Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Don't be too grateful, Kiff. He's got it fundamentally wrong.

No, he was only physically present at the memorial service but still HC knows better. Or do you believe that the poster lied about being present? Quit exploiting other people's tragedy and get your nose out of other people's underwear. It is absolutely disgusting.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

As to why it's important, it reveals something basic about the people involved, and that something isn't pretty.

Yes, and your and all these other Bush Kool-Aid drinkers' despicable arrogance in presuming to dictate how others conduct their memorial service reveals far more about the depths of depravity to which you have willingly sunk by handing over your souls in supporting this Machiavellian human garbage in the White House. What this all reveals about the Bush Kool-Aid drinkers is far, far less pretty. In fact it is as ugly as things come on this earth. Please, find a hobby, stay out of other people's affairs, and quit exploiting other people's tragedies. You people are sick.

Stonewell, please don't take this personally, but it's time for you to grow up and face a little reality. That was not a memorial service, and it wasn't a private matter. Politics IS my affair, and every citizen's, and the instant they decided to make that pretend memorial into an election rally, it became my business. Simply admixing politics to a private matter and using that as a pretext to declare it off-limits isn't going to fly. Adding the politics causes the private matter to cease being private.

You have the peculiar notion that George Bush is the greatest threat to American freedom currently extant. You want the world to tune out everyone and everything else in the face of this Bushist threat. The trouble is that there's no solid evidence for the existence of the threat.

While he's far from my favorite president, the notion that Bush is the front man for a vast fascist conspiracy makes no sense on any level. His policies are at best mixed, but the danger level from Bush toward our freedom is a fraction of that from Clinton, Nixon, or even F.D. Roosevelt.
I don't like his tendency to let the major corporations get away with things like NAFTA and the WTO any more than you do. But the alternative 'choice' ALSO supported the things I don't like about Bush, so the best choice was to go with the lesser evil on those, and try to use that as a base to work around toward what I do like.

I agree with many of your worries about the implications of the policies they support, but the root of the bad part of those policies isn't the Bush Administration, junior or senior, but the public generally, which is clueless about the history of their own country and the proper purpose and function of its institutions.

Now, I agree that there are many individuals within the Bush Administration who bear close watching. I'm not a wholehearted supporter of John Ashcroft. I'd like to see several of Bush's FBI people replaced. In fact, I think the FBI needs a thorough house-cleaning on several levels. I think Bush is handling border and immigration issues with a disregard for the public interest. I don't like the weaselly way Bush handled the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, and I don't like the way Karl Rove tries to play machiavel with the elections.

OTOH, Ashcroft is certainly more considerate of individual rights than Janet Reno ever was.

Note that I've said all along that I'm of divided mind about invading Iraq. Search my postings and you won't find any that show mindless support for it. OTOH, I don't disregard the arguments for it, either. It's genuinely a messy, complicated matter.

Is the Bush Administration hoping to gain politically from it? Certainly, that's standard in all administrations. Do some of the people Bush knows in the oil business stand potentially to gain from it? Yes. But that is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Bush is doing this purely for those reasons.

Yes, there's an election imminent. We have major elections every two years, there's always an election imminent for any large project or action, that's designed into the system. That fact that the party in power stands to gain electorally from a controversial project, again, isn't proof in itself of wagging the dog. If we always wait until there's no election imminent to avoid charges of that, nothing will ever be done.

Do I discount the possibility that this is private Bush family business being waged against Hussein using governmental resources? No. I am willing to consider the possibility, and I don't rule it out. It may well be that there is an element to the personal in this whole matter. Is it possible that the threat level of Hussein has been hyped up to bring about a needless war? Yes. As I said, my mind is still divided on the matter.

OTOH, most of the people maintaining that the threat is imaginary (and here I don't include you) are the same people who invariably maintain that any potential military action is against a hyped up threat. Some of these same people, 20 years ago, were saying that the USSR would disarm if we did it first, since they were just worried about an attack from us. Their credibility is limited.

As for the increasingly uncivil and abusive character of your postings, that's your business, and your problem. All I will add is that your anger is your right, but the constant and growing flow of personal insults in your postings weakens the thrust of your arguments, which I find relevant and sometimes sound. But the more your postings trend toward the personal insults (Kool Aid drinker, etc), the more likely others are to skip even bothering to read them.

Back to the start of the post, note that at no point did I say that the Democrats and Wellstone's family couldn't arrange their service the way they saw fit. That doesn't keep me, or forbid me, from recognizing what they did as what it was, or noting that it was sleazy and disrespectful thing to do.

