Aids HIV FAQ

OT – Hastert, the "buck stops here" will fire his staffers

admin — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation? Why can’t he just pull the staffers in his office & ask them? And wait a minute – I thought the buck stopped with him? If his staffers covered this up, then he’s responsible – right? Or maybe the buck doesn’t really stop with him? Mr Soul http://www.MusicIsLove.com

Response:

> Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there > was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation > process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." > How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation? Why can’t he just > pull the staffers in his office & ask them? > And wait a minute – I thought the buck stopped with him? If his > staffers covered this up, then he’s responsible – right? Or maybe the > buck doesn’t really stop with him? > Mr Soul > http://www.MusicIsLove.com

It all depends on one’s personal ethics. There are still some rare individuals (even if they did not know what had happened), who’d look at the situation and say "these are my people, whom I have personally trained and molded into doing business *my* way…..and, since I’m ultimately responsible, I’ll step down….as I have failed to properly lead them." And then, there are others who (knew everything)would say "I just might be able to skate out of this one, with no one being able to *prove* that I personally knew anything….it’s all my staff’s fault!" If Hastert takes that option, he won’t look so good. Especially since a good number of republicans don’t want to be tarnished by this one. He’ll have the dems attacking him, and not too many repugs willing to get involved to stop them. In times like this, I would have a lot more respect for the man if he chose the first option above (assuming he really didn’t know anything!). I’m sure a lot will come out about this one…especially since the repugs (as a whole) aren’t trying to block a real investigation (or, so it would appear). Mike

Response:

courageously avow: >Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there >was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation >process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." >How come Hastert has to wait for an investigation? Why can’t he just >pull the staffers in his office & ask them? >And wait a minute – I thought the buck stopped with him? If his >staffers covered this up, then he’s responsible – right? Or maybe the >buck doesn’t really stop with him?

I guess a buck just isn’t what it used to be. — Ken Wilson

Response:

I knew Hastert wasn’t going to resign because it’s too close to the election. They’re hoping that they’ll maintain control over the House and that everything will blow over after the election. But if Hastert resigned then they would more likely loose control. Indeed, it will be an interesting election. Mr Soul

Response:

People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about it.

Response:

did courageously avow: >Old Honest Hastert is now saying that "if there is a problem, if there >was a coverup, then we should find that out through the investigation >process. They’ll be under oath and we’ll find out." >That has about as much cred as Bush saying he would fire all whitehouse >leakers.

That could explain why they suddenly had all the urinals in the White House, because no one was using them anymore for fear of being caught. — Ken Wilson

Response:

Do you read the news? 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that broke the law. 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State Dept, NOT the White House.

Response:

> People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about it.

People like you would never believe anything a Liberal or Democrat did either. I believe that he said the buck stops with him but now he’s saying the buck stops with his aids. That’s unacceptable to me & should be unacceptable to you. If a Democrat had made those remarks, you’d be all over him. Mr Soul

Response:

> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that > broke the law.

Not exactly. This is what the Bush admin said first: McClellan – September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." Then on September 30, 2003, it became a violation of law not just high standards. Nice try John but if a Democrat had done this you’d be calling foul. Bush might have to fire himself – http://nysun.com/timesleak.php. "Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury" > 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State Dept, > NOT the White House.

Armitage was not the only leaker. Rove leaked Plame to the Newsweek reporter independently of Armitage/Novak. Mr Soul

Response:

> > People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about it. > People like you would never believe anything a Liberal or Democrat did > either. > I believe that he said the buck stops with him but now he’s saying the > buck stops with his aids. That’s unacceptable to me & should be > unacceptable to you. If a Democrat had made those remarks, you’d be > all over him. > Mr Soul

You misuderstood the context. He meant that when the money comes in, the buck stops with him.

Response:

> find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that > broke the law.

What a convenient way for him to weasel out of taking action against his buddies and let the stench of dishonor continue to waft through the West WIng.

Response:

> People like you would never believe anything that he did, or said about > it. > People like you would never believe anything a Liberal or Democrat did > either.

How do you find it so easy to lie? I have NEVER said any such thing, and I have in FACT spoken well of some Dems, and voted that way before as well! Oops! More of those fact thingies that you refuse to let influence your views, beliefs, or posts.

Response:

> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that > broke the law. > Not exactly. This is what the Bush admin said first:

Do consider READING WHAT I WROTE before you address what I wrote. Bush DID say if someone broke the law. > McClellan – September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, > the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it > very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to > adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this > administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this > administration." > Then on September 30, 2003, it became a violation of law not just high > standards. > Nice try John but if a Democrat had done this you’d be calling foul.

No I would NOT. Richard Armitage is the confessed leaker. > Bush might have to fire himself – http://nysun.com/timesleak.php. "Bush > Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury"

That was NOT about Plame or her name as YOU know, so why the continued dishonesty? From YOUR story; "The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule." > 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State > Dept, > NOT the White House. > Armitage was not the only leaker. Rove leaked Plame to the Newsweek > reporter independently of Armitage/Novak.

Go back and read what was said. Rove did NOT leak Plame’s name.

Response:

You really didn’t follow this that well did you. > Go back and read what was said. Rove did NOT leak Plame’s name.

Armitage leaked to Novak. Rove may have leaked to Newsweek’s Cooper. He talked to Cooper before the leak came out. "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak’s column appeared; in other words, before Plame’s identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Rove carefully chooose his words when testifying: "I didn’t know her name. I didn’t leak her name," But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover CIA agent. At the time, Rove handed out this information, he was leaking it. Mr Soul

Response:

>>> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that >> broke the law. > Not exactly. This is what the Bush admin said first: >Do consider READING WHAT I WROTE before you address what I wrote. >Bush DID say if someone broke the law.

Eventually. He kept moving the bar, same as has since first going into Iraq. — Ken Wilson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> 1) Go back and find Bush’s quote. It was that he would fire anyone that >> broke the law. > Not exactly. This is what the Bush admin said first: > Do consider READING WHAT I WROTE before you address what I wrote. > Bush DID say if someone broke the law. > McClellan – September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, > the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it > very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to > adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this > administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this > administration." > Then on September 30, 2003, it became a violation of law not just high > standards. > Nice try John but if a Democrat had done this you’d be calling foul. > No I would NOT. Richard Armitage is the confessed leaker. > Bush might have to fire himself – http://nysun.com/timesleak.php. "Bush > Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury" > That was NOT about Plame or her name as YOU know, so why the continued > dishonesty? From YOUR story; "The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick > Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule." >> 2) The leak was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s number 2 at the State >> Dept, >> NOT the White House. > Armitage was not the only leaker. Rove leaked Plame to the Newsweek > reporter independently of Armitage/Novak. > Go back and read what was said. Rove did NOT leak Plame’s name.

oh yeah, just like Clinton did not have sex with that women. He just leaked Wilson’s wife but not her name, very cute.

Response:

> Eventually. He kept moving the bar, same as has since first going > into Iraq.

That’s correct. And have you noticed as recent as yesterday, Bush isn’t even talking about a democracy in Iraq. I listened to 2 analysts last night on PBS and they painted a bleak picture. Basically, they were discussing ways we could get out without it looking like a complete failure. Mr Soul

Response:

> You really didn’t follow this that well did you.

We will see… > But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent.

Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

Response:

> > You really didn’t follow this that well did you. > We will see… > But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent. > Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

How about if we just prove he’s gay?

Response:

> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

I can’t prove that. All I can prove is that Rove knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA & that he told Matt Cooper about it before the Novak article ran. I can also tell you that Rove indicated that he had heard about Wilson’s wife when Novak talked to him. How was that now? Mr Soul

Response:

> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > I can’t prove that.

I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! Your usual.

Response:

> >> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > I can’t prove that.I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! > Your usual.

Fuck you! Rove outed Plame to Matt Cooper. That’s what the fact are. He outed her in the same way that Armitage did to Novak. Exactly the same way. Rove also lied by saying that he hadn’t heard about Plame before Novak, when in fact, he told Novak that he had heard about Plame. Mr Soul

Response:

> >> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > > I can’t prove that.I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! > Your usual. > Fuck you!

Jeez you usually don’t get cranky when you get caught lying! Let see how this happened…

> But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent.

> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

> I can’t prove that.

>> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. > I can’t prove that. > I knew that was just more bullshit that you made up! > Your usual.

Your parents must be so proud of you!

Response:

> Jeez you usually don’t get cranky when you get caught lying! Let see how > this happened…

And so don’t you. We catch you lying here all the time. We caught you with your stupid Monica is 19 claim just this week. When are you going to show us those blogs & references to the urban legends? On the other hand, I’ve never intentionally lied. Rove outed Valerie Plame to Matt Cooper & then he lied about it later, saying he’d heard of it from Novak. That of course contradicts statements he had previously made. > Your parents must be so proud of you!

Actually they are quite proud of me – thanks! Mr Soul

Response:

> Jeez you usually don’t get cranky when you get caught lying! Let see how > this happened… > And so don’t you. We catch you lying here all the time.

Not once, not ever, but nice try! We caught you > with your stupid Monica is 19 claim just this week.

You are the one that accuses others of lying anytime they make an error. As you know, a lie requires that one knows what they are posting is not true, much like you do all of the time! Infact I have saved and reposted a number of examples of your lies! When are you going > to show us those blogs & references to the urban legends?

I will answer to Howards request as soon as he answers to my previous request. > On the other hand, I’ve never intentionally lied.

Here’s a Mr Soul lie!

> Thank you for finally admitting that he is UNETHICAL after breaking Ethics > Rules!

admitted that. >> Other than the broken ethics rule,

Here is another example of Mr Soul lying! You might have been Ok if you would learn to use the words, "I believe", but Nooooo, you state things as fact when you know the is ZERO verification because it isn’t true!

> But he knew who Wilson’s wife was & he knew that she was a undercover > CIA agent.

> Prove that Rove knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I can’t prove that.

Response:

OT – Dems vs Repubs

admin — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, but had a right to be on account of their youth. The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as soon as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude toward Clinton is–well, we’ll let Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, in an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," explain: Russert: You’re having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you think Bill Clinton was a great president? McCaskill: I do. I think–I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, his personal issues. I said at– Russert: But do you– McCaskill: I said at the time, "I think he’s been a great leader, but I don’t want my daughter near him." What a ringing endorsement! And hey, say what you will about Mark Foley, at least you can trust him with your daughter! http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009065

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. > In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of > responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, > but had a right to be on account of their youth. > The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as soon > as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude > toward Clinton is–well, we’ll let Missouri Senate candidate Claire > McCaskill, in an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," explain: > Russert: You’re having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you > think Bill Clinton was a great president? > McCaskill: I do. I think–I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, > his personal issues. I said at– > Russert: But do you– > McCaskill: I said at the time, "I think he’s been a great leader, but I > don’t want my daughter near him." > What a ringing endorsement! And hey, say what you will about Mark Foley, at > least you can trust him with your daughter! > http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009065

Oh really? Then why don’t you arrange a get-together between Foley and your son? It should be as wholesome as the "Leave it to Beaver" show.

Response:

>" The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. > In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of > responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, > but had a right to be on account of their youth."

ROFLMAO!! I’ve no doubt that *you* were a virgin at Lewinsky’s age, but to declare others that age to be ’sexually immature’ is pathetic grasping at best. She knew what she was doing, and, by her own admission, was the pursuer. I’d be willing to bet she was well into double digits at that time in her life. (News flash John, single people have sex). >"The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as soon > as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude > toward Clinton is-"

LOL! You’re really desperate today, aren’t you? The *difference* is that Foley committed a serious crime, while Clinton committed a serious indiscretion. End of story.

Response:

> The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and emailing underage males. > The difference is

See above

Response:

I see little comparison between the Foley incident & the Lewinksy scandal, other than it involves politicans & sex. Many Presidents have had mistresses, so Lewinsky was nothing new. What was new about it was that a crazy investigation into Clinton’s private affairs lead to an impeachment. If Clinton had done something truly "bad", then most Democrat’s I know would have asked him to step-down, but the Clinton impeachment was all about politics – the dirtiest kind. Democrat’s have washed their hands of wrong-doers & Republicans have not sometimes, so this characterization is false. Mr Soul http://www.MusicIsLove.com

Response:

> Oh really? Then why don’t you arrange a get-together > between Foley and your son? It should be as wholesome > as the "Leave it to Beaver" show.

You might consider reading what is written here BEFORE you comment. I have posted a number of times that Foley and ALL SCUM like he should be removed. Oops! More of those fact thingies that so many of you Lefty Lemmings refuse to left influence your ideas, beliefs, or posts.

Response:

>" The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >scandal. > In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of > responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, > but had a right to be on account of their youth." > ROFLMAO!! I’ve no doubt that *you* were a virgin at Lewinsky’s age, > but to declare others that age to be ’sexually immature’ is pathetic > grasping at best.

You fail to note that the story did NOT state virgin, merely immature. You might never have noticed but there is usually a difference in maturity between someone in their teens, and someone in their twenties. >"The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as >soon > as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude > toward Clinton is-" > LOL! You’re really desperate today, aren’t you?

Not at all. Dems embrace SCUM as long as it’s their scum. The *difference* is > that Foley committed a serious crime, while Clinton committed a serious > indiscretion.

What crime did Foley commit?

Response:

"timepixdc" > > The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky > scandal. > Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting > adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and > emailing underage males.

Both are scum that misused their authority.

Response:

>I see little comparison between the Foley incident & the Lewinksy > scandal, other than it involves politicans & sex.

You regularly fail to see scum when it’s Dem scum. > Many Presidents have had mistresses, so Lewinsky was nothing new. What > was new about it was that a crazy investigation into Clinton’s private > affairs lead to an impeachment.

