fluid on your nose there.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 16, 2005, 06:12:01 AM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.

Never read it, perhaps you could give me the Reader's Digest version...

sure, here it is:  you wrong about vietnam, and not admit it.  everyone laughing at you.  however,it not affect julie's view of you one little bit.

you welcome.

Your ears look like train whistles.

ok then, your thighs look like cottage cheese.

anything else?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 16, 2005, 08:27:46 PM
the nonsensical mayhem is blowing out of howard dean...

the dems are in need of sum serious political re-aligning...that no funny. :(

yeah, those republicans are ones who have it all together.

maybe they waiting to have summit in prison.

those elephants are the majority in the congress...and sorry...they are a little more organized than the dems...and the president is a republican...he is your president and the congress is your congress...like it or not...

stop ya damn crying...
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 16, 2005, 08:30:13 PM
Supreme Court is also about to go ~ Republican too.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 16, 2005, 08:38:08 PM
Supreme Court is also about to go ~ Republican too.

it already is Republican, and has been for a long time.

Republican appointed true...republican no.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 16, 2005, 08:40:55 PM
the nonsensical mayhem is blowing out of howard dean...

the dems are in need of sum serious political re-aligning...that no funny. :(

yeah, those republicans are ones who have it all together.

maybe they waiting to have summit in prison.

those elephants are the majority in the congress...and sorry...they are a little more organized than the dems...and the president is a republican...he is your president and the congress is your congres...like it or not...

stop ya damn crying...

julie not like it.  and this not crying, it snarling.

get used to it.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 16, 2005, 08:44:45 PM
the nonsensical mayhem is blowing out of howard dean...

the dems are in need of sum serious political re-aligning...that no funny. :(

yeah, those republicans are ones who have it all together.

maybe they waiting to have summit in prison.

those elephants are the majority in the congress...and sorry...they are a little more organized than the dems...and the president is a republican...he is your president and the congress is your congres...like it or not...

stop ya damn crying...

julie not like it.  and this not crying, it snarling.

get used to it.
Supreme Court is also about to go ~ Republican too.

it already is Republican, and has been for a long time.

not really...but soon.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 16, 2005, 09:05:22 PM
Supreme Court is also about to go ~ Republican too.

it already is Republican, and has been for a long time.

Republican appointed true...republican no.

no, they're just going further to the right.  they are and have been Republican.  see Bush v. Gore.

Have you read the case? I have, seems simple to me, the FL S. Ct. overruled it's own state's statute which set deadlines, how long should we've waited for a Pres?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 16, 2005, 09:06:01 PM
Supreme Court is also about to go ~ Republican too.

it already is Republican, and has been for a long time.

Republican appointed true...republican no.

no, they're just going further to the right.  they are and have been Republican.  see Bush v. Gore.

no...aye believe that far left liberals are just disappearing and most of the left is closer to the right hand lane these days.

these new appointees won't be making interpretations...they will be underlining defining terms...the precious roe vs. wade hype is a republican smoke screen...
you think because a justice is a conservative that it will be overturned...ha!

these new guys look like they have a purist constitution outlook...regardless of their religious affiliation...talented professionals...

aye just don't want barbara boxer running the show...or any show...even if it is in california.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 16, 2005, 09:50:45 PM

no...aye believe that far left liberals are just disappearing and most of the left is closer to the right hand lane these days.


O'Connor and Rehnquist were far left liberals now, were they?  as i said:  SC is, and has been, Republican.

don't be dense...from a liberal perspective...you think that things are moving to the right.

from a centrist or conservative perspective...there is not much movement at all...since the liberal right is crumbling...

the sc is more federalist...
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 17, 2005, 04:47:08 AM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.

Never read it, perhaps you could give me the Reader's Digest version...

sure, here it is:  you wrong about vietnam, and not admit it.  everyone laughing at you.  however,it not affect julie's view of you one little bit.

you welcome.

Your ears look like train whistles.

ok then, your thighs look like cottage cheese.

anything else?

toot! toot!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 17, 2005, 05:41:36 AM
Supreme Court is also about to go ~ Republican too.

it already is Republican, and has been for a long time.