I respect you, Stonewall, but you need to get a grip.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

No, he was only physically present at the memorial service but still HC knows better. Or do you believe that the poster lied about being present? Quit exploiting other people's tragedy and get your nose out of other people's underwear. It is absolutely disgusting.

No, it is this post that is disgusting.

You're being much too kind and understanding, HC, in your response to this twisted piece of trash called Stonewall Patton.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

As to why it's important, it reveals something basic about the people involved, and that something isn't pretty.

Yes, and your and all these other Bush Kool-Aid drinkers' despicable arrogance in presuming to dictate how others conduct their memorial service reveals far more about the depths of depravity to which you have willingly sunk by handing over your souls in supporting this Machiavellian human garbage in the White House. What this all reveals about the Bush Kool-Aid drinkers is far, far less pretty. In fact it is as ugly as things come on this earth. Please, find a hobby, stay out of other people's affairs, and quit exploiting other people's tragedies. You people are sick.

Stonewell, please don't take this personally, but it's time for you to grow up and face a little reality. That was not a memorial service, and it wasn't a private matter.

And you are going to keep milking it like the despicable partisan Bush Kool-Aid drinker which you have always tried strenuously not to protray yourself as. The memorial service is the business of the family. It is none of my business and none of yours. If there should be a memorial service for a member of my family, it is none of your business how it is conducted. If there should be a memorial service for a member of your family, it is none of my business how it is conducted. Get it? Now get a life and quit dancing on dead men's coffins like a Bush Kool-Aid drinker.

The Wellstone folks have said over and over that the Memorial was advertised and announced as a CELEBRATION of Paul Wellstone's life. It was indeed,that.


Why don't you Republicans just let it go. Talk about using something for political purposes

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I guess I missed that memorial service because I don't watch much television. The thing does have an off-button, you know. Maybe some of you guys should use it once in a while, if what's on it bothers you so much.

I guess there isn't one of those "off-button" thingys on cbailey's set. Last night she sat through five, count 'em: FIVE!, straight episodes of that South Park version of the Bush family. She said it was something like Hitler comedy stuff, pre WWII.

Which makes a lot of sense, seeing how Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler... THAT'S IT!

He's Bushitler! Sieg heil! :wink:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

You have the peculiar notion that George Bush is the greatest threat to American freedom currently extant. You want the world to tune out everyone and everything else in the face of this Bushist threat. The trouble is that there's no solid evidence for the existence of the threat.

This is where you are truly disappointing. Have you always been a Bushbot or was it only triggered by this grieving family's memorial service? Seriously. I really have always taken you for a fair, objective participant here. If you are a Bushbot, then it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you because you will continually run interference for the Bush administration rather than be honest. Nevertheless I will cite just two examples of the mounting "solid evidence" which you so disingenuously deny exists:

1) USA PATRIOT Act

2) Office of Homeland Security.

The whole reason that a significant number of us were Republicans in the Reagan era was to prevent the Democrats from consolidating federal power in precisely this way. There is no excuse for any of this and, more importantly, there is no Constitutional allowance for it. Various amendments to the Constitution have been arbitrarily, unlawfully, and unambiguously rendered null and void by these two "exhibits" above.

With the USA PATRIOT Act, perverts whose salaries you are forced to pay at gunpoint can sift through every aspect of your life -- without a warrant -- to the point of violating your conscience (call it rape of the soul). In this way, the entire political system in this country can conceivably be controlled by an elite, hidden behind a wall of secrecy and absolutely unaccountable to We The People, who can blackmail those who oppose them and prevent them from running for any office. The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution with all its checks and balances and divisions of power specfically to prevent erection of such a governmental apparatus. It does not matter how "bad" things may get. At no point is such top-down control justified.

All this is greatly assisted by the Office of Homeland Security, specifically a domestic intelligence agency. Domestic intelligence agencies have always been regarded by us Americans as hallmarks of totalitarian states, as justifications for opposing those totalitarian states and as examples of something we will never have here because they are not only unconstitutional but un-American. We have seen them abroad in the past and present. There is the Gestapo, the Stasi, etc. These are domestic intelligence agencies. The Office of Homeland Security is a domestic intelligence agency. There is no difference. The Office of Homeland Security is precisely what we have always said we would never tolerate on American soil.

Yet Bushbots continue to insult people's intelligence while running interference for this Machiavellian human garbage in the White House. So are you going to continue to insult my intelligence by insisting that the Office of Homeland Security, even though it IS a domestic intelligence agency, is somehow different from a Gestapo or a Stasi or any of the other domestic intelligence agencies we have known and opposed? Are you going to continue to lie through you teeth by asserting that there is "no solid" evidence of a "Bushist threat"?

