#21: Fresh Start?
THREAD BEGAN: November 29th, 2004
From now on, all contributions to this forum will be made by posting comments at the bottom of each thread.
(1) Click on '# comments' then on 'Post a Comment' to get to Comment Sign-In.
(2) At Comment Sign-In:
-----Those of you who have a Blog can click 'Sign In'.
-----Those who don't can click 'Get One Now' or 'Or Post Anonymously'.
-----If you are posting Anonymously begin every post with "YOURNAME:"
I will start a new thread when/if this one gets too long.
Enjoy, but remember...
- Please keep each post to under 500 words
- Try to limit the cut-and-paste (use links when possible)
- Play nice
posted by Robert @ 12:18 PM
31 comments
31 Comments:
Hey guys. Curious how you feel about Bush not working to get the 9/11 recommendations passed. Pretty sad start. I am trying to give the guy a chance, but its hard when this type of shit happens.
I agree. Bush needs to invest a little of his political capital to get this bill passed. Hunter and Sensenbrenner are willing to stop hundreds of reforms because of up to three minor details that can be fixed later.
Well, Chuck I'll tell you what..it's hard to get over the election. I am trying so hard to change my outlook on the War/ U.S. Casualities too but so far...nada.
I mean how can we? Bush is still Bush. Wrong is still wrong. I don't know man...i'm just trying to ignore the news. Maybe it would be a good idea to talk about some general partisan issues (I think Jay wanted to talk about Gun Rights at one point) more so than current news. Cause the news hurts too bad. Everytime that I see Bush, I wanna puke. And now we have Rice stepping up, oh lord!
Let me tell you exactly why. I can no longer go to BBQs here and defend us by saying that there is a difference between the American people and the U.S. government and that this government doesn't represent the will of the people. Its tough to swallow.
Bob, I feel exactly what you are feeling in regards to the day to day activities and news. My ability to handle my feelings sways from day to day. Sometimes I, like you, give up on the day to day news. However, other days, I want to fight these guys tooth and nail, day after day.
The Dems laid down and gave bush what he wanted after 9/11, without any analysis, and he got everything he wanted. We cannot let that happen again. That said, we still must choose our battles. We cannot just fight everything, but keeping up, day after day, is how I will stay alert and smell a big disaster. For example, I'll just shrug my shoulders when Bush cuts after school spending by 3%. But I'll be ready to explode the moment Bush wants to pass something as disgusting as his Energy Bill.
That said, I definitely would like to discuss broader issues. Its a way to keep sanity and maybe even find some common ground b/w all of us.
Hey all, I couldn’t come home for the holidays, but for those of you in the Montrose area: Try to recruit some old Revere Alumni for the Blog during your nights in the Valley. NOTE: We really need some conservative voices! 100 liberals bitching about Bush gets old fast. Good luck.
Is that Justin Kattan? Welcome aboard.
Sorry, another born and raised liberal here. However, I will make a negative comment about their party..Did anyone see Michael Moore on Leno last night? That gentleman needs to seriously consider mixing in a salad or he wont be around for 2008. I have not seen Faren 9/11 and really have no desire to do so but last night really disturbed me. He was cleanly shaven and in a suit and never looked worse. However, it was amusing when he ending the interview by sarcastically blurting out "4 more years" Good Day
TG
Maybe all of the conservatives are on one of the other "Internets"
Well, I like this format...it seems less formal. Before I felt like I was submitting testimony sometimes. Anyhow, today I noticed something when I was teaching a lesson about Individual Rights and Responsibilities in the States. It has to do with Conservatives' and Liberals' stances on personal freedoms.
I think most people would agree that in general, it is the far right that seems to be prone to place limitation and exceptions on personal freedoms while the left, being at times idealistic, seems to preach personal freedoms with little or no limits.
The right seems to feel, that although not written into the constitution, that limitations and restrictions are obviously necessary to uphold the moral fiber of the society etc. etc..
Some examples that we talked about in class:
(1) Freedom of Speech + Freedom of Press:
Who is it that wants to censor Marilyn Manson, Too Live Crew and Hustler?