Republican appointed true...republican no.

no, they're just going further to the right.  they are and have been Republican.  see Bush v. Gore.

Have you read the case? I have, seems simple to me, the FL S. Ct. overruled it's own state's statute which set deadlines, how long should we've waited for a Pres?

until vote count was finished.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 17, 2005, 05:42:57 AM
Supreme Court is also about to go ~ Republican too.

it already is Republican, and has been for a long time.

Republican appointed true...republican no.

no, they're just going further to the right.  they are and have been Republican.  see Bush v. Gore.

no...aye believe that far left liberals are just disappearing and most of the left is closer to the right hand lane these days.

these new appointees won't be making interpretations...they will be underlining defining terms...the precious roe vs. wade hype is a republican smoke screen...
you think because a justice is a conservative that it will be overturned...ha!

these new guys look like they have a purist constitution outlook...regardless of their religious affiliation...talented professionals...

aye just don't want barbara boxer running the show...or any show...even if it is in california.

she probably your mommy, and you need more time with her.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 17, 2005, 05:44:23 AM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.

Never read it, perhaps you could give me the Reader's Digest version...

sure, here it is:  you wrong about vietnam, and not admit it.  everyone laughing at you.  however,it not affect julie's view of you one little bit.

you welcome.

Your ears look like train whistles.

ok then, your thighs look like cottage cheese.

anything else?

toot! toot!

curd!  curd!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 17, 2005, 05:46:11 AM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.

Never read it, perhaps you could give me the Reader's Digest version...

sure, here it is:  you wrong about vietnam, and not admit it.  everyone laughing at you.  however,it not affect julie's view of you one little bit.

you welcome.

Your ears look like train whistles.

ok then, your thighs look like cottage cheese.

anything else?

toot! toot!

curd!  curd!

Don't lie, you know if I slipped you bone, you take it.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 17, 2005, 05:48:00 AM
oh, you mean book entitled never admit you wrong, even when it obvious.  julie will do that one when it on oprah'slist.

Never read it, perhaps you could give me the Reader's Digest version...

sure, here it is:  you wrong about vietnam, and not admit it.  everyone laughing at you.  however,it not affect julie's view of you one little bit.

you welcome.

Your ears look like train whistles.

ok then, your thighs look like cottage cheese.

anything else?

toot! toot!

curd!  curd!

Don't lie, you know if I slipped you bone, you take it.

julie would send bone back in casket with rest of body.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 17, 2005, 05:52:57 AM
You miffed?  Not hide true feelings good.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 17, 2005, 06:44:00 AM
julie never even try to hide her feelings, you little shithead.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 17, 2005, 12:46:18 PM
Supreme Court is also about to go ~ Republican too.

it already is Republican, and has been for a long time.

Republican appointed true...republican no.

no, they're just going further to the right.  they are and have been Republican.  see Bush v. Gore.

Have you read the case? I have, seems simple to me, the FL S. Ct. overruled it's own state's statute which set deadlines, how long should we've waited for a Pres?

until vote count was finished.

You mean the recount of the recount of the recount. The dead line was Nov. 14, it was extended to the 26 and FL. Ct. would've extended it even further.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 17, 2005, 12:51:32 PM

no...aye believe that far left liberals are just disappearing and most of the left is closer to the right hand lane these days.


O'Connor and Rehnquist were far left liberals now, were they?  as i said:  SC is, and has been, Republican.

don't be dense...from a liberal perspective...you think that things are moving to the right.

from a centrist or conservative perspective...there is not much movement at all...since the liberal right is crumbling...

the sc is more federalist...

I think now the Sc will be more federalist. But I don't believe things like assisted suicide and abortion should be federalist issues. Issues that serious need to be decided by the SC or by a constitutional amendment.

I simply disagreed with the decisions in the Roe line of cases.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 17, 2005, 02:23:57 PM
Supreme Court is also about to go ~ Republican too.

it already is Republican, and has been for a long time.