These Bush "reforms" absolutely, positively must be removed this 4T and this is only the first step toward making this ridiculously arrogant, presumptuous, and unconstitutional federal government accountable once more. That is why we were Republicans and not Democrats in the Reagan era. That is why this Machiavellian human garbage in the White House must now be opposed at every turn. They gave us this totalitarian, un-American Bushit, no one else did, not even the Democrats! We had buildings bombed and planes taken down in the '90s. But even Clinton did not seize the opportunity to suspend the Bill of Rights and present us with our own American Gestapo or Stasi. That is why this Machiavellian human garbage in the White House has brought us into 4T all by its lonesome. We have an election in 2004. Remove them! No ifs, ands, or buts.

While he's far from my favorite president, the notion that Bush is the front man for a vast fascist conspiracy makes no sense on any level. His policies are at best mixed, but the danger level from Bush toward our freedom is a fraction of that from Clinton, Nixon, or even F.D. Roosevelt.

Oh, please. None of those others arbitrarily suspended the Bill of Rights. Nor did any of them dare to give us a Gestapo. Lincoln is the only comparable example. This Bush administration is the biggest threat to our rights and liberties since Lincoln.

I agree with many of your worries about the implications of the policies they support, but the root of the bad part of those policies isn't the Bush Administration, junior or senior, but the public generally, which is clueless about the history of their own country and the proper purpose and function of its institutions.

The public did not clamor for a suspension of the Bill of Rights and creation of an American Gestapo. This is no excuse.

Now, I agree that there are many individuals within the Bush Administration who bear close watching. I'm not a wholehearted supporter of John Ashcroft.

I certainly hope not, HC. The man arrogantly and arbitrarily reserves to himself the authority to suspend the Constitional rights of American citizens. This necessarily means that, in his eyes, Americans have no God-given rights, just mere privileges to be revoked at the whim of our self-appointed masters. This is unambiguously un-American. Who the hell does he think is? If we had an opposition party in this country, the man would have been impeached by now. Can I count on you to call for his immediate impeachment in no uncertain terms? The man is a Manichean madman and a clear and present danger to our rights and liberties.

OTOH, Ashcroft is certainly more considerate of individual rights than Janet Reno ever was.

So is everything relative now? He needs to be impeached and removed post-haste, HC. It does not matter in the least how bad he is relative to anybody else and, frankly, I do not recall Janet Reno arbitrarily suspending any American citizen's Constitutional rights as if the rights do not truly exist. Nor do I recall Janet Reno stating that all Americans need to fear their government. This man, by his own admission, is of a feather with the sick, twisted degenerates who ran Germany during the last 4T. Americans should fear their government??? He needs to be impeached and removed immediately for our own safety. It matters not in the least how good or bad he is relative to anybody else.

Is the Bush Administration hoping to gain politically from it? Certainly, that's standard in all administrations. Do some of the people Bush knows in the oil business stand potentially to gain from it? Yes. But that is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Bush is doing this purely for those reasons.

Oh give me a break. There IS no other reason.

OTOH, most of the people maintaining that the threat is imaginary (and here I don't include you) are the same people who invariably maintain that any potential military action is against a hyped up threat. Some of these same people, 20 years ago, were saying that the USSR would disarm if we did it first, since they were just worried about an attack from us. Their credibility is limited.

If there is no justification for invading Iraq then the credibility of the people you cite is irrelevant.

As for the increasingly uncivil and abusive character of your postings, that's your business, and your problem. All I will add is that your anger is your right, but the constant and growing flow of personal insults in your postings weakens the thrust of your arguments, which I find relevant and sometimes sound. But the more your postings trend toward the personal insults (Kool Aid drinker, etc), the more likely others are to skip even bothering to read them.

I don't get angry at anybody anymore, HC. I merely recognize that the more "civil" manner in which most of us have handled these things over the years has done absolutely nothing to stop this consolidation of power. Therefore it is time to quit merely "agreeing to disagree." There IS right and wrong as well as good and evil in this world. To deceive in order to use another to one's own ends is wrong and it is evil. There is no excuse for it and it cannot be justified. If everybody acted this way, civilization would immediately vanish as our ethics would be indistinguishable from those of animals. Our tolerance of this behavior is the root of all our difficulties today.

Nothing changes until we as a people refuse to reward the Machiavel with the power he craves, irrespective of party affiliation. Civilization itself hangs in the balance. Yes, the cycle goes 'round and 'round, but we have never been so low before. If Republicans, our self-appointed moral guardians, can tolerate this sort of Machiavellian human garbage in the White House with a straight face, and even run interference for it, then we have hit rock bottom. We can only move up from here and the effort begins with us. The only way to move up is to reject these Machiavellian animals in all venues and deprive them of all power. I am doing my part. Why don't you do yours?