Please enlighten us as to ANY investigation that was targeted at Clinton’s private life. Oh, I’ll bet that you are retelling that Dem lie that the Whitewater Investigation that was initiated to investigate the looting of Millions of dollars was only about Clinton’s sex life. What about the over a dozen people that were convicted of scores of Federal Crimes? If Clinton had done something truly > "bad", then most Democrat’s I know would have asked him to step-down, > but the Clinton impeachment was all about politics – the dirtiest kind.

Impeachment is a political act, and that Clinton can be thankful for. As the courts ruled, William Jefferson Clinton committed criminal acts, and was disbarred because of them. > Democrat’s have washed their hands of wrong-doers & Republicans have > not sometimes, so this characterization is false.

Isn’t that nice Democratic Congressman that had $90,000 in his freezer STILL in office?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>" The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >>scandal. >> In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of >> responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, >> but had a right to be on account of their youth." > ROFLMAO!! I’ve no doubt that *you* were a virgin at Lewinsky’s age, > but to declare others that age to be ’sexually immature’ is pathetic > grasping at best. > You fail to note that the story did NOT state virgin, merely immature. You > might never have noticed but there is usually a difference in maturity > between someone in their teens, and someone in their twenties. >>"The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as >>soon >> as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude >> toward Clinton is-" > LOL! You’re really desperate today, aren’t you? > Not at all. Dems embrace SCUM as long as it’s their scum. > The *difference* is > that Foley committed a serious crime, while Clinton committed a serious > indiscretion. > What crime did Foley commit?

Isn’t he accused of child molestation or "No Child’s Behind Left"? Or do you think that should not be a crime?

Response:

What I’ve noticed, is that age has NOTHING to do with maturity. There are very mature teenagers, and very immature persons in their 20’s or older. Monica Lewinsky WAS in her 20’s, and obviously quite sexually experienced. >>"The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as >>soon >> as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude >> toward Clinton is-" > LOL! You’re really desperate today, aren’t you? > Not at all. Dems embrace SCUM as long as it’s their scum.

Well, I’m not a Democrat, and I certainly never felt anything but disgust for what Clinton did. Adultery is a sign of moral weakness. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to get married. If he felt he couldn’t stay committed to a single woman, he never should have gotten married in the first place. > The *difference* is > that Foley committed a serious crime, while Clinton committed a serious > indiscretion. > What crime did Foley commit?

Federal or State?? http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/15697745.htm

Response:

> "timepixdc" > >> The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >> scandal. > Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting > adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and > emailing underage males. > Both are scum that misused their authority.

If that’s the case, any musician or celebrity who has sex with a fan is equally guilty of the same. It takes two to tango, you know. Lewinsky admitted to Pursuing Clinton. Foley was the pursuer. Of children. BIG difference. Do you think beautiful young women go out with fat, old movie stars because they find them attractive? : ) Some women will always act like whores, while complaining that they get treated like whores. It’s just the nature of the way things work.

Response:

> >I see little comparison between the Foley incident & the Lewinksy > scandal, other than it involves politicans & sex. > You regularly fail to see scum when it’s Dem scum.

The fact that you can’t discern the difference between a consenting sexual relationship between two adults and an adult sexually stalking a child speaks volumes about your lack of morals.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "timepixdc" > > >> The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky > >> scandal. > > Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting > > adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and > > emailing underage males. > Both are scum that misused their authority. > If that’s the case, any musician or celebrity who has sex with a fan is > equally guilty of the same. It takes two to tango, you know. Lewinsky > admitted to Pursuing Clinton. Foley was the pursuer. Of children. > BIG difference. > Do you think beautiful young women go out with fat, old movie stars > because they find them attractive? : ) > Some women will always act like whores, while complaining that they get > treated like whores. > It’s just the nature of the way things work.

So *that’s* why Weanton acts like a whore. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Response:

Waiting for tears in a Barbara Walters interview is like waiting for blood in a prizefight. Cry No. 1 in the Monica Lewinsky "20/20" interview came at 9:51 p.m. EST. Cry No. 2 hit at 10:41, with the story of the FBI bust on Jan. 16. And then Babs moved in like Tyson, scoring No. 3 at 10:43 with a round of questions about Monica’s family. Monica’s face reddened; her lip quivered. We all knew her history — the White House freak-outs, the wailing to Linda Tripp — and for a second it looked like our Mon might go to pieces. Would she lose control? Would her voice crack? Would there be mucus? There would be none of that. Composed and professional in a dark suit with her hair pulled back — and about a quart of Vaseline on the camera — Monica (or, at least, the Monica we saw in the final edit, which at times looked like it was spliced from file footage) lived her life in two hours and came out dry, smiling and ready for love. Though we all guessed there wouldn’t be any real revelations — and except for Monica’s abortion admission and, maybe, her antidepressants, there weren’t — the build-up this past week was staggering. New York publicists complained they couldn’t get anyone to show for Monica-night events; people organized Monica parties; ABC garnered $800,000 for a 30-second commercial spot — half the rate of the Super Bowl, approaching Academy Awards numbers. (Did anyone else notice a disproportionate number of ads for Snackwell’s, the new diet drug wonder Meridia, herbal diet aids and Victoria’s Secret breaking up the talk with the zaftig, thong-wearing Lewinsky?) In its breathy promos, ABC showed Walters posing provocative questions and Monica biting her lip but — teasingly — never talking, investing her with sphinxlike power as though, were she finally to speak, your television would explode. The problem is that by now Monica was just about the chattiest sphinx in American history, having surfeited us with the Starr Report, the Tripp tapes and the Senate deposition. The popular comparison of the broadcast was to the big game or Oscar night. But only if the Super Bowl had already been played last August, if the Oscars had already been given out and they were just rerunning the musical numbers. God knows we commentators stopped having anything new to say about Monica months ago, but it’s a comfort to us to know that she’s pretty much tapped out on the subject too. What the interview did help clarify were some of those longstanding watercooler questions: the why-did-she, how-could-she questions. For instance, how could Monica not feel like she was being used? Why would she want a relationship with a man who took a congressman’s phone call in the middle of their first sexual encounter? As she answered — in not so many words — duh. "There was a level of excitement," she said. "A level of danger involved in the relationship." I mean, damn! Nothing says, "You’re having sex with the president" like an intracoital congressional phone call. And the why-did-he questions? The interview probably gave little material to Clinton biographers, but it was refreshing to hear Monica implicitly answer the question, "Why would he risk it?" — a childish query repeated by pundits and supporters who, as Mr. Mojo Nixon would put it, have no Elvis in them. "I would imagine it’s very difficult being president of the United States," she said. "There’s tremendous pressure. Sometimes, you just need a piece of …" "Ass!" volunteered 50 million Americans in the home audience.

Response:

Monica Lewinsky - A woman who had more President in her mouth than George W. Bush has in his entire body.

Response:

> Monica Lewinsky - A woman who had more President in her mouth than > George W. Bush has in his entire body.

Well, to the extent N. Korea’s latest move just put THE next to last nail in George’s historical rep., I’d say Bill just slipped him a pretty good ass-doggy! So, W and Monica are back on par…give it till the inaugural in 1/09.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>" The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >>scandal. >> In both cases, sexually immature middle-aged men used their positions of >> responsibility to pursue younger people, who were also sexually immature, >> but had a right to be on account of their youth." > ROFLMAO!! I’ve no doubt that *you* were a virgin at Lewinsky’s age, > but to declare others that age to be ’sexually immature’ is pathetic > grasping at best. >You fail to note that the story did NOT state virgin, merely immature. You >might never have noticed but there is usually a difference in maturity >between someone in their teens, and someone in their twenties.

And then there is you, who will never be considered mature. — Ken Wilson

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "timepixdc" > > >> The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky > >> scandal. > > Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting > > adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and > > emailing underage males. > Both are scum that misused their authority. >If that’s the case, any musician or celebrity who has sex with a fan is >equally guilty of the same. It takes two to tango, you know. Lewinsky >admitted to Pursuing Clinton. Foley was the pursuer. Of children. >BIG difference.

Tom Foley, the Michael Jackson for your teenager… — Ken Wilson

Response:

> >> The Foley scandal is actually quite similar to the Monica Lewinsky >> scandal. > Except for the obvious fact that in one case it’s sex between consenting > adults and in the other it’s a guy trolling for action by IMing and > emailing underage males. > Both are scum that misused their authority.

Wrong again. Thanks for playing.

Response:

>You might consider reading what is written here BEFORE you comment. I have >posted a number of times that Foley and ALL SCUM like he should be >removed. > I read your bullshit. You compare Clinton to Foley, and there is no > comparison.

Both misused their authority. Clinton was found to have committed criminal acts and was disbarred. We will see if Foley was merely scummy, or if he committed criminal acts as well.

Response:

> What crime did Foley commit? > Isn’t he accused of child molestation or "No Child’s Behind Left"?

Please provide verification of him touching any minor.

Response:

> You fail to note that the story did NOT state virgin, merely immature. > You > might never have noticed but there is usually a difference in maturity > between someone in their teens, and someone in their twenties. > What I’ve noticed, is that age has NOTHING to do with maturity. There > are very mature teenagers, and very immature persons in their 20’s or > older. Monica Lewinsky WAS in her 20’s, and obviously quite sexually > experienced.

Go back and read some more about Monica. She was nineTEEN when it started. > >>"The difference is that the Republicans washed their hands of Foley as > >>soon > >> as they figured out what was going on, whereas the Democrats’ attitude > >> toward Clinton is-" > > LOL! You’re really desperate today, aren’t you? > Not at all. Dems embrace SCUM as long as it’s their scum. > Well, I’m not a Democrat, and I certainly never felt anything but > disgust for what Clinton did.

As did I. > Adultery is a sign of moral weakness. No one held a gun to his head > and forced him to get married. If he felt he couldn’t stay committed > to a single woman, he never should have gotten married in the first > place.

Bingo! > The *difference* is > > that Foley committed a serious crime, while Clinton committed a serious > > indiscretion.

No the courts found that Clinton had committed criminal acts and that is why he was disbarred. > What crime did Foley commit? > Federal or State?? > http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/15697745.htm

Might was the key word in that story, so we’ll see if he is ever convicted of anything.

Response:

> > You compare Clinton to Foley, and there is no > comparison. > Both misused their authority.

Another lie.

Response:

> Both are scum that misused their authority. > If that’s the case, any musician or celebrity who has sex with a fan is > equally guilty of the same.

Fans are NOT employees. It takes two to tango, you know. Lewinsky > admitted to Pursuing Clinton.

She was still a Government employee who was his subordinate. In the Military, officers have been Court Martialed for that. Foley was the pursuer. Of children. > BIG difference. > Do you think beautiful young women go out with fat, old movie stars > because they find them attractive? : )

They find the power attractive. Remember when Henry Kissinger wrote about it when he was dating World Class beauties. > Some women will always act like whores, while complaining that they get > treated like whores. > It’s just the nature of the way things work.

And the mature, responsible authority should rise to the occasion.

Response:

Danny Gatton "Hot Licks" Video for Sale Ebay

admin — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Before he passed away Danny Gatton did a "Hot Lick" instructional video where the artist shows some of his playing techniques etc. This is out of print and quite rare. Real guitar players know who Danny Gatton was. Unfortunately alot of the world did not. Follow this link to bid on the video: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=011&item=32001271762… – Darren

Response:

> Before he passed away Danny Gatton did a "Hot Lick" instructional video > where the artist > shows some of his playing techniques etc. This is out of print and > quite rare. Real guitar players > know who Danny Gatton was. Unfortunately alot of the world did not. > Follow this link to > bid on the video:

Why would we bid on this when Gatton’s lessons are still in print on DVD for twenty bucks?

Response:

> > Before he passed away Danny Gatton did a "Hot Lick" instructional video > where the artist > shows some of his playing techniques etc. This is out of print and > quite rare. Real guitar players > know who Danny Gatton was. Unfortunately alot of the world did not. > Follow this link to > bid on the video: > Why would we bid on this when Gatton’s lessons are still in print on DVD for > twenty bucks?

It’s VHS, dude. Vintage!

Response:

> > Follow this link to > > bid on the video: > Why would we bid on this when Gatton’s lessons are still in print on DVD > for > twenty bucks? > It’s VHS, dude. Vintage!

Yeah, I saw the package, too funny. I couldn’t tell you the last time I watched a VHS tape. I got into DVD early on and haven’t looked back.

Response:

> It’s VHS, dude. Vintage!

Old does not make Vintage ! Those VHS tapes are crap. No bandwidth and terrible video quality. Sony scaled back all those variables from BETA format to make cheap sounding home video tapes and the Americans, having no real exposure to quality audio and video reproduction equipment in the 70’s and 80s bought that crap by the case loads. BETA or DIE ! Don’t even get me talking about what CD’s did to the cassette market.

Response:

> Old does not make Vintage ! > Those VHS tapes are crap. No bandwidth > and terrible video quality. Sony scaled back all > those variables from BETA format to make cheap sounding > home video tapes and the Americans, having no real > exposure to quality audio and video reproduction equipment in the 70’s > and 80s bought that crap by the case loads. > BETA or DIE !

Sony shot itself in the foot with arrogant and lame-ass marketing decisions, BETA was superior to VHS but Sony was dumb enough not to sell it properly. > Don’t even get me talking about what CD’s did to the cassette market.

What do you think about what CDs did to the cassette market?

Response:

> What do you think about what CDs did to the cassette market?

Cassettes should have been left to what they were intended for originally….dictation. Open reel forever!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It’s VHS, dude. Vintage! > Old does not make Vintage ! > Those VHS tapes are crap. No bandwidth > and terrible video quality. Sony scaled back all > those variables from BETA format to make cheap sounding > home video tapes and the Americans, having no real > exposure to quality audio and video reproduction equipment in the 70’s > and 80s bought that crap by the case loads. > BETA or DIE ! > Don’t even get me talking about what CD’s did to the cassette market.