Republican appointed true...republican no.

no, they're just going further to the right.  they are and have been Republican.  see Bush v. Gore.

Have you read the case? I have, seems simple to me, the FL S. Ct. overruled it's own state's statute which set deadlines, how long should we've waited for a Pres?

until vote count was finished.

You mean the recount of the recount of the recount. The dead line was Nov. 14, it was extended to the 26 and FL. Ct. would've extended it even further.

count supposed to be over when state say it over.

against states' rights, eh?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 17, 2005, 02:44:29 PM
The state deadline was Nov. 14...Changing the laws there's a word for changing laws after the fact, ya know...something called ex post facto laws.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 17, 2005, 02:58:39 PM
spiff right.  and again:  state say when fat lady sings, not feds.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 17, 2005, 03:00:25 PM
The state deadline was Nov. 14...Changing the laws there's a word for changing laws after the fact, ya know...something called ex post facto laws.

iirc, ex post facto only applies to criminal laws.

The bill of rights ex post facto law, yes. The general principal applies to all laws. Why do you think there was a such a stink when congress tried to save Shuavo[sp].
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 17, 2005, 03:04:08 PM
state law is state law.  problem with schiavo that feds involved at all.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 17, 2005, 03:31:45 PM

The bill or rights ex post facto law, yes. The general principal applies to all laws. Why do you think there was a such a stink when congress tried to save Shuavo[sp].

there is no mention of ex post facto in the bill of rights.  the constitutional principle from article I, the one interpreted by scotus and the only one that matters, only applies to criminal law.  Congress' intervention in the Schiavo case was a states' rights issue, not an ex post facto issue.

Yep, you're right it is Art. I.

The stink was the ex post facto effect and states' rights, the issue in the case was states' rights.

Do I really need to go find the cases where a legislature changes a civil law and it's application was overruled because it was enforced on events that occured before the law was in place?

The point is that our legal principals include the principal against changing the rules after after the fact.

The FL SC did that, it seems simple to me that when it has national implications, it must not be allowed.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 17, 2005, 04:08:46 PM
no, it was states' rights only.  there were some accusations that the legislation that threw the case to the federal courts was a bill of attainder, but nothing came of that.  otherwise, it was just an example of the feds getting involved in something that was none of their business.

Regardless, the principal still applies to the Bush v. Gore case/
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 17, 2005, 04:39:30 PM
due process is how the principal is enforced in a civil case.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 17, 2005, 10:47:43 PM

don't be dense...from a liberal perspective...you think that things are moving to the right.

from a centrist or conservative perspective...there is not much movement at all...since the liberal right is crumbling...

they are moving to the right.  i dont think that Roberts and Alito would want to be associated in any way with Kennedy or O'Connor's opinions in Lawrence v. Texas, for example.  do you?

it's like you have one or two canned responses, and you keep using them over and over even when they make no sense.  you need to be reprogrammed.  btw, you forgot to mention Barbara Boxer in this post.


from a centrist or conservative perspective...there is not much movement at all...since the liberal right is crumbling...

the sc is more federalist...

we'll see just how federalist they are when the Republican court hands down a decision on the Oregon assisted suicide case.  and let's not forget how so-called "federalists" like Scalia ruled in Raich v. Ashcroft.



the court sided 6 to 3 to overturn a prelimary injunction to stop the federal government from intervening. so aye thought
scalia ruled against raich...a no to states rights...or meaning that the federal gov. can intervene in state affairs...small margin for feds to step in and save the day...the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the sc opinion.

scalia opinion?
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: SCgrad on November 18, 2005, 06:04:15 PM
julie never even try to hide her feelings, you little shithead.

then admit you want my bone you slut.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 19, 2005, 01:39:05 PM
the spaceman disappears.... :D :D :D
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 23, 2005, 07:54:29 PM



from a centrist or conservative perspective...there is not much movement at all...since the liberal right is crumbling...

the sc is more federalist...

we'll see just how federalist they are when the Republican court hands down a decision on the Oregon assisted suicide case.  and let's not forget how so-called "federalists" like Scalia ruled in Raich v. Ashcroft.