There is no hatred, HC. It is simply calling a spade a spade. I don't have to say a damn thing, but then seeing as my ancestors have fought and died in every war in this nation's history, I kind of feel a duty. Politely "agreeing to disagree" through the 3T was utterly ineffectual, obviously. We have no choice but to piss some people off. And pissing off objectively evil Machiavellian human garbage is no travesty. In fact it is a duty in the eyes of the Christian God.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

As to why it's important, it reveals something basic about the people involved, and that something isn't pretty.

Yes, and your and all these other Bush Kool-Aid drinkers' despicable arrogance in presuming to dictate how others conduct their memorial service reveals far more about the depths of depravity to which you have willingly sunk by handing over your souls in supporting this Machiavellian human garbage in the White House. What this all reveals about the Bush Kool-Aid drinkers is far, far less pretty. In fact it is as ugly as things come on this earth. Please, find a hobby, stay out of other people's affairs, and quit exploiting other people's tragedies. You people are sick.

Stonewell, please don't take this personally, but it's time for you to grow up and face a little reality. That was not a memorial service, and it wasn't a private matter.

And you are going to keep milking it like the despicable partisan Bush Kool-Aid drinker which you have always tried strenuously not to protray yourself as. The memorial service is the business of the family. It is none of my business and none of yours. If there should be a memorial service for a member of my family, it is none of your business how it is conducted. If there should be a memorial service for a member of your family, it is none of my business how it is conducted. Get it?

Stonewall, if you held a memorial for a member of your family,and turned it into a political rally, YES, it would be my business. If I held such a memorial, and tried to use it to advance a political agenda, it would be your business. That is not something about which there is any question.

It's you that doesn't get it, Stonewall. As for the personal insults, I've already said what I'm going to say.

And this bear repeating too:

"Every person in that crowd hurt desperately"



And btw Stonewall, this rally has nothing to do with supporting Bushiter.
It has everything to do with lies.

Good heavens, it's Sunday night and we're still talking about this?

CBailey, thanks for the support. I wrote that response in a heated mood and I'm glad it hit home for somebody.

HC, I'm sorry, but we're just going to have to disagree about this one. I did not watch more than a couple of minutes of the memorial service (I was busy with some home issues at the time), so I can't give you any direct impressions of it. I still say that an account given by someone who was actually present for the service carries considerable weight for me, and I'm a lot more willing to trust Alias's report than the spin in the following day's papers.

BTW, HC, thanks for spelling out your positions more clearly above. I can find some areas in which we agree, some in which we don't, and some in which we both are undecided.

Stonewall....goodness, my man, your keyboard must be sizzling after that last post. Take a few deep breaths. The country will still be here tomorrow morning. It will still be here Wednesday morning, even if all the votes aren't in yet. People are starting to wake up. Some just need a few more cups of coffee than others. ;-)

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I guess I missed that memorial service because I don't watch much television. The thing does have an off-button, you know. Maybe some of you guys should use it once in a while, if what's on it bothers you so much.

I guess there isn't one of those "off-button" thingys on cbailey's set. Last night she sat through five, count 'em: FIVE!, straight episodes of that South Park version of the Bush family. She said it was something like Hitler comedy stuff, pre WWII.

Which makes a lot of sense, seeing how Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler... THAT'S IT!

He's Bushitler! Sieg heil! :wink:

_____________________


Hey Mr. Lamb:

I may never watch "Thats My Bush" again, but I had heard about it.....and sampling 5 episodes last night was very informative.

It was strange. I was shocked at the crude humor aimed at GW.............It was really disrespectful. Dont' you think that says something about this country right now. :-?

You seem to explore the Internet looking for cultural information quite a bit......I don't advise you to shut down your computer. Keep looking.....keep posting those interesting links. This is America.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

You have the peculiar notion that George Bush is the greatest threat to American freedom currently extant. You want the world to tune out everyone and everything else in the face of this Bushist threat. The trouble is that there's no solid evidence for the existence of the threat.

1) USA PATRIOT Act

2) Office of Homeland Security.

The whole reason that a significant number of us were Republicans in the Reagan era was to prevent the Democrats from consolidating federal power in precisely this way. There is no excuse for any of this and, more importantly, there is no Constitutional allowance for it. Various amendments to the Constitution have been arbitrarily, unlawfully, and unambiguously rendered null and void by these two "exhibits" above.