I was just kidding. Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn’t always carry over well in text. =)

Response:

> What do you think about what CDs did to the cassette market? > Cassettes should have been left to what they were intended for > originally….dictation. Open reel forever!

And yet it’s amazing how much quality they were eventually able to wring out of the cassette, my last deck was a Sony 777 with outboard Dolby C and it was pretty damned good, priced accordingly too. Of course I had open-reel as well for the serious stuff, big old Sony it took two guys to move, ended up selling it to somebody who just liked the way it looked with a couple of 10" reels in place, made the stereo look cooler. Today there are superior alternatives to the CD available and the public has shown a massive lack of interest in them, hell most people are happy with mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about convenience, not audio quality, even most of the home theatre systems I hear sound like crap.

Response:

Of course I had open-reel > as well for the serious stuff, big old Sony it took two guys to move, ended > up selling it to somebody who just liked the way it looked with a couple of > 10" reels in place, made the stereo look cooler.

My Revox A77 and Otari MX5050 look cool as shit, but they sound even better. Hard to beat an A77 sound wise. > Today there are superior alternatives to the CD available and the public has > shown a massive lack of interest in them, hell most people are happy with > mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about > convenience, not audio quality, even most of the home theatre systems I hear > sound like crap.

I know….damn shame. Convenience over quality. Most ppl just don’t care. Like HD radio, garbage. SHould be called MP3 radio.

Response:

> I was just kidding. Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn’t always carry over > well in text. =)

The funny part i was too and look what happened !

Response:

> most people are happy with > mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about > convenience, not audio quality,

There is an entire generation >= 20 + that have likely never heard quality audio equipment other than what they hear through .99 cent ear plugs. Since there is no reference point they are quite content with mp3 or less. Ps: I was joking about the cassettes …. the real horror story is what happened to my beloved 8-tracks !

Response:

If you’d like to purchase a brand new Danny Gatton "Telemaster" DVD from HOT LICKS, you can do so by visiting http://tinyurl.com/lpqne Also available on DVD is the second HOT LICK DVD Danny recorded. It’s titled "Strictly Rhythm Guitar". The link for this title is http://tinyurl.com/kmb3l Why buy a used and worn VHS copy when you can have a new DVD with chapter search… Both discs come with study aids, included written tab… If either of the links fail to work, simply visit AMAZON and do a search for Danny Gatton on DVD. Good Luck Scoot Soli Deo Gloria p.s. For the record, Danny didn’t pass away. That presumes he died of cancer or got hit by a truck or electricuted himself or some "natural" form of death. Danny’s death was a suicide…Shotgun blast to the head took his talent away from us….

Response:

> My Revox A77 and Otari MX5050 look cool as shit, but they sound even > better. Hard to beat an A77 sound wise.

Revox was da man, them and Crown, but I had a buddy who was a Sony dealer and got terrific prices so a lot of my hi-fi gear came from them. That whole market seems to have withered, it’s all home theatre these days. I confess I listen to more music on my computer or iPod than I do on a stereo, my hi-fi gear is all packed away. > Today there are superior alternatives to the CD available and the public > has > shown a massive lack of interest in them, hell most people are happy with > mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about > convenience, not audio quality, even most of the home theatre systems I > hear > sound like crap. > I know….damn shame. Convenience over quality. Most ppl just don’t > care. Like HD radio, garbage. SHould be called MP3 radio.

Photography is going the same way, I have a bunch of good 35mm SLR gear that sits in the safe, a Canon digital is so damn convenient, and I haven’t had a darkroom set up for ages anyway. Hack, wheeze, "Hey, you kids, get off my lawn or I’ll come down off this porch and give you a whack with this cane you won’t forget in a hurry," wheeze. . . .

Response:

> There is an entire generation >= 20 + that > have likely never heard quality audio > equipment other than what they hear through > .99 cent ear plugs. Since there is no reference > point they are quite content with mp3 or less. > Ps: I was joking about the cassettes …. the real > horror story is what happened to my beloved > 8-tracks !

Pfhhht! 8-tracks, we all know you liked them merely because you cracked them open and hid joints in them. A more serious issue is what the hell am I supposed to do with these six cases of blank El-Cassettes?

Response:

> Today there are superior alternatives to the CD available and the public has > shown a massive lack of interest in them, hell most people are happy with > mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about > convenience, not audio quality, even most of the home theatre systems I hear > sound like crap.

My big problem with cassettes was not really the lack of initial sound quality, although NR systems and noise bugged me, it was that they didn’t store well. It was not a durable medium. I’ve made recordings on good quality tape that sounded good after a few passes, then after sitting for a few months the highs started fading in and out. That’s why I started archiving on open reel. Nothing phases the stuff. Well, we won’t count all the 3M 226,206 and Ampex formulations that had defective binder material and absorbed moisture out of the air. I got stuck with a large qty of 10" reels of 226 that were that way. 226 is an amazing sounding tape….when its not drinking water. I know you can bake it, and have done so. It works….temporarily. I did some recording on the VHS hi-fi format, which was nice with the right machine. Now I archive on CDR mainly. Not that I’m all that exited about it but its a good way to preserve out of print material from vinyl. Just for the record, I do have a cassette machine. A Sony 3 head deal with Dolby S. Was a 900$ machine…I bought it at a yard sale for 15$, mint cond. Never used it once yet, but I figure I’ll never find a Dragon…..if I ever need the medium again, its there.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There is an entire generation >= 20 + that > have likely never heard quality audio > equipment other than what they hear through > .99 cent ear plugs. Since there is no reference > point they are quite content with mp3 or less. > Ps: I was joking about the cassettes …. the real > horror story is what happened to my beloved > 8-tracks ! > Pfhhht! 8-tracks, we all know you liked them merely because you cracked > them open and hid joints in them. A more serious issue is what the hell > am I supposed to do with these six cases of blank El-Cassettes?

Give ‘em to me… I’ll put them with the wire recorder wire. __ Steve .

Response:

> My big problem with cassettes was not really the lack of initial sound > quality, although NR systems and noise bugged me, it was that they > didn’t store well. It was not a durable medium. I’ve made recordings on > good quality tape that sounded good after a few passes, then after > sitting for a few months the highs started fading in and out. That’s > why I started archiving on open reel. Nothing phases the stuff.

It seems like nothing is really permanent, hard drives decay, so do optical discs, you almost need to do occasional backups of your backups for something you really treasure. However, I figure by the time my CDs have stopped working I probably won’t care anymore.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My Revox A77 and Otari MX5050 look cool as shit, but they sound even > better. Hard to beat an A77 sound wise. > Revox was da man, them and Crown, but I had a buddy who was a Sony dealer > and got terrific prices so a lot of my hi-fi gear came from them. That > whole market seems to have withered, it’s all home theatre these days. I > confess I listen to more music on my computer or iPod than I do on a stereo, > my hi-fi gear is all packed away. >> Today there are superior alternatives to the CD available and the public >> has >> shown a massive lack of interest in them, hell most people are happy with >> mp3 which is about factory-cassette level IMHO. Today it’s about >> convenience, not audio quality, even most of the home theatre systems I >> hear >> sound like crap. > I know….damn shame. Convenience over quality. Most ppl just don’t > care. Like HD radio, garbage. SHould be called MP3 radio. > Photography is going the same way, I have a bunch of good 35mm SLR gear that > sits in the safe, a Canon digital is so damn convenient, and I haven’t had a > darkroom set up for ages anyway. Hack, wheeze, "Hey, you kids, get off my > lawn or I’ll come down off this porch and give you a whack with this cane > you won’t forget in a hurry," wheeze. . . .

I think 35mm and film in general are still a very valid medium, especially when it comes to black and white. The graininess of the film and the tooth of the paper are, for me, can be a big part of the appeal of a printed photograph. I’m not a photographer, but a friend of mine is and he does some amazing work with not just those variables, but also his shutter speed and whatever else it is that he does. Here is a link to his work. Be advised that there are nude models on this page so be careful if you’re at work or, if nudes offend you, don’t click the link: http://www.onemodelplace.com/member.cfm?P_ID=35250

Response:

OT: Nancy Reagan Again Takes Lead on Stem Cells

admin — Wed, 17 May 2006 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Nancy Reagan Again Takes Lead on Stem Cells By LAURIE KELLMAN (Associated Press) With Nancy Reagan’s blessing and in defiance of President Bush’s veto threat, Senate Republican leaders are making plans for a vote this summer on a bill to restore federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The House passed the measure nearly a year ago with support from 50 Republicans. Supporters contend government funding of the budding science could someday cure diseases suffered by millions of people. Opponents argue that harvesting such stem cells amounts to abortion because an embryo is destroyed in the process. President Bush in 2001 ordered sharp restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, allowing it only for stem cells created before Aug. 9 of that year. His veto threat stands, according to White House spokesman Ken Lisaius. Neither chamber of Congress has demonstrated the two-thirds support required to overcome a veto. "The president’s embryonic stem cell policy serves both science and ethics," Lisaius said. Mrs. Reagan, in a statement to Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, a sponsor of the bill, gently urges the Senate to pass it despite Bush’s veto threat, according to aides in both parties who have seen the letter and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Response:

> Mrs. Reagan, in a statement

25 fucking years too fucking late lady .. should have shown some heart in science in 1980 instead of buying million dollars of cheap China for the ShitHouse and custom dresses for Saturday Night Galas for 8 fucking years. How many AIDS related deaths has she washed off her hands …. BITCH.

Response:

> > Mrs. Reagan, in a statement > 25 fucking years too fucking late lady .. should have shown some heart > in science in 1980 instead of buying million dollars > of cheap China for the ShitHouse and custom dresses for > Saturday Night Galas for 8 fucking years. > How many AIDS related deaths has she washed off her hands …. BITCH.

Don’t hold back. Say what you REALLY think…

Response:

Smash my face

admin — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Mike Campbell Saratoga Springs, NY Employer: OFT (Office for Technology), NY State. lol

Response:

> Mike Campbell > Saratoga Springs, NY > Employer: OFT (Office for Technology), NY State. > lol

The guy already admitted to living in NJ. This ain’t it. bk

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Mike Campbell >Saratoga Springs, NY >Employer: OFT (Office for Technology), NY State. >lol > The guy already admitted > to living in NJ. This ain’t > it. > bk

Mike must be someone he’s recon-photo’d and slobber whacked off to to the point of diminishing returns. Now, it takes a bic lighter on his sack and a dab of turd on his upper lip while pecking at the keyboard with his nose (at my software filter) for him to so much as stiffen a nipple. Good thing I’m 2500 miles away or the room he types from would be littered with my pics, all crumpled and jerkwater stained. As it is, all those bogus links of me he’s photoshop cobbled together probably keep his unit raw as steak tartar. Poor bastard.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Mike Campbell >>Saratoga Springs, NY >>Employer: OFT (Office for Technology), NY State. >>lol > The guy already admitted > to living in NJ. This ain’t > it. > bk > Mike must be someone he’s recon-photo’d and slobber whacked off to > to the point of diminishing returns. Now, it takes a bic lighter > on his sack and a dab of turd on his upper lip while pecking at > the keyboard with his nose (at my software filter) for him to > so much as stiffen a nipple. Good thing I’m 2500 miles away or > the room he types from would be littered with my pics, all crumpled > and jerkwater stained. As it is, all those bogus links of me he’s > photoshop cobbled together probably keep his unit raw as steak tartar. > Poor bastard.

Mr. Dover didn’t post this. (It’s a vicious circle, I know, but to play ya gotta pay attention bk PS Eventually, all things must come to an end….

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Mike Campbell >>>Saratoga Springs, NY >>>Employer: OFT (Office for Technology), NY State. >>>lol >>The guy already admitted >>to living in NJ. This ain’t >>it. >>bk >Mike must be someone he’s recon-photo’d and slobber whacked off to >to the point of diminishing returns. Now, it takes a bic lighter >on his sack and a dab of turd on his upper lip while pecking at >the keyboard with his nose (at my software filter) for him to >so much as stiffen a nipple. Good thing I’m 2500 miles away or >the room he types from would be littered with my pics, all crumpled >and jerkwater stained. As it is, all those bogus links of me he’s >photoshop cobbled together probably keep his unit raw as steak tartar. >Poor bastard. > Mr. Dover didn’t post this. > (It’s a vicious circle, I know, > but to play ya gotta pay attention > bk > PS > Eventually, all things > must come to an end….

Normally yes, but he’s the pivot man in his own jerk circle. mvm

Response:

On 7 Apr 2006 — MULAY, while obviously having a "message posting melt-down", blathered: >all those bogus links of me he’s > photoshop cobbled together probably keep his unit raw as steak tartar

So, is THAT what your problem is? You caught mad cow disease from eating steak tartar, right??! LOL Oh & the photo links ain’t bogus if they WORK… why not try some? LOL Where you’ll probably be before June 2006: http://home.att.net/~Lerxst.77/bellevue/mulay-countdown.html You from your "Mad Max" days: http://home.att.net/~Lerxst.77/bellevue/mulay_the_gimp.jpg And one of my favorites! The age-progressed photo of you in the year 2036: http://home.att.net/~Lerxst.77/bellevue/mulay_2036.html (for anyone who missed the discussion and doesn’t understand the "2036 reference" — just Google the quote at the top of that page re- park bench, etc.)

Response:

> Mr. Dover didn’t post this. > (It’s a vicious circle, I know, > but to play ya gotta pay attention > bk > PS > Eventually, all things > must come to an end….

Boom Boom Mulay’s family discovered his activities and went for HIV tests. They fear for their lives and are considering having him committed again.

Response:

http://www.matusic.com/stalker.gif

Response:

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/images/regulars/stalker.jpg

Response:

caught ya!