The far right.
(2) Freedom of Religion
Remember that email I sent you guys about the Muslim stamp boycott…Those people sounded like they'd support a Muslim boycott if it was on the ballot. Who is it that supports nation wide Muslim roundups and discriminatory profiling?
The far right.
When those crazy Devil worshippers are being oppressed they call up the liberals to defend them on a constitutional basis and the far right has a shit-fit.
(3) Rights of the Accused
Who doesn't really care about the prisoners in Guantanammo Bay that don’t have a trial or a lawyer or Rodney King, minority rights and loves racial profiling…the far right.
So over the course of the class we kept coming back to this pattern.
Far right…more restrictions.
Far left…less restrictions.
Then we got to the Right to Bare Arms and the tables flipped! It was so bizarre.
In this category, liberals were pushing for gunlocks and waiting periods and assault weapon bans while the far right was uncompromising and interpreted the 2nd Amendment as limitless and unrestrictable; while they had no problem making common sense exceptions in all other cases.
Personally, I support the 2nd Amendment.
But I think like all personal freedoms there must be limits. The word 'arms' should include hand guns and rifles, but not bazookas, automatic weapons, and nuclear bombs. Duh.
It seems so crazy to me when the far right isn't willing to make a distinction between the type of 'arms' that our forefathers must have envisioned (a rifle to protest the farm) from a shoulder mounted grenade launcher or an AK-47.
I support a citizen’s right to carry a firearm for self protection and if a store owner wants to keep a shotgun under the counter…fine. But we must draw a distinct line in the sand…and where that line belongs seems obvious to me.
What say you?
I agree that a store owner has the right to keep a weapon for protection. However, for the common citizen I just dont like the idea of any yahoo bearing arms. It's really for no other reason other than that the fewer guns there are the fewer problems there will be associated with them. It's just a personal opinion, I really have nothing to back it up, it's just a view.
TG
HEWITTTTTTT and the crew..its me..i cant contain myself to the "chief boards" anymore...everyone is being recruited to NYC for new years and many more good times...so that is how i will get it started on these boards...and i am clearly a liberal so more of the same pile on in here.
Just because the 9/11 Commssion says to do something - there is no rule that every single thing they says has to be implemented immediately. lets make sure the changes are proper and not just quick fixes to make people happy
also - all you bitching about Rice as new SOS. Is Bush supposed to surround himself with people who disagree with him? Clinton didnt. Bush won. he can appoint whom he wishes in his cabinent.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't know who 'smittypop2' is or what 'F suits' means. I like to know who I am dealing with. I encourage everyone to use their God-given birth name in the Blog or at least tell us who you are.
Hey its Sammartano
I would like to talk about Bob's 2nd amendment blog posting. 1st I would like to ask the members of the blog if any of us own a gun. If any of you do or don't and support the 2nd amendment, tell us why. Obviuosly I am against the right to bear arms, and now with concealed weapon policies being invoked in many states, I believe it is getting out if control. Yes the 2nd amendment was for our forefathers for hunting and protecting themselves. I beleive we live in a more civilized world where I don't need a gun to go hunting just to feed myself. Personally I don't need a gun to protect myself, cause I live in a reasonably safe area, I know it is unsafe in some areas of the city, but get rid of the guns and you lower the murder rate. Its a fact, don't deny it. Its just that easy get rid of the guns lower the murder rate. Oh, if anyone is a part of the NRA, I would like to sign up, just to give you guys a bad name.
Dan, I cannot help myself. You are jumping on Justin when you have still not justified all the fictional tales about how automatic weapons have never been banned....or something similarly wrong?
Okay, and to make it worse, your facts are inaccurate. Clinton had 7 replacements for his second term, not 10. You said 10...that is wrong. So before you jump on someone, please be right. (by the way, we can manipulate these numbers in both of our favors based on mid-term resignees, but i believe that we are all talking about the turnover after the re-election)
Either way, I would say the turnover is not unthinkable. I do think the promotions have been unacceptable. Also, there are rumors that 2-3 more members may leave, which would be 10 (the amount that dan falsely claimed clinton replaced).