All this is greatly assisted by the Office of Homeland Security, specifically a domestic intelligence agency. Domestic intelligence agencies have always been regarded by us Americans as hallmarks of totalitarian states, as justifications for opposing those totalitarian states and as examples of something we will never have here because they are not only unconstitutional but un-American. We have seen them abroad in the past and present. There is the Gestapo, the Stasi, etc. These are domestic intelligence agencies. The Office of Homeland Security is a domestic intelligence agency. There is no difference. The Office of Homeland Security is precisely what we have always said we would never tolerate on American soil.

Yet Bushbots continue to insult people's intelligence while running interference for this Machiavellian human garbage in the White House. So are you going to continue to insult my intelligence by insisting that the Office of Homeland Security, even though it IS a domestic intelligence agency, is somehow different from a Gestapo or a Stasi or any of the other domestic intelligence agencies we have known and opposed? Are you going to continue to lie through you teeth by asserting that there is "no solid" evidence of a "Bushist threat"?

I AM against the Homeland Security agency, Stonewall, it's one of the many things I don't like about the Bush Administration. The only thing I disgree with you on, and only in part, is that all domestic intelligence agencies are equivalent to the Gestapo. Most of the western nations have some sort of one (not that that makes it right), and they aren't all equally bad. The phrase 'interior minister', in most western nations, refers specifically (among other things) to the head of that branch.

I don't like even the concept. Something similar was floated during earlier administrations, and even J. Edgar Hoover, no great exemplar of individual rights, got queasy at the concept and helped kill it. I'm rather hoping the idea gets gutted this time 'round, too.

But you know what? The stuff we're seeing out of Bush's Administration, in my considered opinion, based on watching them and the previous occupants for a combined total of 10 years now, is nothing much compared to what Gore would have tried to do. This one is easier to fight, precisely because it runs counter to the grain of many of the people who have to support it for it to go through. Even many of the people giving it lip service publically are not pushing it very hard behind the scenes, or it would be in place right now.

Now, as for the Democrats, they oppose this thing (for the most part, there are exceptions) for one primarily reason, the attempt by Bush to set it up without public-employee unions in place. They don't want to stop it, they want to control it.

Neither party is inherently 'good' or 'evil'. Both are partly dominated by corporate/aristocratic types, partly by various specific interest groups interlocked as allies and opponents, and partly by individuals impelled by specific ideologies. My considered opinion is that the GOP represents the lesser evil at the moment, and in spite of the PATRIOT Act (which I like no better than you), the better chance of avoiding a surveillance state.

These Bush "reforms" absolutely, positively must be removed this 4T and this is only the first step toward making this ridiculously arrogant, presumptuous, and unconstitutional federal government accountable once more. That is why we were Republicans and not Democrats in the Reagan era. That is why this Machiavellian human garbage in the White House must now be opposed at every turn. They gave us this totalitarian, un-American Bushit, no one else did, not even the Democrats! We had buildings bombed and planes taken down in the '90s. But even Clinton did not seize the opportunity to suspend the Bill of Rights and present us with our own American Gestapo or Stasi.

The only real reason is that public, locked in 3T, barely even noticed any of those incidents, and therefore they had no meaningful political leverage for any use. Had G.W.B. been president, he couldn't have used them to do anything, either. Not, mind you, that I think Bill Clinton is particularly interested in doing that, all he cared about was his own personal self-interest, rather than any particular ideology, or even the self-interest of his allies.

His wife, on the other hand, I suspect WOULD like to set up a surveillance state. I also suspect it, to a lesser degree and for other motivations, of Al Gore.

While he's far from my favorite president, the notion that Bush is the front man for a vast fascist conspiracy makes no sense on any level. His policies are at best mixed, but the danger level from Bush toward our freedom is a fraction of that from Clinton, Nixon, or even F.D. Roosevelt.

Oh, please. None of those others arbitrarily suspended the Bill of Rights.

Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which was a blatant violation of civil rights. (Japanese internment). He tried and executed German spies in secret military tribunals. There was extensive domestic spying during the war years (not official, but it existed).

Nixon used the IRS to audit his enemies, tried to use the CIA as his personal tool, saw the judicial system as his personal tool, etc.

Clinton used the IRS to harrass his political foes, used the military as a tool to distract attention from his legal troubles (compare the dates of many of his military actions, especially those that used only missiles, to the dates of various legal hearings), had people charged with crimes on trumped up nonsense charges, and tried to concentrate power in the Oval Office in a way unmatched since Roosevelt, and which Bush has yet to match (though in some areas he's trying, unfortuantely).

While were at it, Lyndon Johnson lied to Congress in order to get support for the Vietnam War, which Bush may or may not have yet done, and used domestic intelligence to spy on the anti-war movement at least as much as Nixon did.

Nor did any of them dare to give us a Gestapo. Lincoln is the only comparable example. This Bush administration is the biggest threat to our rights and liberties since Lincoln.