Response:

> http://www.thepoke.co.uk/images/regulars/stalker.jpg

boo hoo hooo hoo, poor tippy. nobody wuvs him. :……(

Response:

OT| Majority Believe White House Should Release Abramoff Records

admin — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Majority Believe White House Should Release Abramoff Records By Richard Morin Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 27, 2006; 10:27 AM A strong bipartisan majority of the public believes President Bush should disclose all contacts between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and White House staffers despite administration claims that media requests for details about those contacts amount to a "fishing expedition," according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey found that three in four–76 percent–of all Americans said Bush should disclose contacts between aides and Abramoff while 18 percent disagreed. Two in three Republicans joined with eight in 10 Democrats and political independents in favoring disclosure, according to the poll. At a Thursday news conference, the president declined to discuss those meetings but said federal investigators are "welcome" to look into them if they suspect wrongdoing. Last week, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, pressured by reporters to explain Abramoff’s contacts with the Bush administration, said, "We’re not going to engage in a fishing expedition." Earlier this month, Abramoff pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy and fraud charges. A plea agreement said Abramoff bribed public officials, including a member of Congress. Questions about White House contact with Abramoff came as special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald continues an unrelated investigation to determine who leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative to reporters. That investigation already has produced charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby , former top aide to Vice President Cheney. Libby is accused of lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury. The twin scandals have done little to help the battered public image of the Bush White House and Congress. The new poll found that 56 percent of the public disapproved of the way that Bush is handling ethics in government, up 7 percentage points in the past five weeks. An equally large majority say the type of wrongdoing admitted by Abramoff is "widespread" in Washington. Abramoff has agreed to cooperate with federal investigators whose targets reportedly include several members of Congress as well as ranking officials within the executive branch. In Congress, both parties have scrambled to put together lobbying reform packages as the November midterm elections loom on the horizon. But Americans are divided over whether Congress is serious about passing reform legislation. About half–51 percent–of those surveyed said they doubted Congress would pass tough new lobbying restrictions in the coming year while 46 percent said it was likely. A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed nationally Jan. 23-26 for this telephone survey. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. _____

Supreme Court

admin — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps.

I answered this part already. I was going to give additional examples beyond what I already gave (where I left a placeholder, "x") but never bothered going back to providing such, and need not now. You understand about implied powers as "necessary and proper," and the distinction between these and general powers and powers not granted. > I would be interested to know how do you feel about the use of the > Fourteenth Amendment to extend individual rights to corporations?

A corporation is not an individual. I am not a lefty who will lose his or her rabid mind about this, but will say that obviously a corporation is not an individual. For a judge or court to say a corporation is an individual is activism — legal fiction passing as "law" created out of thin air (greatly outdone since the 1930s by liberal judicial activism).

Response:

> > There are obviously implicit powers, which fall under the > "necessary and proper" clause, but this is obviously not a general > grant of power to the federal government. (A real-world example of > what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a > number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to > create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied > power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks > upon the postal service — something which also is correct regarding > any federally-defined U.S. flag, incidentally.) > You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps.

I am not overstating things. I am distinguishing between what is truly an implied power, one that is not explicitly laid down in the Constitution, but which follows properly from the powers granted to the federal government. Note that x > The federal government does not have any power it may assert in order > to meet the modern welfare-state use of the word "right," incidentally > — many of us have worried that sooner or later some dishonest person > would invoke the Ninth Amendment as their magic genie for all kinds of > new federal forms of entitlements (like health care). > I would be interested to know how do you feel about the use of the > Fourteenth Amendment to extend individual rights to corporations?

Changing the subject, are we? *grin* I don’t have the time at the moment to discuss this (a demon of the Left) but I will say that Bork, who lays waste to liberal activism since the 1930s in the judiciary, is on record as saying that the courts were activist in a conservative manner in the era preceding the New Deal. (Bork also discusses conservative judicial activist professors today, a handful of grains of sand on a vast liberal beach.)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have > defacto legislative power. > That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the 1930s. In > fact, they do not have that. The two powers even are explicitly > distinguished in the Constitution along with the branches of the > federal government. > Do you really have to be "granted" power to have power? > Yes, you do, if you are the federal government. Powers not granted > to it are reserved to the states and localities ("people" in the Tenth > Amendment, which first refers to the federal government, so nobody > dishonest who claims "the people" means the federal government can be > successful). There are obviously implicit powers, which fall under the > "necessary and proper" clause, but this is obviously not a general > grant of power to the federal government. (A real-world example of > what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a > number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to > create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied > power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks > upon the postal service — something which also is correct regarding > any federally-defined U.S. flag, incidentally.)

You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps. > The federal government does not have any power it may assert in order > to meet the modern welfare-state use of the word "right," incidentally > — many of us have worried that sooner or later some dishonest person > would invoke the Ninth Amendment as their magic genie for all kinds of > new federal forms of entitlements (like health care).

I would be interested to know how do you feel about the use of the Fourteenth Amendment to extend individual rights to corporations? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

>> A real-world example of > what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a > number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to > create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied > power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks > upon the postal service . . . . > You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps.

The power to operate a postal service was granted to the Congress, not the postal service, and the implementing legislation originated by the Congress requires the government employees of the postal service to recommend to the Congress the price of a stamp. How is giving an example of them following prescribed regulations overstating things? I thought that Dave’s example of implied powers was spot on.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> A real-world example of >> what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a >> number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to >> create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied >> power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks >> upon the postal service . . . . > You are overstating things. By that logic, they should also have an > implied power to specify the costs associated with their service, but > they have to go to Congress to change the price of stamps. > The power to operate a postal service was granted to the Congress, not > the postal service, and the implementing legislation originated by the > Congress requires the government employees of the postal service to > recommend to the Congress the price of a stamp. How is giving an example > of them following prescribed regulations overstating things? > I thought that Dave’s example of implied powers was spot on.

You are right. I’m wrong.

Response:

> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have > defacto legislative power. > That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the 1930s. In > fact, they do not have that. The two powers even are explicitly > distinguished in the Constitution along with the branches of the > federal government.

If they do not "have the power", how come they do what they do and get away with it time and again?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, >> they also have defacto legislative power. > That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the > 1930s. In > fact, they do not have that. The two powers even are > explicitly distinguished in the Constitution along with the > branches of the federal government. > If they do not "have the power", how come they do what they > do and get away with it time and again?

For the same reason that Nazi Germany passed all sorts of laws. The Volk approved of the effort to make them safe. (Or as Hillery would say — Do it for the children) People are Lazy. Few would be willing to take up Arms to protect what Rights they posses. And with a few well meaning acts the People will cease to have Arms to protect themselves from the intrusion of the State,

Response:

> But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have > defacto legislative power.

That’s just what you’re used to experiencing since the 1930s. In fact, they do not have that. The two powers even are explicitly distinguished in the Constitution along with the branches of the federal government. > Do you really have to be "granted" power to have power?

Yes, you do, if you are the federal government. Powers not granted to it are reserved to the states and localities ("people" in the Tenth Amendment, which first refers to the federal government, so nobody dishonest who claims "the people" means the federal government can be successful). There are obviously implicit powers, which fall under the "necessary and proper" clause, but this is obviously not a general grant of power to the federal government. (A real-world example of what the implied powers would be is the example given by David Kopel a number of years ago: The power is granted to the federal government to create and operate a postal service; there is obviously an implied power to specify criminal penalties for interference with or attacks upon the postal service — something which also is correct regarding any federally-defined U.S. flag, incidentally.) The federal government does not have any power it may assert in order to meet the modern welfare-state use of the word "right," incidentally — many of us have worried that sooner or later some dishonest person would invoke the Ninth Amendment as their magic genie for all kinds of new federal forms of entitlements (like health care). What has been true since the 1930s, and accepted by many, is in fact the reverse of what is in the Constitution: "If it is not expressly forbidden, it may be undertaken" by the federal government. That is the true New Deal American Revolution (turning the Constitution into its opposite).

Response:

> 1. The Supreme Court is granted the judicial power, not the legislative > power.

But it seems to me that when they have the judicial power, they also have defacto legislative power. > 2. Despite what the Left has maintained: in the Constitution, if power > is not granted, it does not exist and is forbidden to be arrogated and > wrongly exercised. All powers and rights not addressed are reserved to > the states and localities, not to Washington by default (or arrogance > or with the acquiescence and frequent support of inferior members of > society).

Do you really have to be "granted" power to have power?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Dave, Great theory, and I wish it were so. > All the facts support what I have stated. And yes, I wish it were so > (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before > being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). > Great theory. Wonderful, wonderful. > But — >>If the federal government were >>limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the >>Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of >>Education?????? I defy you to find the word "education" in the >>Constitution. Education is one of the many areas left to the states by >>design. > I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you > because you answered the question yourself — about education, about > "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human > needs"), and many other examples. >I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that >would have to take care of sick people or educate children. >When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was >responsible for all their needs and wants ?

When they started paying a third of their income in federal taxes.

Response:

> Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court > is not allowed to "make laws"…a common complaint among > conservatives. > to make laws is to legislate. You have heard of the phrease > "Legislate from the Bench"?

Thanks for the correction.

Response:

> Dave, Great theory, and I wish it were so.

All the facts support what I have stated. And yes, I wish it were so (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). Great theory. Wonderful, wonderful. But — > If the federal government were > limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the > Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of > Education?????? I defy you to find the word "education" in the > Constitution. Education is one of the many areas left to the states by > design.

I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you because you answered the question yourself — about education, about "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human needs"), and many other examples. > In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, > establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then > doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal > mandates.

Right — and: * The Congress illegally degates lawmaking authority to the executive branch, which harbors regulators who draft "regulations" which have the force of law; * The Congress also forfeits legislative powers to the judiciary. > Such a ruse should offend every American. Its very existence is > evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of > this nation.

It’s the disdain, contempt, and worse that the Left and its loser base has had for the Constitution since the 1930s, "evolving" (in degenerate or retrograde fashion) into the concept of government not as a government, but as a service provider, and more than that, a substitute for the private sector and for one’s own family. Many look to government as a surrogate parent, a hyped version of old-fashioned dinosaur companies in decades gone by with highly overpaid union labor that exploited a captive US market (which is no longer captive). (The dinosaur paternalistic "legacy firms" are going bankrupt, one after the other.) Bork (in addition to writing about what the lying Left denies, that he has respect for precedent and cannot expect to see much of 1930s-onward government changes as well as legal precedent overthrown, though it would be proper) has noted more than once that 2/3 or more of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. This development of a gargantuan federal government (whom leftists decry as pygmy-like compared to central governments their beloved Europe or former Soviet Union, or their close cousins, the fascist totalitarian nations) had, and has to this day, widespread public support, particularly among the losers who are exploited by the Democratic Party, which engineered this "Third American Revolution" (after the original and the Civil War) and whose votes to this day are easily bought. Rob Peter to pay many Pauls, and you get a net gain of many votes, of the Pauls. The New Dealers for the most part were often honest, at times saying that what they were doing was not only "novel" but against the correct construction of the Constitution. Their reason for proceeding? The Constitution was in their way. They did in the 1930s what they thought was "necessary" for the USA. The only good thing that can be said was that we were luckier than much more collectivist, authoritarian Europe in the 1930s. As Morenthau said in his own book (on foreign policy and related issues, including the issue of sovereignty and power, influenced by left-wing academia even decades ago) the New Dealers did what they thought was necessary and left it to other people to argue the details of its propriety. Bork has said it, Raoul Berger has said it: What applies to the liberal trashing of the Constitution (which is gaining more and more support from better people as they grow older and wiser since the 1960s and 1970s) is easy to say — "Go and sin no more." Some things are water under the bridge, and I would accept a Constitutional convention that might even make legitimate what has been routine, widely-supported practice since the 1930s that defies the true Constitution. (I’m concerned lunatic leftists will want a long, flowing preamble to be misused by activist judges rather than insist on proper substance in the body of a new Constitution or proposed amendments to our existing Constitution, which is what the adults would prefer.) But it is proper. "Go and sin no more." DO NOT CONTINUE THAT WHICH IS WRONG, LEAST OF ALL ATTEMPT NEW ACTS WHICH ARE WRONG. (HillaryCare, and the associated conceit and crime was responsible for the 1994 election results, which the scum treated with contempt not seen since the 1980 repudiation of liberalism.)

Response:

> Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court > is not allowed to "make laws"…a common complaint among > conservatives.

to make laws is to legislate. You have heard of the phrease "Legislate from the Bench"? from the Constitution: Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Response:

1. The Supreme Court is granted the judicial power, not the legislative power. 2. Despite what the Left has maintained: in the Constitution, if power is not granted, it does not exist and is forbidden to be arrogated and wrongly exercised. All powers and rights not addressed are reserved to the states and localities, not to Washington by default (or arrogance or with the acquiescence and frequent support of inferior members of society).

Response:

"Dave Simpson" Dave, Great theory, and I wish it were so. If the federal government were limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of Education?????? I defy you to find the word "education" in the Constitution. Education is one of the many areas left to the states by design. In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal mandates. Such a ruse should offend every American. Its very existence is evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of this nation.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that >would have to take care of sick people or educate children. >When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was >responsible for all their needs and wants ? >Shouldn’t that have been and remain for the states to deal with ? > Yes. That is, unless everyone (or at least most of us) were to > believe it should be something that we should authorize the federal > government to do. (I wouldn’t be so degenerate, but many others are. > They aren’t tripping over "portability" related to modern Americans’ > frequent travel and moving from state to state, but they see Washington > as their Mommy and Daddy, Fairy Godmother, Santa Claus.) And if they > want the federal government to do this, the power has to be granted to > the federal government for this to be legitimate, in the form of a > Constitutional amendment, followed by explicit law passed by Congress > to cause this to happen. >>>Such a ruse should offend every American. Its very existence is >>>evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of >>>this nation. >Collective, selective amnesia ? > Childishness, degeneracy, and parasitism and other moral failures.

Sounds like our current administration. > Rob a few Peters to buy the votes of many Pauls, and the many Pauls > love you. And you, at least initially, own them.