scalia opinion: aye think that scalia...has a "jay" problem...and that is why he said no...and the feds can come through commerce cracks...

federalism is concerned with individual liberty, not "state sovereignty" or "power."

so in a sense you are wrong...you picked "one" justice...
and you will see how federalist the court will become...

the original "grass-roots independents" would not have a need for federal government to come into the local yard...

the flailing liberals...today are not even near the sc
the sc has not "moved" to the right...that is your percption...they are moving more toward a more "federalist" court...

bush's appointees roberts and alito will be more concerned with individual liberty...like clarence thomas...federalism is coming home to roost.

as for the issue...if it had gone down with unanimous yea. rather than a 6-3 nay...it would have been like water replacing gasoline...a bit chaotic.

next time...scalia won't opt on the side of caution...
he's always got something "original" to say.

it will be 6-3 going in favor of an individual...and the federal government "can't touch this."
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 27, 2005, 11:42:43 PM
Supreme Court is also about to go ~ Republican too.

it already is Republican, and has been for a long time.

Republican appointed true...republican no.

no, they're just going further to the right.  they are and have been Republican.  see Bush v. Gore.

 :D :D :D


you made a nonsensical remark about the sc going farther to the right...aye called you on your misguided perception...and you can't get back to the fact that the sc IS on the right...and NOT moving anywhere...


the sc will add two more federalist judges if roberts and alito get on board...


good luck and all... ;)
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 28, 2005, 07:08:45 AM
supreme court now going to turn against kurds.  turks been waiting long time for this.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 28, 2005, 07:43:59 AM
spiff right.

bluecoward such putz.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 28, 2005, 11:34:10 PM
an attempt to enlighten you:

in essense we are in agreement...however you insist that the overturn of "some" cases will automatically move the court further to the right... understand that there is no movement unless MANY case decisions fall on one side...get it?

right now it is on the right and shall continue to "wallow" in the right hand lane...aye wrote "wallow" not "move further"...even with alito and roberts.

your qualifying assesment of "distance in degree" is fallacious...




now...here is where you are switching definitions...TRUE federalism follows thusly:

aye mark madison's "first" consideration applied to the federal system of america...

..."which place that system in a very interesting point of view.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered  by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.  The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."


madison is focusing on people and rights; the structure of federalism is concerned with people enjoying greater freedom...the people are the boss not the state nor the republic...

hope you understand that the quintessential focus has been blurred...even your eyes have been mislead...you cannot believe everything that is spoonfed...sometimes you have to go to the source.

so...deference is to individual liberty (the people)  not states rights nor federal rights...that is the point of view madison is expressing...

sadly, you are wrong with your little definition.  you should read some madison from time to time...aye mean...as you move further in school. ;)





no, they're just going further to the right.  they are and have been Republican.  see Bush v. Gore.

you made a nonsensical remark about the sc going farther to the right...aye called you on your misguided perception...and you can't get back to the fact that the sc IS on the right...and NOT moving anywhere...


the sc will add two more federalist judges if roberts and alito get on board...

i tried ignoring you but you just won't go away, will you.  bumping the thread 3 times?  i mean, really...

scotus is and has been controlled by republicans and, with many notable exceptions, is on the right.  i never said anything to contradict this.  in fact, my Bush v. Gore example clearly demonstrates it.  the court is moving further to the right because O'Connor was, get this, she was what we call a moderate.  she sided with the liberals on some 5-4 decisions which could be in question if Alito is confirmed, such as the recent 10 commandments case.  if i remember correctly, she was also one of the 5 majority in Stenberg v. Carhart.  if any of these decisions are overturned, and i believe Stenberg will be sooner or later, you will see exactly what i mean by the court moving further to the right.

as to this: federalism is concerned with individual liberty, not "state sovereignty" or "power.", you cannot just redefine a term because someone points out that you made a mistake in applying it.  federalism in american politics is defined as deference to states rights rather than federal.  it has nothing to do with individual liberty.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 07:23:51 AM
madison saw every aspect of american national governmental structure, including--but by no means limited to--federalism, as guaranteeing individual freedom because they all limit concentration of power in one way or another;  that why madison not think national constitution needed bill of rights, which today we rightly regard as ultimate protection of individual liberty.