The matter of Lincoln deserves it's own separate discussion.

I agree with many of your worries about the implications of the policies they support, but the root of the bad part of those policies isn't the Bush Administration, junior or senior, but the public generally, which is clueless about the history of their own country and the proper purpose and function of its institutions.

The public did not clamor for a suspension of the Bill of Rights and creation of an American Gestapo. This is no excuse.

They didn't make any fuss against it, either. Silence gives consent. That's not constitutional law, but it's political reality (and the people who wrote the constitution were utter political realists). There is some resistance appearing now, but it'll evaporate if another major terrorist attack inside America occurs in the near future. And you're right, it's not an excuse.

Unfortunately, the very nature of terrorism does require more internal information to combat than other foes do. This calls, though, for better police work rather than a new domestic intelligence agency. The very nature of terrorism as a threat is such that it risks expanding executive power to dangerous levels in fighting it, and the ONLY real protection against such an abuse is watchful common sense on the part of the public.

But that's only half the threat to our privacy and individual freedom, and not the more fundamental half. The larger half is technological change and the changed world it's bringing about. This half of the threat remains no matter who occupies the Oval Office.

Now, I agree that there are many individuals within the Bush Administration who bear close watching. I'm not a wholehearted supporter of John Ashcroft.

I certainly hope not, HC. The man arrogantly and arbitrarily reserves to himself the authority to suspend the Constitional rights of American citizens. This necessarily means that, in his eyes, Americans have no God-given rights, just mere privileges to be revoked at the whim of our self-appointed masters. This is unambiguously un-American. Who the hell does he think is? If we had an opposition party in this country, the man would have been impeached by now. Can I count on you to call for his immediate impeachment in no uncertain terms? The man is a Manichean madman and a clear and present danger to our rights and liberties.

No, you can't count on me for immediate impeachment, not yet. IMO the jury is still out on Ashcroft. I'll explain why the matter remains in doubt with me in another post.

I do agree that Ashcroft was far from the ideal choice for A-G. I can think of worse ones, though, in both parties. Much worse.

OTOH, Ashcroft is certainly more considerate of individual rights than Janet Reno ever was.

So is everything relative now?

At the tactical level, things are necessarily relative, yes. There's a word for absolute purists in politics, Stonewall, and it's 'futile'. There are times when you make deals with the lesser evil to remove the greater. I don't like that, but it's the way things are in the real world. If you want Ashcroft gone, it'll require cooperation from people you also distrust and want gone. In the short term, pick the one you want gone most.

Kiff I am sorry if I came off as callous toward your feelings.
One gets the feeling we are comparing apples and oranges again.
Cantonese Mandarine it's all Chinese.

In the article the woman said something about people are grieving.
O.K. Perhaps my definition or perception of grief is different than others
Without the help of Websters, I view grief as: "a deep anguish of the soul, so as to cause a physical pain. "

I guess I have a hard time believing people across the nation are experiencing that.

It's a different experience than the Penuts brand of "good grief Charlie Brown".

Originally Posted by justmom

Kiff I am sorry if I came off as callous toward your feelings.
One gets the feeling we are comparing apples and oranges again.
Cantonese Mandarine it's all Chinese.

In the article the woman said something about people are grieving.
O.K. Perhaps my definition or perception of grief is different than others
Without the help of Websters, I view grief as: "a deep anguish of the soul, so as to cause a physical pain. "

I guess I have a hard time believing people across the nation are experiencing that.

It's a different experience than the Penuts brand of "good grief Charlie Brown".

I accept your apology, Maxine. And perhaps, looking back, it would have been wiser for the Wellstone family to do something more private,and maybe even keep the CNN and CSPAN cameras out. But it wasn't my decision to make.

I haven't attended many memorial services, aside from those held in honor of a few family members, but it seems to me that a few smiles and laughter between friends and colleagues is completely natural and probably healthy, even in the context of a sad event.

And perhaps the reason that this is more of a national event is because of the Carnahan crash two years ago; something that is still fresh in people's minds.

I am trying to project how I would react had this happened to a conservative Republican. I can only hope that I would rise above my partisan feelings and look upon it as a tragedy equal to those that befell Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellstone.

Originally Posted by cbailey

This bears repeating:

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by justmom

Let's be honest no body is grieving except close friends and family.
Good people nation wide are grieving? I think not.

I grieve. I don't even live in Minnesota, and I grieve. A good man is dead.

The writer of this article is angry, and I don't blame her one bit. Feelings don't lie.

Ronald Reagan is in the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease. It is a cruel way to see a fellow human being waste away like that. I did not agree with Mr. Reagan on many issues, but I grieve for him and his family.