Buy them with money or high paying jobs eh ? Now – Bush wouldn’t dream of doing a vile thing like that would he ? >Invading a country without declaring war should be considered wrong. >America was never meant to be in that business. > Maybe, maybe not. Certainly there was no war declared. Is modern > war and modern technology still amenable to slow proceedings and > processes? As to the legal issue, declaring war is distinct from > prosecuting (waging) it.

Can’t get around this one kiddo. It was wrong. The whole world knows it was. And if you don’t care what the world thinks of us, you ought to. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->We often, conveniently brush aside what has gone before. > Certainly since the mid-1960s and to a lesser but deeper extent (with > respect to constitutional federalism and divergence of the role of > government from true governing), yes. >I heard the president say something about how difficult it would be for >the refineries to rebuild quickly – what with all the regulations and >requirements. Sounds like he’s planning to allow them to squeak >past some of those nasty environmental protection issues. > Better Americans are fully aware of this suspicion and they say > "good," for regulation has long been excessive and regulation as well > as the NIMBY idiocy and leftist environmentalist nonsense has been > harmful as well as wrong. Some tiny reform that differs from the > status quo is long overdue.

Environmentalist nonsense? Wow. How old are you anyway ? >Are liberals the only villains at work here ? >Do conservatives make no mistakes or take no advantages ? > They have their own problems, including being corrupted by > liberalism’s legacy — look at Northeastern big-government Republicans > in Washington as the worst example for years running.

We can’t keep blaming the last shift for everything that’s going wrong. If we’re not actively working to fix it, it’s as much our problem. > The last really good thing the Left ever did and achieved was the > Civil Rights revolution. Even that, they corrupted in subsequent years > when they wrecked everything else when they chose to radicalize. > Better Americans not only have long outgrown them, but are repelled by > them.

Who are these "better Americans" ? Where are they ? >What would you do with elderly persons who can not afford decent medical >care >or prescription medication ? Tell them they should have gone to college, >had better jobs and invested wisely ? > If you are going to be overly emotional, I may reply, "Yes," and have > right fully on my side.

Right will never be on you side, or vice versa. You are an elitist. Probably play golf and drive a status auto. If you were poor your song would play very differently. Or perhaps you were born with nothing - in a shack - to a widow – and earned everything you have today by the sweat of your brow ? Do you consider all social issues to be matters of emotionality ? > It’s primarily a personal responsibility issue, and if this is seen > as "greater" and collective, then in our system it is correctly a local > and state government issue in our constitutional system of government > (which the Left hates — the Left wants Washington to be even greater > and the Constitution trashed even more).

Who constitutes this ‘left’ that you’re having so much trouble with ? How do YOU define left ? Does left mean commie to you ? Or – enemy of the people ? And how on earth do you assume you’re entitled to say what such a

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dave, Great theory, and I wish it were so. > All the facts support what I have stated. And yes, I wish it were so > (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before > being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). > Great theory. Wonderful, wonderful. > But — > If the federal government were > limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the > Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of > Education?????? I defy you to find the word "education" in the > Constitution. Education is one of the many areas left to the states by > design. > I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you > because you answered the question yourself — about education, about > "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human > needs"), and many other examples.

You realize that the Public Health Service traces its roots back to 1798? It was expanded in the late 19th century to aid in the fight against yellow fever. Clearly there are matters of public health that cross state lines and cannot be left solely to the states. If a state decides they don’t want to educate their poor, that problem remains largely inside the state. If a state decides it doesn’t want to vaccinate its poor, we all pay for that. If you think drug resistant TB is only a problem for homeless people in New York City, or AIDS patients, you are very much mistaken. If you think any state has the resources to defend us against H5N1, you are very much mistaken. Environmental protection is another case where you cannot simply leave it to the states. The tailing from strip mining in one state ruins the water in neighboring states. Acid rain is not generated in the states that suffer it most. The nuclear waste they want to store in Nevada was not generated there. > In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, > establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then > doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal > mandates. > Right — and: > * The Congress illegally degates lawmaking authority to the executive > branch, which harbors regulators who draft "regulations" which have the > force of law;

That is actually a complaint shared by left and right. The left would even point out that Congress has illegally abrogated its unique Constitutional authority to declare war both in Iraq and Viet Nam. We are still paying for the consequences of Viet Nam. How long will we pay for Iraq? Similar complaints are made from the left regarding the FCC. What does "freedom of the press" mean if a half dozen conglomerates own almost all of it? I think one big difference between left and right in this country is the right is happy to have imperial presidents while the left wants a powerful Congress. I think most Americans are happy with power shared between the Executive and the Legislature with the Judiciary serving as referee. > * The Congress also forfeits legislative powers to the judiciary.

Here I tend to think the consequences less dire than when they forfeit power to the Executive. Congress can undo the judiciary if it has the will of the people. Undoing a war without the consent of the Executive is impossible. [diatribe and attributions re New Deal snipped] I think most everyone agrees the size of government is too large. Katrina has shown that a big DHS means very little in terms of real security. Unfortunately, we have developed a lobbyist class beyond anything we ever had before. There are more lobbyists for pharmaceuticals than members of Congress. And that is just one special interest. The revolving door between government and K street is a real problem. Here’s just one example: Phillip Cooney. He went from being a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute in 2001 to chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. This summer he quit that job and went to work for ExxonMobil. There are thousands of examples like that from both parties. Unfortunately, the Constitution was never designed to handle that problem. They were worried about corruption and foreign influence, but the legal fiction of a corporation having individual rights did not exist since the 14th amendment did not exist to be tampered with. Once you extend the Bill of Rights to give corporations all the rights of individuals, Buckley v. Valeo was a logical extension. Some days I’m surprised corporations haven’t sought the right to vote. With the rise of corporate consolidation, individuals simply can’t expect states alone to provide effective restraints. We see it from West Virginia to Michigan, from California to Tennessee. It doesn’t even have to be manufacturing. If California’s utilities couldn’t keep Enron from raping them, how could anyone expect a state to protect the interests of honest Enron employees? Looking to the federal government for help works in theory, except for the revolving door on K street. How much help can you expect when the President of Enron has a personal working relationship with President of the United States that enables him to recommend the political appointees who oversee his business interests? Note… I didn’t specify Republican or Democrat…. Lay was tight with both Clinton and Bush. The problem isn’t left or right. The problem today is crony capitalism. Think of it as a Corporatist State without any political agenda. Mussolini without a vision. People point to the Carlyle Group as a prime example of this, but they are mistaken when they paint it as some sort of Bush family business. There are plenty of people who worked for the Clinton administration in there as well. This didn’t happen overnight. Kissinger has been doing it for decades. The monstrosity of it was briefly revealed… but oddly ignored by corporate media … when Kissinger declined the post on the 9/11 Commission. I mean c’mon… how can you be an American citizen and have "potential conflicts of interest" between your clients and the people who died at the World Trade Center? It wasn’t always like this, even after the perversion of the 14th amendment’s intent. When John Rockefeller tried to pull that crap during WWII, Congress forced him to give up the trade secrets he held for the German cartel, I.G. Farben. When Prescott Bush acted as the bagman for Thyssen and Nazi corporate interests, the government came in and closed down his business. Some people point to the 138 Reagan-era appointees who resigned over ethical conflicts or under criminal indictments and say that is where things went bad. I don’t think they invented corruption, but it certainly reached a new level. The numbers are sketchier for the Clinton-era because so many of the indictments were aimed at individuals and associates, not necessarily political appointees. The current administration is no better when it comes to cronyism. They’re just better at avoiding prosecution. Unfortunately, I think balance will not be restored until we elect presidents like FDR who will betray their class interests. They will then have to appoint people like Joe Kennedy who will betray their friends.

Response:

> I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that > would have to take care of sick people or educate children. > When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was > responsible for all their needs and wants ? > Shouldn’t that have been and remain for the states to deal with ?

Yes. That is, unless everyone (or at least most of us) were to believe it should be something that we should authorize the federal government to do. (I wouldn’t be so degenerate, but many others are. They aren’t tripping over "portability" related to modern Americans’ frequent travel and moving from state to state, but they see Washington as their Mommy and Daddy, Fairy Godmother, Santa Claus.) And if they want the federal government to do this, the power has to be granted to the federal government for this to be legitimate, in the form of a Constitutional amendment, followed by explicit law passed by Congress to cause this to happen. >> Such a ruse should offend every American. Its very existence is >>evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of >>this nation. > Collective, selective amnesia ?

Childishness, degeneracy, and parasitism and other moral failures. Rob a few Peters to buy the votes of many Pauls, and the many Pauls love you. And you, at least initially, own them. > Invading a country without declaring war should be considered wrong. > America was never meant to be in that business.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly there was no war declared. Is modern war and modern technology still amenable to slow proceedings and processes? As to the legal issue, declaring war is distinct from prosecuting (waging) it. > We often, conveniently brush aside what has gone before.

Certainly since the mid-1960s and to a lesser but deeper extent (with respect to constitutional federalism and divergence of the role of government from true governing), yes. > I heard the president say something about how difficult it would be for > the refineries to rebuild quickly – what with all the regulations and > requirements. Sounds like he’s planning to allow them to squeak > past some of those nasty environmental protection issues.

Better Americans are fully aware of this suspicion and they say "good," for regulation has long been excessive and regulation as well as the NIMBY idiocy and leftist environmentalist nonsense has been harmful as well as wrong. Some tiny reform that differs from the status quo is long overdue. > Are liberals the only villains at work here ? > Do conservatives make no mistakes or take no advantages ?

They have their own problems, including being corrupted by liberalism’s legacy — look at Northeastern big-government Republicans in Washington as the worst example for years running. The last really good thing the Left ever did and achieved was the Civil Rights revolution. Even that, they corrupted in subsequent years when they wrecked everything else when they chose to radicalize. Better Americans not only have long outgrown them, but are repelled by them. > What would you do with elderly persons who can not afford decent medical > care > or prescription medication ? Tell them they should have gone to college, > had better jobs and invested wisely ?

If you are going to be overly emotional, I may reply, "Yes," and have right fully on my side. It’s primarily a personal responsibility issue, and if this is seen as "greater" and collective, then in our system it is correctly a local and state government issue in our constitutional system of government (which the Left hates — the Left wants Washington to be even greater and the Constitution trashed even more).

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Dave, Great theory, and I wish it were so. > All the facts support what I have stated. And yes, I wish it were so > (i.e., our constitutional system actually tried in modern times before > being laughed off the way losers scoff at the idea). > Great theory. Wonderful, wonderful. > But — >If the federal government were >limited as intended by the framers to only those powers enumerated in the >Constitution, please explain to me how there can be a Department of >Education?????? I defy you to find the word "education" in the >Constitution. Education is one of the many areas left to the states by >design. > I was going to write and I still will, but here I will defer to you > because you answered the question yourself — about education, about > "health and human services" (in contemporary lefty-speak, "human > needs"), and many other examples.

I can’t imagine that the founding fathers ever planned on a government that would have to take care of sick people or educate children. When did Americans come to assume that the federal government was responsible for all their needs and wants ? Shouldn’t that have been and remain for the states to deal with ? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> In complete disregard for the Constitution comes the Congress, >establishes a department, collects revenue from the several states, and then >doles is out wholly contingent on "voluntary" compliance with federal >mandates. > Right — and: > * The Congress illegally degates lawmaking authority to the executive > branch, which harbors regulators who draft "regulations" which have the > force of law; > * The Congress also forfeits legislative powers to the judiciary. > Such a ruse should offend every American. Its very existence is >evidence of the disdain the Congress has for the very founding document of >this nation.

Collective, selective amnesia ? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It’s the disdain, contempt, and worse that the Left and its loser > base has had for the Constitution since the 1930s, "evolving" (in > degenerate or retrograde fashion) into the concept of government not as > a government, but as a service provider, and more than that, a > substitute for the private sector and for one’s own family. Many look > to government as a surrogate parent, a hyped version of old-fashioned > dinosaur companies in decades gone by with highly overpaid union labor > that exploited a captive US market (which is no longer captive). (The > dinosaur paternalistic "legacy firms" are going bankrupt, one after the > other.) > Bork (in addition to writing about what the lying Left denies, that > he has respect for precedent and cannot expect to see much of > 1930s-onward government changes as well as legal precedent overthrown, > though it would be proper) has noted more than once that 2/3 or more of > what the federal government does is unconstitutional.

Invading a country without declaring war should be considered wrong. America was never meant to be in that business. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This development of a gargantuan federal government (whom leftists > decry as pygmy-like compared to central governments their beloved > Europe or former Soviet Union, or their close cousins, the fascist > totalitarian nations) had, and has to this day, widespread public > support, particularly among the losers who are exploited by the > Democratic Party, which engineered this "Third American Revolution" > (after the original and the Civil War) and whose votes to this day are > easily bought. Rob Peter to pay many Pauls, and you get a net gain of > many votes, of the Pauls. > The New Dealers for the most part were often honest, at times saying > that what they were doing was not only "novel" but against the correct > construction of the Constitution. Their reason for proceeding? The > Constitution was in their way. They did in the 1930s what they thought > was "necessary" for the USA. The only good thing that can be said was > that we were luckier than much more collectivist, authoritarian Europe > in the 1930s.

We often, conveniently brush aside what has gone before. I heard the president say something about how difficult it would be for the refineries to rebuild quickly – what with all the regulations and requirements. Sounds like he’s planning to allow them to squeak past some of those nasty environmental protection issues. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> As Morenthau said in his own book (on foreign policy and related > issues, including the issue of sovereignty and power, influenced by > left-wing academia even decades ago) the New Dealers did what they > thought was necessary and left it to other people to argue the details > of its propriety. > Bork has said it, Raoul Berger has said it: What applies to the > liberal trashing of the Constitution (which is gaining more and more > support from better people as they grow older and wiser since the 1960s > and 1970s) is easy to say — "Go and sin no more." Some things are > water under the bridge, and I would accept a Constitutional convention > that might even make legitimate what has been routine, widely-supported > practice since the 1930s that defies the true Constitution. (I’m > concerned lunatic leftists will want a long, flowing preamble to be > misused by activist judges rather than insist on proper substance in > the body of a new Constitution or proposed amendments to our existing > Constitution, which is what the adults would prefer.) But it is > proper. "Go and sin no more." DO NOT CONTINUE THAT WHICH IS WRONG, > LEAST OF ALL ATTEMPT NEW ACTS WHICH ARE WRONG. (HillaryCare, and the > associated conceit and crime was responsible for the 1994 election > results, which the scum treated with contempt not seen since the 1980 > repudiation of liberalism.)