however, consensus definition of federalism is system that allows for both national and provincial authority, without particular reference to individual freedom.  if we adopt your definition, then separation of powers and bicameralism and anything else having to do with structure of national government meet your defnition.  any definition that broad lose all utility.

no particular manifestation of balance reflected in federalism categorically support or denigrate individual freedom, as effect of federalism on individual freedom ultimately become--if can drag self out of 18th-century context--matter of values:  i.e., where one see civil rights violations, another see freedom of thought, action, and association;  and where one see freedom of choice, another see freedom to murder.

madison made point to speak of rights of "people" to contrast that way of thinking about new constitution with rights of state governments, which was old way.

consider yourself enlightened.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 29, 2005, 02:32:05 PM
The reason we had no need for a bill of rights was because states were expected to uphold our rights. They failed (alternatively voters failed). Before the 13/14th amends. the bill of rights only protected us from the Fed. gov. After the civil war it was apparent that states couldn't/wouldn't protect ex-slaves. The fed. stepped to solve that problem. Now the 13/14th amends. allow the Fed. gov. to step in all the time. Since the Feds step in constantly now, we need the bill of rights to protect us.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 03:01:07 PM
man, do you got problems with this.

you correct that that bill of rights not included in constitution because, in part, states were to have significant power and thus could protect us.  however, this not work unless states have significant power, which bring us back to federalism.  inclusion of supremacy clause in national constitution make it pretty clear that although national governmment to be limited, it still could trump states.

another reason framers reluctant to include bill of rights that failure to list something would be construed as not having intended to protect that right--which has come true, as this very philosophy of so-called strict constructionists (who hypocrites).

it 14th amendment that interpreted to apply bill of rights to states, but this intentionally muddled by post-war congress:  it no more explicit than requiring states to give "due process."  first to get protection of this sort were corporations, certainly not blacks.

and "incorporation," as this called, not case with entire bill of rights (e.g., second amendment not incorporated at all--so even if nra's interpretation correct, it not right that states must repect as matter of federal constitution);  hence, "partial" incorporation.

finally, your nonsense about feds "stepping in all time" show how your dogma interfering with your karma.  and what wrong, anyway:  you not believe in bill of rights?  answer that one, freak-boy!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 03:17:14 PM
when congress handled this in such vague fashion, it provided very flexible doctrine for defining federal power over states and pretty much guaranteed big role for courts.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 29, 2005, 03:46:24 PM
finally, your nonsense about feds "stepping in all time" show how your dogma interfering with your karma.  and what wrong, anyway:  you not believe in bill of rights?  answer that one, freak-boy!

Do I believe in the Bill of Rights? My beliefs have nothing to do with them. They are law, I just stated why they probably weren't believed necessary.

dogma is short for doctrine which has nothing to do with karma, which I don't belive in btw.

If you mean that I'm a strict constructionalist, and I am contradicting myself because I sound as if I think the bill of rights shouldn't have been written, you're wrong.

1. I'm not a strict constructionalist and I don't think anybody really is. You might say I'm a textualist. But basically, I don't think judges should make law, they should simply interpret it. I know law is morality enforced, I believe that's the Leg's job.
2. I am happy we have a bill of rights.

Space, I totally agree with your commerce clause assessment. If you'll notice, it wasn't used like that until the 1900's (Lochner was 1905). The 13/14 amendments were shortly before that. The civil war change our nation dramatically.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 29, 2005, 04:05:12 PM

Space, I totally agree with your commerce clause assessment. If you'll notice, it wasn't used like that until the 1900's (Lochner was 1905). The 13/14 amendments were shortly before that. The civil war change our nation dramatically.

well now youre mixing me up... Lochner was not commerce clause, it was 14th A. and it was a state law, not federal.  i always understood the commerce clause runaway train as a combination of the power to regulate interstate commerce coupled with the necessary and proper clause, which are in the original body of the constitution, preceding the civil war by about 70 years or so.