The memorial service was for friends and supporters of Paul Wellstone to celebrate his life. If people are disturbed by how these feelings were expressed, maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe we're too afraid of raw emotion and deep conviction, and that's why we rationalize about it afterwards, and then make fun of it.

Because otherwise we might actually have to feel something. And maybe that's too much for certain people to handle.

AND AGAIN

Originally Posted by cbailey

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I guess I missed that memorial service because I don't watch much television. The thing does have an off-button, you know. Maybe some of you guys should use it once in a while, if what's on it bothers you so much.

I guess there isn't one of those "off-button" thingys on cbailey's set. Last night she sat through five, count 'em: FIVE!, straight episodes of that South Park version of the Bush family. She said it was something like Hitler comedy stuff, pre WWII.

Which makes a lot of sense, seeing how Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter is Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Hilter/Bush, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler, Bush/Hitler... THAT'S IT!

He's Bushitler! Sieg heil! :wink:

_____________________


Hey Mr. Lamb:

I may never watch "Thats My Bush" again, but I had heard about it.....and sampling 5 episodes last night was very informative.

It was strange. I was shocked at the crude humor aimed at GW.............It was really disrespectful. Dont' you think that says something about this country right now. :-?

You seem to explore the Internet looking for cultural information quite a bit......I don't advise you to shut down your computer. Keep looking.....keep posting those interesting links. This is America.

Actually the show was a 2001 thing made by the "South Park Republican" creators of South Park - it stopped running around 9/11

Really. Comedy Central just started repeats lately?
So Number Two: what did you think about "That's My Bush?"?

And what do you mean by "the South Park Republican creators?"
Those guys are Republicans?

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I am trying to project how I would react had this happened to a conservative Republican. I can only hope that I would rise above my partisan feelings and look upon it as a tragedy equal to those that befell Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellstone.

I for one never said Wellstone's death wasn't a tragedy, Kiff.

As for the hypothetical conservative death, if his family and the GOP turned the memorial it into an unabashed rally, they'd be skewered in the popular media and by the Democrats, and they would deserve it.

This is my last post on this subject, since it's gone on too long as it is. I just felt there was a need to counter some of the spin.

Here is an article written BEFORE the memorial service which clearly announces that it will be a CELEBRATION.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3392800.html

From the article:

"Allison Dobson, spokeswoman for the Wellstone campaign, said the memorial will be more celebration than funeral and will reflect one of the campaign's theme, "Stand Up and Keep Fighting." She also said the green bus will not go into storage after today's service."

SNIP

"Dobson said the memorial will not follow any model of services or even resemble a typical funeral. She said the speakers and music probably will involve the audience at some point.

Folk singer Larry Long and gospel star JD Steele will lead a group of local musicians in "Stand Up, Keep Fighting," which they co-wrote several months ago for the Wellstone campaign.

Though the song's oft-repeated lyric, "Vote for Paul Wellstone," will be changed to, "Remember Paul Wellstone," Long said the rest of it is fitting as a memorial.

"The song is about fighting for what you believe in, which will be the Wellstone legacy," said Long, who often crossed paths with the senator at rallies and protests."



This shows that the organizers didn't try and dupe anyone.

Also, there is a picture from the private Wellstone funeral (showing the sons and others carrying a casket) for those who like to see grieving.

Originally Posted by cbailey

Really. Comedy Central just started repeats lately?
So Number Two: what did you think about "That's My Bush?"

I think they must have started repeats when it was late enough after 9/11 that there were no worries of damaging "national unity"... and I enjoyed the show (especially the episode when the Austrians came :-))

And what do you mean by "the South Park Republican creators?"
Those guys are Republicans?

One of the articles that Vince Lamb (?) posted on this site within the past month referred to the "South Park Republicans"; they would be around 4:00 on the political spectrum (fairly libertarian but generally economically conservative) - and that is around where Parker + Stone lie... close enough to the Republican party that they feel they still have a chance of influencing them

Originally Posted by alias

This is my last post on this subject, since it's gone on too long as it is. I just felt there was a need to counter some of the spin.

Here is an article written BEFORE the memorial service which clearly announces that it will be a CELEBRATION.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3392800.html

From the article:

"Allison Dobson, spokeswoman for the Wellstone campaign, said the memorial will be more celebration than funeral and will reflect one of the campaign's theme, "Stand Up and Keep Fighting." She also said the green bus will not go into storage after today's service."

SNIP

"Dobson said the memorial will not follow any model of services or even resemble a typical funeral. She said the speakers and music probably will involve the audience at some point.