Are liberals the only villains at work here ? Do conservatives make no mistakes or take no advantages ? What would you do with elderly persons who can not afford decent medical care or prescription medication ? Tell them they should have gone to college, had better jobs and invested wisely ?

Response:

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is not allowed to "make laws"…a common complaint among conservatives.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >| >| >On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >| >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >| >| In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all >proved >| thir merit in action. Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >| university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. >| >| -Connie >I write about that which I know. Colin Powell entered the Army as a college >graduate ROTC student. No affirmative action on the part of the Army. Then >he proved himself in rank after rank (or he would have been "out" – it was >the "up or out" army.) He was a White House Fellow, as a major (which made >him more "politicaly astute" than most other majors at the time. He >successfully commanded an infantry battalion (just getting selected to >command is validation) which put him in the running for higher levels of >responsibility. Get this. If at any point he was less than outstanding he >would not have been promoted to the next higher grade. And I have served >under black officers and I have commanded black officers, and at some point >it does not make any difference where you came from it only makes a >difference in what you can do. I met Lieutenant General Colin Powell at the >National War College and it was obvious that he had a firm grasp of his >duties (and it was also obvious that he would make his next star – and it >was equally obvious that he should.)

An incompetent officers stands out like a sore thumb in the military. Peers, subordinates and superiors can see them and the quota babies seldom get more then one grade above their level of incompetence. We had them. But, I knew very few who made E-6 or O4! I also saw Powell several times on the Joint Staff and he was certainly star material. Everyone carries some degree of unease about people who are different from them. The thing with liberals is they claim one thing to get political points and are faster then any Klansman to lash out at an ‘uppity nigger’. Those guys are just not grateful enough and don’t know their place in the liberal world. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I know little of Condaleeza Rice other than she is alleged to be one of the >youngest college graduates in history. Also the youngest provost of >Stanford University. Never met her myself.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >>benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all proved >thir merit in action. >Merit? Thomas? >Bwaaahaaaahaaaaah! >Please, read the book "Disgusted" mentioned earlier: "The Selling of >Clarence Thomas". I had the same "disgusted" reaction. >He doesn’t *have* any merit, aside from being a handy tool for >Our Masters. Ever read any of his scanty opinions? Laughable! >He mostly joins in Scalia’s antediluvian preachments. > Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. >Maybe Rice could have; the New Yorker profile depicted her >as smart and bookish (and, subtext, good at finding the right >mentors!) >Probably Powell could have, being pretty smart. >But Thomas? He was an affirmative action baby right out of the gate. >His pious mouthings at the confirmation hearings about being a po’ boy >what made good were puke city. None of those wusses on the Judiciary >dared call his bluff. Talk about kid gloves! >Gimme a break!

Give you a break asshole? You are running on a dozen identities to pump up the volume including Grammar, Heroic, Horace, Pax and that is just a start. Why not just use your own name and stand on it jerkoff?

Response:

>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas.

In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all proved thir merit in action. Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. -Connie

Response:

Thomas??? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. >-Connie

Response:

| | >On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have | >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. | | In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all proved | thir merit in action. Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major | university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. | | -Connie I write about that which I know. Colin Powell entered the Army as a college graduate ROTC student. No affirmative action on the part of the Army. Then he proved himself in rank after rank (or he would have been "out" – it was the "up or out" army.) He was a White House Fellow, as a major (which made him more "politicaly astute" than most other majors at the time. He successfully commanded an infantry battalion (just getting selected to command is validation) which put him in the running for higher levels of responsibility. Get this. If at any point he was less than outstanding he would not have been promoted to the next higher grade. And I have served under black officers and I have commanded black officers, and at some point it does not make any difference where you came from it only makes a difference in what you can do. I met Lieutenant General Colin Powell at the National War College and it was obvious that he had a firm grasp of his duties (and it was also obvious that he would make his next star – and it was equally obvious that he should.) I know little of Condaleeza Rice other than she is alleged to be one of the youngest college graduates in history. Also the youngest provost of Stanford University. Never met her myself.

Response:

>>On the other hand, Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice both have >benefitted from affirmative action, as has Justice Thomas. >In what way have they benefitted from affirmative action? They have all proved >thir merit in action. Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action? I don’t think so. >-Connie

Had Powell profitted, he would have certainly gone to a better university! Rice is an intellectual giant and was years ahead of her peers. I do like to see people who claim to be ‘color-blind’ try to deal with people of color who don’t act right!

Response:

Merit? Thomas? Bwaaahaaaahaaaaah! Please, read the book "Disgusted" mentioned earlier: "The Selling of Clarence Thomas". I had the same "disgusted" reaction. He doesn’t *have* any merit, aside from being a handy tool for Our Masters. Ever read any of his scanty opinions? Laughable! He mostly joins in Scalia’s antediluvian preachments. Do you mean they couldn’t have entered a major >university without affirmative action? I don’t think so.

Maybe Rice could have; the New Yorker profile depicted her as smart and bookish (and, subtext, good at finding the right mentors!) Probably Powell could have, being pretty smart. But Thomas? He was an affirmative action baby right out of the gate. His pious mouthings at the confirmation hearings about being a po’ boy what made good were puke city. None of those wusses on the Judiciary dared call his bluff. Talk about kid gloves! Gimme a break! — GeorgeOrwell

Response:

Global Shame: Sex Slavery In The Liberal Age

admin — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

World – OneWorld.net Protectors Turn Child Predators in Pakistan Thu Mar 4, 5:31 AM ET 2004 Ahmad Naeem Khan, OneWorld South Asia LAHORE, Mar 4 (OneWorld) – People in Pakistan are protesting against the rise in crimes against children, particularly by policemen, who escape punishment due to official collusion. According to data released by the nongovernmental organization (NGO), Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid (LHRLA), last year 623 children were murdered, 383 raped and 277 sodomized as against 443 murders, 149 rapes and 219 cases of sodomy in 2001. Among the most sensational cases in the recent past was last month’s rape and murder of two minor girls by policemen in the southern port town of Karachi. The decomposed bodies of five-year-old Hajra and Sassi, seven, were found near a Karachi police station on February 23. Reports say when the two children went missing on February 20, the police initially declined to register a case. Hajra’s father Shabbir Ahmed says he went to the police station many times to lodge a complaint, but the police shooed him away. "We were ignored because we are poor," he protests. The Sindh governor then intervened and issued orders for the arrest of the head of the police station and three other policemen. The governor’s move miraculously produced results. A case of murder was registered against four policemen. Deputy inspector general of police Mohammad Akbar says seven police officials are being questioned in the double murder. "They are not arrested so far. We have detained them and are grilling them," he points out. But the odds are heavily stacked against an early breakthrough. The chief of LHRLA, Zia Ahmed Awan, says in most cases where policemen are culpable, their colleagues sabotage investigations, leaving room for the accused to walk. Awan blames the problem on the fact that criminal elements have joined the police force. Scores of policemen have criminal cases against them. In an expression of public anger, last week thousands of protestors hit the streets of Karachi, stoning police stations to vent their anger. The Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) staged a big demonstration against the killing of the girls in Karachi Wednesday. Sassi’s father, laborer Sher Gul, is devastated. "If policemen, who are supposed to provide security to people, commit such heinous crimes, where should people look for security," he asks. In Islamabad, people demanded the resignation of Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hyat. Sindhi party, the Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM), mourned the deaths on Wednesday. JSQM chief Bashir Qureshi announced a three-day mourning in the province. But the mourning after, Pakistan remains an unsafe place for children. Earlier this month, 11-year-old Saira was raped and murdered in Karachi. There was no breakthrough in the case, until the media made a big issue of the shoddy investigation. This compelled the Inspector General to ask his men to arrest the killers within 48 hours. Finally, an arrested suspect allegedly confessed to the crime. Again, in 2003, a young boy set himself afire after being sodomized by policemen. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), the case received considerable publicity, but no decisive action was taken against the criminals. According to LHRLA, in 2003 over 1,000 cases of physical and 826 cases of sexual abuse were reported in the media against children. There were 66 extremely brutal cases of rape or sodomy in which the girl or boy was also killed subsequently. The data shows 1,087 child abuse cases from the eastern Punjab province, 588 cases in Sindh province, 101 in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) and 50 cases in the western Balochistan province. A member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML-QA) from Sindh, Nisar A. Memon, believes that to rebuild people’s confidence, exemplary punishment should be meted out to those who raped and murdered Sassi and Hajra, especially because the police committed the crime. Many political and religious parties in Pakistan feel the provincial government "has lost control over the police force." Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) accuses the government of safeguarding killers. "It’s a pity that our rulers are protecting such criminals," says the party’s Sindh president Imdad Chandio. But Imtiaz Shaikh, a leader of the ruling PML-QA, says the government will take stern punitive measures against the culprits. Shaikh, also a provincial minister, assures that the government will rein in the policemen who are misusing powers. The coordinator of the NGO, War Against Rape, Amina Mehwish elaborates that the survivors, the term she uses for the victims, develop psychological disorders when they fail to get support from society, parents and relatives. Based on experience in handling rape cases, Mehwish says the survivors recover after getting moral support from relatives and society. She stresses the need for imparting training to medico-legal officers, as they do not show sympathy with the survivors in 99 percent of rape cases. Often these officers believe the survivor must have had consent in the act. Stresses social activist Waqas Mehmood Khan, "Violence against children is a very sensitive issue and it’s the prime responsibility of the government and society to adopt measures for the protection of future generations."

Response:

>Will the world hear the silent cry of sex slaves and end this human >tragedy?

Well, Australia has extended its child protection laws so they now apply to Australian citizens even when they are on holiday overseas. That means Australians who used to be able take advantage of children in countries were children were not adequately protected, now risk prosecution after returning to Australia. Regards, Peter

Response:

Qualities of Muslims that will replace the American empire 1. Uncivilized – They don’t know and don’t care of a society bounded by laws, rules and proper manners. 2. Ignorant – They don’t respect the value of higher education. All they know is praise Allah, kill and be with 72 virgins. 3. Murderer – Just watch the daily news who are doing the killings, bombings, attacks, and executions. Rocket attacks on civilians, suicide bombings and a father slashing his nine year-old daughters throat. 4. Filthy – They seldom take a bath. Lice breeds on their mustaches and beards. They don’t use the restrooms properly. They are carriers of the deadly AIDS virus (HIV), Polio, Syphilis and Tuberculosis. 5. Bandaged Head – They always wear it anywhere, even in the wrong place and in the wrong time. 6. Illiterate – They lack communication skills. They show little or no knowledge on diversified subjects. (arts, music, history, culture and the sciences. 7. Backward thinker – Their ideas are 7th century technology and no longer applicable in this modern age 8. Brandishing a Koran he/she don’t read – They treasure the Koran. But they don’t read or understand the writings. 9. Brandishing an AK/RPG in a peaceful community – Just watch these funny creatures firing their weapons in the air while terrified men, women and children watch. 10.Daydreamer and Wishful thinker - they are overwhelmed by the idea that " Islam will replace a collapsing American Empire". like one muslim troll in this N.G posts repeatedly. Ridiculous but how does he propose to do it? 11. Lazy and inefficient – In the U.S.,high percentage of them are fired out from jobs. Most employers complained they always disappear from their workstations of unknown reasons during regular work hours, two to four times a day, daily, leaving them only 7 hours of work, but they collect 8 hour wages. 12. Full of hatred and envy – They talk of violence in their workplace.in the U.S.In one company, they complained to a fellow,employee who got a promotion and smashed a defective vending machine that refuse to give change. They throw nasty remarks to an old woman, a fellow who confronted them of their violent attitude.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Global Shame: Sex Slavery In The Liberal Age > Economic impulses and commercial forces drive globalization, but its > impact goes far beyond the economy to affect all facets of social and > political life. Powerful commercial interests have given rise to a > commercial and commercializing global culture that, it is quite > apparent, will not be satisfied until it reaches into the deepest > recess of social life. Most recently the commercial global culture has > generated a new form of slavery, more brutal and degrading than any > form of slavery known thus far. > Millions of vulnerable women and unsuspecting children throughout the > world, some as young as ten years old, are trapped into a vicious and > ugly world of exploitation, disease, and abuse. These children are > sold, traded, prostituted, and trafficked under the watching eyes of a > world community that has decided to ignore their plight. > Most of these sex slaves are kept by their masters until their > commercial value deteriorates as a result of their deteriorating health > conditions with the advancement of the many sexual diseases they are > exposed to, including HIV and AIDS. Sadly, the end of their conditions > of slavery does not signal the end of their miseries, but the beginning > of a life of poverty, illness, and shame. > Scope Of The Problem > Although most governments, particularly governments of countries where > sex slaves originate, do not provide information and statistics on > trafficking in women, and seem to be oblivious to the plight of these > vulnerable children, studies conducted by NGOs and research > institutions reveal a human tragedy of great proportions. The figures > given by NGOs and individual researchers are often rough estimations, > as accurate data are scarce. The difficulty of coming up with hard > figures stems from two interrelated factors: (1) trafficking in women > is conducted by organized criminals who use deception and intimidation > to maintain a wall of silence and secrecy around their international > trade, and (2) the criminal syndicates involved in this ugly trade are > often backed by corrupt politicians and law enforcement agents who use > all means at their disposal to provide cover up for crimes that provide > lucrative income. > There is hardly any region in the world that escapes the activities of > sex slavery syndicates. Trafficking in women is reported in Africa, > Europe, North America, South Asia, and East and Southeast Asia. > The International Organization for Migration (IOM), a European Union > agency, estimates that some 500,000 women were trafficked to Europe in > 1995. A large number of the women and girls involved came from the > impoverished East European countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. > Many of the women involved in the sex trade are underage girls who have > been duped into their state of slavery by an elaborate network of > organized criminals. The nonprofit organization End Child Prostitution, > Child Pornography, and the Traffic in Children for Sexual Purposes > (ECPAT) provided the following figures on the number of children > involved in the sex industry in 1994: Brazil 500,000, India 400,000, > Thailand 200,000-850,000, Taiwan 100,000, Nepal 200,000, North America > 100,000-300,000. The Political Economy Center at Chulalungkhorn > University of Thailand estimated that the world sex industry generated > in 1993-95 around $20-23 billion. (ECPAT Development Manual, Melbourne, > Australia, 1994, pp. 21-37.) > Intimidation And DeceptionThe sex slaves who are bought and sold in red > light districts around the globe come from impoverished communities. A > significant number of them are underage girls. Shrewd slave traffickers > who offer their parents tempting sums of money dupe these young and > unassuming girls into sex slavery. The parents are deceived into > believing that the money is given in exchange for employment or > marriage. > The trafficking of Nepalese girls into India is a case in point. Every > year 5,000 to 7,000 Nepalese girls are trafficked into red light > districts in Indian cities. The girls are sold by poor Nepalese > families, tricked into fraudulent marriages, or promised employment in > towns only to find themselves in Indian brothels. Their kidnapers use > brutal means of starvation, intimidation, and outright torture to > initiate the defenseless children into prostitution. > The wicked methods of slave traffickers are well documented in numerous > cases. One such case is that of Mira, a 13-year-old from Nepal. Mira > was offered a job as a domestic worker in Bombay, India’s largest > commercial center, but ended up in the one of the city’s numerous > brothels. When she refused to submit to the sexual demands of her new > masters, she was sent to a windowless room, stripped naked, and was > left for three days without food or drink. On the fourth day, she was > gang raped. In the end, Mira’s will was broken and she joined Bombay’s > sex slaves. (Robert I Friedman, India’s Shame: Sexual Slavery and > Political Corruption are Leading an AIDS Catastrophe, The Nation, 8 > April 1996). > Child-Sex Tourism > In the nineties, a new tourism industry, thriving on child exploitation > and abuse, emerged in South and Southeast Asia, concentrating mainly in > India, Thailand, and the Philippines. Sex tourists come mainly from > high-income countries, particularly North America, Europe, and Japan. > Of 160 foreign pedophiles arrested on child sex-abuse charges in > Southeast Asia between 1992 and 1994, 25% were American, 18% German, > 14% Australian, and 12% English. (End Child Prostitution in Asian > Tourism, Lambiet, 17 May 1998) > In 1990 an orphanage owner in Goa, India, was arrested for allegedly > supplying children to British, French, German, Swiss, and Scandinavian > sex tourists. He was freed on bail. Seven years later, the case was > still not filed with the court. (Rahul Bedi, Bid to Protect Children as > Sex Tourism Spreads, London’s Daily Telegraph, 1997). > Cultural Hedonism > Sexual slavery and sex tourism described above are fueled by an > increasingly hedonistic culture glorifying pleasure, promoting > promiscuous attitudes and behavior, and presenting pornography as > another form of entertainment. Children at a young age are bombarded > with sexual images and gestures. This clumsy promiscuous attitude has > invaded all corners of the world. Pornographic material is becoming > more accessible by the day to wider segments of humanity. > Porno-producing companies use the Internet very effectively to > publicize and promote even the most extreme forms of sexuality. Ron > O’Grady, chairman of ECPAT, estimated that in 1998 around 40,000 > pornographic photographs of children, many from Southeast Asian > countries, were displayed on the Internet. The demand for children in > the sex trade is great. Every year, people from all over the world > travel to Asia to have sex with children, taking photographs and > videos, he noted. (Poona Antaseeda, Expert urges global law to end > child pornography on the Internet, Bangkok Post, June 3, 1998). > The attitude of youngsters influenced by the rising hedonistic culture > is a cause of concern. Friedman reported that 70% of students surveyed > at a wealthy high school in India were interested in a career in > organized crimes, citing good money and good fun as their reasons for > making the choice. (Robert Friedman, India’s Shame, The Nation, April > 8, 1996.) > In Japan, pornography is so pervasive, even schoolchildren have access > to comic books with pornographic contents. Sex magazines can be bought > at vending machines. In 1998, Japan was the world’s biggest producer of > child pornography, and the Japanese parliament refused to pass a law > banning the production of child pornography, citing business reasons. > (Poona Antaseeda, Expert urges global law to end child pornography on > the Internet, Bangkok Post, June 3, 1998). > Stopping The Abuse > Sexual slavery is a serious crime of global proportion, and should be > viewed as such. To combat it, we must view it not simply as a legal > problem, but as a moral issue as well. As long as pornography, > promiscuity, and violence are glorified in movies produced by > entertainment centers, most notably Hollywood and Bombay, the problem > is likely to persist and intensify. The problem must be confronted on > the legal, political, and cultural levels. This requires international > cooperation by both government agencies and nongovernmental > organizations. > Will the world hear the silent cry of sex slaves and end this human > tragedy? Will the world reject the excesses of the entertainment > industry riddled with sexual abuse and violence? Will the world reject > the excesses of economic disparity and economic greed? The freedom and > dignity of millions of children now and in the future hinge on how the > above questions are answered > Center for Balanced Development > Url: http://www.cbdnet.org > http://www.islam-online.net/iol-english/dowalia/society-17-july-2000/…

If this doesn’t say it all..nothing does Islam will replace collapsing Amerikan empire Warning there are anti-Islam forgers and trolls amongst us, proceed with caution

Response:

Global Shame: Sex Slavery In The Liberal Age Economic impulses and commercial forces drive globalization, but its impact goes far beyond the economy to affect all facets of social and political life. Powerful commercial interests have given rise to a commercial and commercializing global culture that, it is quite apparent, will not be satisfied until it reaches into the deepest recess of social life. Most recently the commercial global culture has generated a new form of slavery, more brutal and degrading than any form of slavery known thus far. Millions of vulnerable women and unsuspecting children throughout the world, some as young as ten years old, are trapped into a vicious and ugly world of exploitation, disease, and abuse. These children are sold, traded, prostituted, and trafficked under the watching eyes of a world community that has decided to ignore their plight. Most of these sex slaves are kept by their masters until their commercial value deteriorates as a result of their deteriorating health conditions with the advancement of the many sexual diseases they are exposed to, including HIV and AIDS. Sadly, the end of their conditions of slavery does not signal the end of their miseries, but the beginning of a life of poverty, illness, and shame. Scope Of The Problem Although most governments, particularly governments of countries where sex slaves originate, do not provide information and statistics on trafficking in women, and seem to be oblivious to the plight of these vulnerable children, studies conducted by NGOs and research institutions reveal a human tragedy of great proportions. The figures given by NGOs and individual researchers are often rough estimations, as accurate data are scarce. The difficulty of coming up with hard figures stems from two interrelated factors: (1) trafficking in women is conducted by organized criminals who use deception and intimidation to maintain a wall of silence and secrecy around their international trade, and (2) the criminal syndicates involved in this ugly trade are often backed by corrupt politicians and law enforcement agents who use all means at their disposal to provide cover up for crimes that provide lucrative income. There is hardly any region in the world that escapes the activities of sex slavery syndicates. Trafficking in women is reported in Africa, Europe, North America, South Asia, and East and Southeast Asia. The International Organization for Migration (IOM), a European Union agency, estimates that some 500,000 women were trafficked to Europe in 1995. A large number of the women and girls involved came from the impoverished East European countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Many of the women involved in the sex trade are underage girls who have been duped into their state of slavery by an elaborate network of organized criminals. The nonprofit organization End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography, and the Traffic in Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT) provided the following figures on the number of children involved in the sex industry in 1994: Brazil 500,000, India 400,000, Thailand 200,000-850,000, Taiwan 100,000, Nepal 200,000, North America 100,000-300,000. The Political Economy Center at Chulalungkhorn University of Thailand estimated that the world sex industry generated in 1993-95 around $20-23 billion. (ECPAT Development Manual, Melbourne, Australia, 1994, pp. 21-37.) Intimidation And DeceptionThe sex slaves who are bought and sold in red light districts around the globe come from impoverished communities. A significant number of them are underage girls. Shrewd slave traffickers who offer their parents tempting sums of money dupe these young and unassuming girls into sex slavery. The parents are deceived into believing that the money is given in exchange for employment or marriage. The trafficking of Nepalese girls into India is a case in point. Every year 5,000 to 7,000 Nepalese girls are trafficked into red light districts in Indian cities. The girls are sold by poor Nepalese families, tricked into fraudulent marriages, or promised employment in towns only to find themselves in Indian brothels. Their kidnapers use brutal means of starvation, intimidation, and outright torture to initiate the defenseless children into prostitution. The wicked methods of slave traffickers are well documented in numerous cases. One such case is that of Mira, a 13-year-old from Nepal. Mira was offered a job as a domestic worker in Bombay, India’s largest commercial center, but ended up in the one of the city’s numerous brothels. When she refused to submit to the sexual demands of her new masters, she was sent to a windowless room, stripped naked, and was left for three days without food or drink. On the fourth day, she was gang raped. In the end, Mira’s will was broken and she joined Bombay’s sex slaves. (Robert I Friedman, India’s Shame: Sexual Slavery and Political Corruption are Leading an AIDS Catastrophe, The Nation, 8 April 1996). Child-Sex Tourism In the nineties, a new tourism industry, thriving on child exploitation and abuse, emerged in South and Southeast Asia, concentrating mainly in India, Thailand, and the Philippines. Sex tourists come mainly from high-income countries, particularly North America, Europe, and Japan. Of 160 foreign pedophiles arrested on child sex-abuse charges in Southeast Asia between 1992 and 1994, 25% were American, 18% German, 14% Australian, and 12% English. (End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism, Lambiet, 17 May 1998) In 1990 an orphanage owner in Goa, India, was arrested for allegedly supplying children to British, French, German, Swiss, and Scandinavian sex tourists. He was freed on bail. Seven years later, the case was still not filed with the court. (Rahul Bedi, Bid to Protect Children as Sex Tourism Spreads, London’s Daily Telegraph, 1997). Cultural Hedonism Sexual slavery and sex tourism described above are fueled by an increasingly hedonistic culture glorifying pleasure, promoting promiscuous attitudes and behavior, and presenting pornography as another form of entertainment. Children at a young age are bombarded with sexual images and gestures. This clumsy promiscuous attitude has invaded all corners of the world. Pornographic material is becoming more accessible by the day to wider segments of humanity. Porno-producing companies use the Internet very effectively to publicize and promote even the most extreme forms of sexuality. Ron O’Grady, chairman of ECPAT, estimated that in 1998 around 40,000 pornographic photographs of children, many from Southeast Asian countries, were displayed on the Internet. The demand for children in the sex trade is great. Every year, people from all over the world travel to Asia to have sex with children, taking photographs and videos, he noted. (Poona Antaseeda, Expert urges global law to end child pornography on the Internet, Bangkok Post, June 3, 1998). The attitude of youngsters influenced by the rising hedonistic culture is a cause of concern. Friedman reported that 70% of students surveyed at a wealthy high school in India were interested in a career in organized crimes, citing good money and good fun as their reasons for making the choice. (Robert Friedman, India’s Shame, The Nation, April 8, 1996.) In Japan, pornography is so pervasive, even schoolchildren have access to comic books with pornographic contents. Sex magazines can be bought at vending machines. In 1998, Japan was the world’s biggest producer of child pornography, and the Japanese parliament refused to pass a law banning the production of child pornography, citing business reasons. (Poona Antaseeda, Expert urges global law to end child pornography on the Internet, Bangkok Post, June 3, 1998). Stopping The Abuse Sexual slavery is a serious crime of global proportion, and should be viewed as such. To combat it, we must view it not simply as a legal problem, but as a moral issue as well. As long as pornography, promiscuity, and violence are glorified in movies produced by entertainment centers, most notably Hollywood and Bombay, the problem is likely to persist and intensify. The problem must be confronted on the legal, political, and cultural levels. This requires international cooperation by both government agencies and nongovernmental organizations. Will the world hear the silent cry of sex slaves and end this human tragedy? Will the world reject the excesses of the entertainment industry riddled with sexual abuse and violence? Will the world reject the excesses of economic disparity and economic greed? The freedom and dignity of millions of children now and in the future hinge on how the above questions are answered Center for Balanced Development Url: http://www.cbdnet.org http://www.islam-online.net/iol-english/dowalia/society-17-july-2000/…

Response:

Sex is more pleasurable for unmutilated men and women

admin — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> Item 2 has been front page news– > 1. The Jews have been around for thousands and thousands of years, and > circumcision is part of their culture.

Culture and history are not an excuse for assault and mutilation on innocent minors. They are an extremely bright and > enterprising people–0.2 % of the world population, and represent about 23% > (circumcised!) Nobel Prize winners. But their contributions span virtually > every field, from literature to medicine to art…one could go on. They are > noted for having relatively stable families and an extremely low incidence > of both criminal behavior as well as addictions.

Correlation does not imply causation. i.e. just because they have good does traits not mean that they do not have evil traits. > 2. Those involved in AIDs prevention in Africa are extremely excited by > South Africa’s study that circumcised men have a much, much lower > transmission of HIV than uncircumcised men–up to ***70%!!*** lower rates of > infecting women. Very promising for a simple way of reducing the rampant > spread of AIDs in Africa–the article is below.