But the clause wasn't a run-a-way train until after the civil war.

I mentioned Lochner because that was a case where the SC stepped in to take away a state right. It wasn't a commerce clause case, but it was very closely related to the types of things feds regulate using the commerce clause.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 04:46:17 PM
are you talking about the 14th a., Julie? i definitely see how it guaranteed a big role for the courts, but how does it blur the distinction between federal and state power (im assuming you mean legislative or executive)?

14th a.'s d.p. clause blurs distinction because it so vague--hence, piecemeal incorporation spread out over more than century.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 04:49:18 PM
finally, your nonsense about feds "stepping in all time" show how your dogma interfering with your karma.  and what wrong, anyway:  you not believe in bill of rights?  answer that one, freak-boy!

Do I believe in the Bill of Rights? My beliefs have nothing to do with them. They are law, I just stated why they probably weren't believed necessary.

dogma is short for doctrine which has nothing to do with karma, which I don't belive in btw.

If you mean that I'm a strict constructionalist, and I am contradicting myself because I sound as if I think the bill of rights shouldn't have been written, you're wrong.

1. I'm not a strict constructionalist and I don't think anybody really is. You might say I'm a textualist. But basically, I don't think judges should make law, they should simply interpret it. I know law is morality enforced, I believe that's the Leg's job.
2. I am happy we have a bill of rights.

Space, I totally agree with your commerce clause assessment. If you'll notice, it wasn't used like that until the 1900's (Lochner was 1905). The 13/14 amendments were shortly before that. The civil war change our nation dramatically.

then presumably we agree that post-war congress failed to do its job wehen drafting 14th a.  this has had more to do with expanding power of judiciary than anything else, julie think.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 04:52:00 PM

Space, I totally agree with your commerce clause assessment. If you'll notice, it wasn't used like that until the 1900's (Lochner was 1905). The 13/14 amendments were shortly before that. The civil war change our nation dramatically.

well now youre mixing me up... Lochner was not commerce clause, it was 14th A. and it was a state law, not federal.  i always understood the commerce clause runaway train as a combination of the power to regulate interstate commerce coupled with the necessary and proper clause, which are in the original body of the constitution, preceding the civil war by about 70 years or so.

But the clause wasn't a run-a-way train until after the civil war.

I mentioned Lochner because that was a case where the SC stepped in to take away a state right. It wasn't a commerce clause case, but it was very closely related to the types of things feds regulate using the commerce clause.

there was no 14th a. prior to civil war, period.

and when that d.p. clause (as opposed to one in 5th a.) used, it not used to help blacks, that for sure.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Freak on November 29, 2005, 04:52:42 PM
Agreed, Julie. They should've simply incorporated the bill of rights. I agree with Holmes in that respect.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on November 29, 2005, 04:59:16 PM
final word on lochner:  julie think that as simple as courts protecting interest of business.  idea that federal government's power being expanded decidedly secondary consideration.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 01, 2005, 12:51:49 AM
an attempt to enlighten you:

in essense we are in agreement...however you insist that the overturn of "some" cases will automatically move the court further to the right... understand that there is no movement unless MANY case decisions fall on one side...get it?

right now it is on the right and shall continue to "wallow" in the right hand lane...aye wrote "wallow" not "move further"...even with alito and roberts.

your qualifying assesment of "distance in degree" is fallacious...

blahblahblah... do you realize that you are proving nothing here?  your distinction between "some" and "many" is completely arbitrary.  if "some" decisions are overturned to favor conservative policy then that indicates "some" shift to the right, unless there are an equal or greater amount of cases overturned to favor liberal policy.  get it now?



now...here is where you are switching definitions...TRUE federalism follows thusly:

aye mark madison's "first" consideration applied to the federal system of america...