Folk singer Larry Long and gospel star JD Steele will lead a group of local musicians in "Stand Up, Keep Fighting," which they co-wrote several months ago for the Wellstone campaign.

Though the song's oft-repeated lyric, "Vote for Paul Wellstone," will be changed to, "Remember Paul Wellstone," Long said the rest of it is fitting as a memorial.

"The song is about fighting for what you believe in, which will be the Wellstone legacy," said Long, who often crossed paths with the senator at rallies and protests."



This shows that the organizers didn't try and dupe anyone.

Also, there is a picture from the private Wellstone funeral (showing the sons and others carrying a casket) for those who like to see grieving.

It's not the celebratory spirit that's the problem. It's the admixture of direct electoral political activity, and the 'rally' spirit. If they had organized something like an Irish wake, or for that matter if the family had brought in strippers and a wet bar, that alone would be purely their affair.

But when they started calling on people to support political positions, suspend campaigns, etc, they tried to take the genuine regret at Wellstone's death and use it to delegitimize legitimate political opposition. By doing so, they made this into a public affair. When you introduce electoral politics to a private matter, it is no longer a private matter.

Incidentally, today the Democrats were again trying to emphasize over and over that the family planned everything, which hints to me that their internal polls are saying that this didn't go over well.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

The Gallup people are predicting a Democrat romp next week. Pollster, Zogby is as well. Gallup has also noted that "Investor Optimism" has "Plunged" in October. This should increase the number of seats they'll gain as they take back the House, and retain the Senate by a larger margin.

Well, it appears that Bush and the GOP have blown it. But it's certainly not the economy. Or at least it wasn't last week as Gallup notes in their "top of the mind awareness" tracking poll. The very same poll showed a whopping 69% just before the election in 1992, while today it's been tracking at about 35% since early summer.

Late shift appears to favor GOP

By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY

Key Senate races in Tuesday's congressional elections are too close to call, but Republicans appear to have gained strength in the final weekend as they fight to retain and perhaps add to their thin House majority.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll this weekend shows that in House races, likely voters prefer Republicans to Democrats 51% -45%.

That marks a 9-point shift from two weeks ago, when Democrats led Republicans 49%-46%.

The GOP's 6-point advantage mirrors the lead Republicans held in the final days of the 1994 election, when they won control of the House of Representatives and Senate.

Frank Newport, Gallup Poll editor in chief, says the late GOP gain can be traced to three factors:

• Jitters over the economy are declining. The poll found that those who said the economy was getting worse fell from 59% two weeks ago to 51% now. "Democrats were counting on worry about the economy to boost them, and that decreased in the last two weeks," Newport said.
• More Republicans than Democrats say they're more enthusiastic about voting than they were in the last off-year election in 1998.
• Of those who said President Bush was a factor in their vote, respondents said 2-1 they were voting in favor of Bush, not against him. His job approval is 63%.

Control of the House is determined by the outcomes of 435 races, but what's known as the "generic ballot question" ? which party's candidate will you vote for? ? has been an accurate predictor of the House majority for 50 years.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by David '47

This was tacky poitics, but it was local tacky politics. I doubt either McAuliffe or Clinton had even a small hand in the affair.

While the former is true, the latter comment represents the sort of denial that pervades the Democratic Party of the present-day. A denial, I believe, that may very well result in the destruction of this party, and quite possibly the entire nation, as well.

True to form, the hubris of the right weighs in, which is pretty tacky in its own right.

Seems I did get a little overly hubristic with my confirmation of your "it was local tacky politics".

Indeed, it turns out not to have been "local tacky politics" at all, but rather the whole thing came striaght out of DNC headquarters in Washington.

Quote:
"That was the plan all along ..." says one Democratic political operative who spoke only under promise that his name not be used... Democratic operatives planned, engineered Wellstone political rally...

And you've chosen such an unbiased source for your rebuttal. I'm certainly impressed.

Indeed, it [the Wellstone memorial] turns out not to have been "local tacky politics" at all, but rather the whole thing came striaght out of DNC headquarters in Washington.

Quote:
"That was the plan all along ..." says one Democratic political operative who spoke only under promise that his name not be used... Democratic operatives planned, engineered Wellstone political rally...

Originally Posted by David '47

And you've chosen such an unbiased source for your rebuttal. I'm certainly impressed.

A couple of months from now, the Washington Post will do a story about all this, and confirm all the worst that has been written, here. Of course, by then most people won't give a damn, and the corruption of the Democratic Party will continue unabated...

What do all the people who complained about Wellstone's memorial service being turned into a political rally think about the current "Campaigner in Chief" putting ole Clinton to shame with his intense recent political campaigning? On our tax dollars?