Even if circumcision protects against disease, that is a prophylactic decision that one should make as an adult. It does not give anyone, parents, or doctors a right to circumcise a child without his or her consent. Some people are monogamous and do not have to worry about the risk of disease. We all have a right to make our own decisions in life, considering the costs and benefits of them all, and those who are circumcised in childhood are deprived of that right. All you can do as a health professional is inform people of the costs and benefits of certain prophylactic decisions. Even if circumcision protects against HIV contraction, it should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21. Circumcision is a choice that should be made by oneself, as an ADULT. For even with the hypothetical benefit of less HIV contraction, there is still the cost (to some, if not others) of being circumcised, not monetary cost, but the cost of being circumcised, as some men would not want to be circumcised, weighed against the benefit of this supposed less HIV contraction. If cutting off your arm made it less likely to get a serious illness, it would not always be reasonable to cut off one’s arm, if there was a possibility of living a wholesome life WITH one’s arm intact, EVEN THOUGH, you would be at a greater risk of disease. For even some might know that they would not be at risk for the disease in their isolated (or monogamous) lifestyle. And, some might rather die than go through life without an arm. People have individual preferences. As far as the argument, that circumcising people makes everyone in society as a whole safer, an easy response anyone who perpetrates this idea is for women to a) not have sex with uncircumcised men, who according to some may supposedly have been at a greater risk of contracting HIV, or b) have their partner tested. Forcing circumcision is certainly unnecessary. It should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21. Body modification against unwilling recipients is mayhem. People under age 18 do not have the ability to consent to such extra-ordinary body modification. So while adults might generally be free to modify their own bodies as they please, it is illegal mayhem to modify the bodies of unconsenting individuals such as minors, a crime which carries a penalty of up to life in prison in some states. Certainly some cases such as birth deformities, accidents, and medically necessary surgery are exempt. The only question is when is a birth deformity bad enough to require extensive body modification. Some person could be born with a truly abnormally big nose which could be considered a deformity. Another person might just want a nose which was more aesthetically pleasing. It is possible this could be a passing whim…… we’ve seen what multiple nose jobs have done to Michael Jackson. While irreversible body modifications such as tongue splitting and circumcision should be illegal on minors under the age of 18, reversible body modification such as piercings can probably be exempt. But tattoos should probably be illegal…. It may still be somewhat of an unanswered issue. While teenagers can give more consent than a baby, they are still minors making decisions which can affect the whole of their lives, and worse they may be pressured by their parents to undergo unnecessary body modification. While on the one hand some teenagers might want plastic surgery to improve their lives in school which can set the course of their lives, on the other side of the issue, we may see what too many nose jobs has done to Michael Jackson. In the case of circumcision there is no reason why a teenager cannot wait until they are over 18, or even 21 to decide to have this irreversible procedure performed. And it is absolutely immoral and wrong to perform it on an unwilling baby who has no say in the matter. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Another relevant link: > (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/16/c… > ) > ABC News > Study: Male Circumcision Lowers AIDS Risk > French Researchers Find Male Circumcision Reduces Female-To-Male > Transmission of the AIDS Virus > By MICHAEL ASTOR Associated Press Writer > The Associated Press > RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil Jul 26, 2005 – Male circumcision significantly > reduces the chances of female-to-male transmission of the AIDS virus, > according to a new study French researchers announced Tuesday. > The study, conducted in South Africa, found that circumcision reduced the > risk of men contracting AIDS during heterosexual intercourse by about 65 > percent. > "There had always been a suspicion that male circumcision prevented AIDS . > but this is the first randomized study using control trials," said Dr. > Bertrand Auvert, who coordinated the study for France’s National AIDS > Research Agency. > Auvert announced the finding at the Third International AIDS Society > Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment in Rio de Janeiro which ends > Wednesday. > The study was conducted between 2002 and 2005 with more than 3,000 healthy, > sexually active males between 18 and 24 in Orange Farm, South Africa, where > about 32 percent of the female population was HIV positive. > For the study, about half of the subjects were circumcised by medical > professionals, and the rest remained uncircumcised. > All of the men received counseling on AIDS prevention. But after 21 months, > 51 members of the uncircumcised group had contracted HIV, the AIDS virus, > while only 18 members of the circumcised group had gotten the disease. > Circumcision "prevented six to seven out of 10 potential HIV infections," > said Auvert. > He said the study did not analyze the effect of circumcision on > male-to-female transmission or if circumcision provides effective protection > over the long term. At least three more studies are under way to confirm the > effectiveness of circumcision. > But scientists said the study was cause for guarded optimism. > "While these results are very promising, we need to put them in a broader > context to see the full benefits of circumcision. So we need to look at > results from other studies," said Dr. Charles Gilks, director-coordinator of > treatment and prevention for the World Health Organization. > A study funded by the U.S. National Health Institute involving 5,000 > individuals is currently under way in Uganda. Scientists expect to announce > the results only in early 2007. > It should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21. > Body modification against unwilling recipients is mayhem. People under > age 18 do not have the ability to consent to such extra-ordinary body > modification. So while adults might generally be free to modify their > own bodies as they please, it is wrong illegal mayhem to modify the > bodies of unconsenting individuals such as minors, a crime which > carries a penalty of up to life in prison in some places. Certainly > some cases such as birth deformities, accidents, and medically > necessary surgery are exempt. The only question is when is a birth > deformity bad enough to require extensive body modification. Some > person could be born with a truly abnormally big nose which could be > considered a deformity. Another person might just want a nose which > was more aesthetically pleasing. It is possible this could be a > passing whim…… we’ve seen what multiple nose jobs have done to > Michael Jackson. While irreversible body modifications such as tongue > splitting and circumcision should be illegal on minors under the age of > 18, reversible body modification such as piercings can probably be > exempt. But tattoos should probably be illegal…. > It may still be somewhat of an unanswered issue. While teenagers can > give more consent than a baby, they are still minors making decisions > which can affect the whole of their lives, and worse they may be > pressured by their parents to undergo unnecessary body modification. > While on the one hand some teenagers might want plastic surgery to > improve their lives in school which can set the course of their lives, > on the other side of the issue, we may see what too many nose jobs has > done to Michael Jackson. In the case of circumcision there is no > reason why a teenager cannot wait until they are over 18, or even 21 to > decide to have this irreversible procedure performed. And it is > absolutely immoral and wrong to perform it on an unwilling baby who has

Response:

Item 2 has been front page news– 1. The Jews have been around for thousands and thousands of years, and circumcision is part of their culture. They are an extremely bright and enterprising people–0.2 % of the world population, and represent about 23% (circumcised!) Nobel Prize winners. But their contributions span virtually every field, from literature to medicine to art…one could go on. They are noted for having relatively stable families and an extremely low incidence of both criminal behavior as well as addictions. 2. Those involved in AIDs prevention in Africa are extremely excited by South Africa’s study that circumcised men have a much, much lower transmission of HIV than uncircumcised men–up to ***70%!!*** lower rates of infecting women. Very promising for a simple way of reducing the rampant spread of AIDs in Africa–the article is below. Another relevant link: (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/16/c… ) ABC News Study: Male Circumcision Lowers AIDS Risk French Researchers Find Male Circumcision Reduces Female-To-Male Transmission of the AIDS Virus By MICHAEL ASTOR Associated Press Writer The Associated Press RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil Jul 26, 2005 – Male circumcision significantly reduces the chances of female-to-male transmission of the AIDS virus, according to a new study French researchers announced Tuesday. The study, conducted in South Africa, found that circumcision reduced the risk of men contracting AIDS during heterosexual intercourse by about 65 percent. "There had always been a suspicion that male circumcision prevented AIDS . but this is the first randomized study using control trials," said Dr. Bertrand Auvert, who coordinated the study for France’s National AIDS Research Agency. Auvert announced the finding at the Third International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment in Rio de Janeiro which ends Wednesday. The study was conducted between 2002 and 2005 with more than 3,000 healthy, sexually active males between 18 and 24 in Orange Farm, South Africa, where about 32 percent of the female population was HIV positive. For the study, about half of the subjects were circumcised by medical professionals, and the rest remained uncircumcised. All of the men received counseling on AIDS prevention. But after 21 months, 51 members of the uncircumcised group had contracted HIV, the AIDS virus, while only 18 members of the circumcised group had gotten the disease. Circumcision "prevented six to seven out of 10 potential HIV infections," said Auvert. He said the study did not analyze the effect of circumcision on male-to-female transmission or if circumcision provides effective protection over the long term. At least three more studies are under way to confirm the effectiveness of circumcision. But scientists said the study was cause for guarded optimism. "While these results are very promising, we need to put them in a broader context to see the full benefits of circumcision. So we need to look at results from other studies," said Dr. Charles Gilks, director-coordinator of treatment and prevention for the World Health Organization. A study funded by the U.S. National Health Institute involving 5,000 individuals is currently under way in Uganda. Scientists expect to announce the results only in early 2007.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21. > Body modification against unwilling recipients is mayhem. People under > age 18 do not have the ability to consent to such extra-ordinary body > modification. So while adults might generally be free to modify their > own bodies as they please, it is wrong illegal mayhem to modify the > bodies of unconsenting individuals such as minors, a crime which > carries a penalty of up to life in prison in some places. Certainly > some cases such as birth deformities, accidents, and medically > necessary surgery are exempt. The only question is when is a birth > deformity bad enough to require extensive body modification. Some > person could be born with a truly abnormally big nose which could be > considered a deformity. Another person might just want a nose which > was more aesthetically pleasing. It is possible this could be a > passing whim…… we’ve seen what multiple nose jobs have done to > Michael Jackson. While irreversible body modifications such as tongue > splitting and circumcision should be illegal on minors under the age of > 18, reversible body modification such as piercings can probably be > exempt. But tattoos should probably be illegal…. > It may still be somewhat of an unanswered issue. While teenagers can > give more consent than a baby, they are still minors making decisions > which can affect the whole of their lives, and worse they may be > pressured by their parents to undergo unnecessary body modification. > While on the one hand some teenagers might want plastic surgery to > improve their lives in school which can set the course of their lives, > on the other side of the issue, we may see what too many nose jobs has > done to Michael Jackson. In the case of circumcision there is no > reason why a teenager cannot wait until they are over 18, or even 21 to > decide to have this irreversible procedure performed. And it is > absolutely immoral and wrong to perform it on an unwilling baby who has > no say in the matter.

Response:

"It should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21" it should be !! ….. who says that ??!!

Response:

It should be illegal to circumcise anyone under the age of 18 or 21. Body modification against unwilling recipients is mayhem. People under age 18 do not have the ability to consent to such extra-ordinary body modification. So while adults might generally be free to modify their own bodies as they please, it is wrong illegal mayhem to modify the bodies of unconsenting individuals such as minors, a crime which carries a penalty of up to life in prison in some places. Certainly some cases such as birth deformities, accidents, and medically necessary surgery are exempt. The only question is when is a birth deformity bad enough to require extensive body modification. Some person could be born with a truly abnormally big nose which could be considered a deformity. Another person might just want a nose which was more aesthetically pleasing. It is possible this could be a passing whim…… we’ve seen what multiple nose jobs have done to Michael Jackson. While irreversible body modifications such as tongue splitting and circumcision should be illegal on minors under the age of 18, reversible body modification such as piercings can probably be exempt. But tattoos should probably be illegal…. It may still be somewhat of an unanswered issue. While teenagers can give more consent than a baby, they are still minors making decisions which can affect the whole of their lives, and worse they may be pressured by their parents to undergo unnecessary body modification. While on the one hand some teenagers might want plastic surgery to improve their lives in school which can set the course of their lives, on the other side of the issue, we may see what too many nose jobs has done to Michael Jackson. In the case of circumcision there is no reason why a teenager cannot wait until they are over 18, or even 21 to decide to have this irreversible procedure performed. And it is absolutely immoral and wrong to perform it on an unwilling baby who has no say in the matter.

Response:

The Crucifixion of Christ, American Style

admin — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

But you don’t believe that Christ was crucified, so what the heck are you even talking about, Abu Alfalfa?? — المتبرجة خير من الإرهابي المنتحر Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/

Response:

> The Crucifixion of Christ, American Style > By Jerry Ghinelli > "To suggest that God, would ever be on the side of an America-or > any country, for that matter-which attacks poor, defenseless, > impoverished people out of revenge, fear, ignorance or greed, > contradicts everything I stand for today and, more importantly, died > for two thousand years ago." Continue > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10025.htm

Ghenelli is a sock puppet. Mike

Response:

ALLAH TURNED ITS WRATH AGAINST ISLAM While Aids in the west has now declined sharply; millions of Arabs and Muslims in Islamic nations are now plagued with the deadly aids disease and is killing and spreading at a very fast rate. The affected population of these countries are now suffering a slow and agonizing death caused by this deadly disease with no known cure yet. Aids causes the immune system to breakdown. With the immune system weakened, the body is defenseless against killer bacteria, microrganisms , virus and germs that results to death. The west has already provided some medical assistance to these Islamic countries despite their war cries "Death to America, Death to Israel", but limited supplies and the current war situation has slowed down the help and care they are giving. Worst is, these Arabs/Muslims has blamed the west of their miseries. For more information, visit www.americanjihad.blogspot.com (If possible, copy or retype this website in your browser )

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The Crucifixion of Christ, American Style > By Jerry Ghinelli > "To suggest that God, would ever be on the side of an America-or > any country, for that matter-which attacks poor, defenseless, > impoverished people out of revenge, fear, ignorance or greed, > contradicts everything I stand for today and, more importantly, died > for two thousand years ago." Continue > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10025.htm

Response:

The Crucifixion of Christ, American Style By Jerry Ghinelli "To suggest that God, would ever be on the side of an America-or any country, for that matter-which attacks poor, defenseless, impoverished people out of revenge, fear, ignorance or greed, contradicts everything I stand for today and, more importantly, died for two thousand years ago." Continue http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10025.htm