..."which place that system in a very interesting point of view.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered  by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.  The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."


madison is focusing on people and rights; the structure of federalism is concerned with people enjoying greater freedom...the people are the boss not the state nor the republic...

hope you understand that the quintessential focus has been blurred...even your eyes have been mislead...you cannot believe everything that is spoonfed...sometimes you have to go to the source.

so...deference is to individual liberty (the people)  not states rights nor federal rights...that is the point of view madison is expressing...

sadly, you are wrong with your little definition.  you should read some madison from time to time...aye mean...as you move further in school. ;)

first, "all the power surrendered by the people" simply recognizes the fact that any government draws its power from that given up by the people.  it does not mean that the people are in control or should be consulted.  second, "a double security arises to the rights of the people" refers to the fact that the federal and state governments check each other so that they do not do things not in their power (ie, explicitly limited by the constitution ... i just think Madison may have had a hand in writing that ... and i'll give you a hint ... there aren't many limits on the states while the tenth amendment gives them a blank check).  third, that blurb does not define federalism in any way and it says nothing about deference.  it simply discusses checks and balances within the context of a compound republic.  now, here are some real definitions for you:

from wikipedia:
In Canada and Europe, "federalist" is often used to describe those who favor a strong federal government and weaker provincial governments. Curiously, in the United States it describes those who generally favor a weaker federal government and stronger state governments.

from dictionary.com:
Main Entry: fed·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'fe-dr&-"li-z&m, 'fe-d&-r&-
Function: noun
often cap : distribution of power in a federation between the central authority and the constituent units (as states) involving esp. the allocation of significant lawmaking powers to those constituent units


aye still don't feel ya on the moving...aye don't expect much "waivering."


distribution of power  in a federation  between the central authority and the constituent units (as states) involving esp. the allocation of significant lawmaking powers to those constituent units.

"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people  is first divided  between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises  to the rights of the people.  The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."


is there another form of "ism" which can claim the same as the above paragraph other than "Federalism"...please elaborate. aye think that the above paragraph cuts to the very heart of federalism. ;)

federalism has the peoples rights at hand because federalism provides the double security for its citizens...

federalism arises to the rights of the people because the double security means that the people have two servents and not two masters!
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 01, 2005, 02:23:29 AM
madison saw every aspect of american national governmental structure, including--but by no means limited to--federalism, as guaranteeing individual freedom because they all limit concentration of power in one way or another;  that why madison not think national constitution needed bill of rights, which today we rightly regard as ultimate protection of individual liberty.

however, consensus definition of federalism is system that allows for both national and provincial authority, without particular reference to individual freedom.  if we adopt your definition, then separation of powers and bicameralism and anything else having to do with structure of national government meet your defnition.  any definition that broad lose all utility.

no particular manifestation of balance reflected in federalism categorically support or denigrate individual freedom, as effect of federalism on individual freedom ultimately become--if can drag self out of 18th-century context--matter of values:  i.e., where one see civil rights violations, another see freedom of thought, action, and association;  and where one see freedom of choice, another see freedom to murder.

madison made point to speak of rights of "people" to contrast that way of thinking about new constitution with rights of state governments, which was old way.

consider yourself enlightened.

aye am not focusing on the structure of federalism...aye am talking about the "security" gained from a system where the people...the individual has two servents and not two masters...the essence of federalism...the nature...the unique and defining part.

the "system" does not allow for national and provincial authority...the "people" allow it...and the people...the ultimate authority...inherent to federalism allow each authority to look in on one another...aye believe the protection is for the people.

Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on December 01, 2005, 05:44:30 AM
you doofus, but julie play some more anyway:  please explain to julie how state governments effectively control feds in any way other than ratifying, or not, constitutional amendments.
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 01, 2005, 11:16:13 PM
you doofus, but julie play some more anyway:  please explain to julie how state governments effectively control feds in any way other than ratifying, or not, constitutional amendments.

how much power do you wish the state to have?

it is the people's right to allow power.

so how much control do YOU personally want? your rights are the important...the state has NO rights...only powers given to it by the people.

would you let your servents work for you?

then again there are the "mischiefs of factions"...like you mr. fern... ;)

Alden te v.ermiceli with Maine lobster...mmmm...good. 8)
Title: Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
Post by: Julie Fern on January 28, 2007, 06:34:20 AM
putz.