you can't say that!

[headshake]

Thanks Shake.Still getting used to navigating all of this! smello

no worries. there is always learning to do!

-shake

[smello]

Now if I could only type faster!lol

[boaz]

So did anyone notice today that the House is trying to formally chastise one of its members for his behavior toward the President? It's funny how we can't criticize the "Annointed One." If you do, they'll call you a big fat racist and say you love the Klan or something. The House wants to ban the words "liar, intellectually dishonest, and hypocrite"

They love to divide people by race, really skin color, even though we're all from a single human race. And the side that points the finger crying racist has Robert Byrd in their party. Not that it really matters though, since it's all one party anyhow. They merely disagree on points about how they're going to rob us of our freedom. It seems that the politically correct ones are the very first to smear others with divisive rhetoric.

i agree. i came to realize in college that being a straight white male means that i am the enemy. i am the one who must be brought down at any cost. and since, in the minds of some liberals, only "white" people can, by definition be a "racist" therefore anything a white person says is racist and, in contrast, any vile nasty thing a non "white" simply cannot be "racist" because they are not "white". it is absolute lunacy.

you make a really good point that both parties "merely disagree on points about how they're going to rob us of our freedom." i absolutely agree with that.

there was a thread started by bong30 that i thought was interesting that talks about how we need to see politics as a 360 degree circle, as apposed to a 180 degree arc that we normally use to analyse politics. so that yes there is the left or liberals and there is the right or conservative (and they obviously do hate each other with a passion) but even more important is the other dimension. libertarian vs. statist. or as some of like to call them the nanny statist.

libertarians, by nature, believe in themselves and want the "gov't" to just go away in general where as the [nanny] statist want a big gov't to run their lives for them. So, if you look at it from a 360 degree view you can see that there are liberal and conservative libertarians and liberal and conservative statist.

the problem that we have now is that [nanny] statist are voting in more and more gov't controll across the liberal and conservative spectrum, just as the gov't wants. this is the real problem we are facing, i think. too many people want a big centralized gov't that they think will solve all their problems and and hand full of crooked politicians are happy to give them the illusion of that as they try to take more and more of our god given rights away.

[LOC NAR on probation]

sensorship or ban from the free and the brave. The right to speek your mind in a FREE country. Or is it ?

You can tax me to death and they do.
You can usurp my human rights to justify safety for other.
You can turn this country into a NAZI state and they have.

But you will never silence the right to FREE SPEACH.

It was Obama that just called another black man a JACKASS for his actions on TV. Oh but that was off the record so it doesn't count. With all due respect.

The man at the top is only a puppet to the PARTY.

When we are pushed into a corner and have no where else to go then by the sweat of our brow and the stength of our backs. They will know what WE can do.

Get ready people the STORM is coming. It's a multi-color storm that is going to take this country back and live in Peace.
OR die for the right to FREEDOM.

[psychocat]

It's considered "bad form" to call an MP a liar.
To get around this British MP's use alternate phrases, instead of saying "you sir/madam are a liar" they say they are being economical with the truth.
A rose by any other name. :thumbsup:

[cptcannabis]

It's considered "bad form" to call an MP a liar.
To get around this British MP's use alternate phrases, instead of saying "you sir/madam are a liar" they say they are being economical with the truth.
A rose by any other name. :thumbsup:

That reminds me of a tidbit of British history. It was said that Lady Astor told Winston Churchill, "Sir, you are an intolerable drunk!" To which Churchill replied in turn, "Madam, you are exceedingly ugly. The difference between you and I is that in the morning, I will be sober."

[cptcannabis]

If there were any conservatives in congress any more they would have just stood up and walked out.

And real liberals too! I think just about the only two "real" Congressmen are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I don't agree with Kucinich on everything, but at least he carries the Constitution with him like the precious document it is and respects & adheres to it!

The circle simile is great. I like the idea that the Legislative Branch is just a big carrion bird with a right-wing and a left-wing, laughing all the way to the bank.

[headshake]

maybe if we didn't elect judges things might be a bit different. we are one of only a handful of countries that does this.

-shake

[cptcannabis]

Well, the election of judges is a problem in and of itself. But the larger issue is the fact that many legislate from the bench. They just decide what is right from their own estimation and don't rely upon the Constitution and precedent as their guide as they are supposed to. Obama underscored this philosophy with Sonia Sotomayor. He stated very clearly that he wanted justices that are not blind to race, gender, and economic condition. Ironically, Lady Justice is blindfolded while she holds the scales of justice, illustrating that justice is blind. And if you look up some of her lectures. She jests tongue-in-cheek that judges aren't supposed to legislate from the bench and has a big laugh with the students she's lecturing to, because they all know it's a big joke & that law is made in the judge's seat all the time!

[cptcannabis]

Well, the election of judges is a problem in and of itself. But the larger issue is the fact that many legislate from the bench. They just decide what is right from their own estimation and don't rely upon the Constitution and precedent as their guide as they are supposed to. Obama underscored this philosophy with Sonia Sotomayor. He stated very clearly that he wanted justices that are not blind to race, gender, and economic condition. Ironically, Lady Justice is blindfolded while she holds the scales of justice, illustrating that justice is blind. And if you look up some of her lectures. She jests tongue-in-cheek that judges aren't supposed to legislate from the bench and has a big laugh with the students she's lecturing to, because they all know it's a big joke & that law is made in the judge's seat all the time!