My opinion, is that these people that resign are disgusting. Not the education secretary or the commerce secretary....but the Attorney General and Homeland Security. Its ridiculous. Do these guys really care about our security? They are quitting to go make money as lobbyists.
Ashcroft actually proclaimed his work was complete (so there are no more terrorists in the US....he jailed them all, i guess). Ridge was only on the job for a year and a half. And he had the duty to keep our homeland safe....and he wanted to do something else? That is not a patriot, that is....well, i'll just say, the opposite. At least Bush cares enough to want to serve the country.
To Summarize: Dan is not in position to call others on the facts, based on his automatic weapons claims. Whenever Dan does get in that position, he should attempt to be accurate in the facts he puts forth. Finally, you really have to wonder about Ridge and Ashcrofts care for this country.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I am opposed to all guns. If I could, I would ban everyone of them.
However, I am not dictator, and it seems like a lot of people like guns. The whole thing scares and disturbs me, but that is where people like me must keep an open mind. There can be compromises, and we have some good ones in place (safety locks, time restrictions). I think we can handle this issue reasonably, but at times we seem to go in crazy directions (EX: reauthorize semi-auto weapons, or providing loopholes for gun shows).
I do think these concealed weapon permits seem nuts, but I dont really know the impact....aside from me randomly wetting myself when seeing redneckish folks in rural areas.
"your president not mine"?? Did I vote for Bush? No..Do I support him? For the most part yes bc I love this country and it's the best place to live in this world. If you think its so bad just bc Bush is our president then get out! I mean it must be nice to be 25 yrs old and not have to work to support yourself bc your living off your trust fund. Know what it's like to actually EARN a living and then go try to that somewhere else. This is a great country. It's not like we are all going to start living out of our cars bc Bush is president. Talk to some men who are fighting in Iraq. I personally have conversations with one on a monthly basis. Get some real world experience and then say how bad "my president" is. I didnt vote for him but yes he is "my president." I mean, do u even have a job? Or do u just count the money your grandparents left you? Seriously, its people like you who I wish knew what it was like to worry about paying a bill, or putting gas in your car.
I will get back into this soon....I am still decompressing after the great national victory of Nov 2. Plus I dont like to gloat. I agree with one position of Chucks stuff - I am against guns. Other than that, there aint much else we can agree on politcally.
There is turnover after every election - the people are leaving now, yes, but Bush had incredible stability in his first term cabinet - something not seen by the previous 6 presidents. Now people are leaving. Working 12-15 hr days 6 or 7 days a week has to be taxing. I understand leaving. I understand anyone getting burned out from a job like that from any admin. I get burned out after walking to get my mail. After I woke up at noon.
Hey all,
For anyone who is interested...here is the back-and-forth between CHUCK and PETE that ended up in the inbox instead of the Blog. Hope this gets us all caught up.
CHUCK SAID:
Hey all, I just wanted to bring something to everyones attention. On November 2 voters in Alabama voted to keep segregation-era constitutional law requiring separate schools for "white and colored children".
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6596687/
Its really sad. At least that's not the "base" of my party. Now, I dont think anyone here is overtly racist like that, but i just think its important to remember.
It is especially important to remember when certain people (i am thinking of ben and viscione) rail against activist judges and demand the elimination of things like affirmative action and other initiatives designed to empower racial minorities.
(by the way, as i continue to ponder the loss of kerry, i continue to gain pride because i know my side did not rely on support of these type of segregationists. and i didnt vote for the party that is blocking the 9/11 commission recommendations. and i didnt support the guy that is doing nothing to pass the 9/11 recommendations.....but when bush wanted those tax cuts, he ran ads against opponents and made sure he had his way. and you people think bush will make you safer?)
PETE SAID:
A) Alabama is not the "base" of anything, and if you actually read the article, it leads to an inference that taxes and judicial overreach were overriding concerns of the voters.
B) I'm glad you take comfort that you didn't vote with the Alabamans,but does it make you any more comfortable to vote with the "friends of suicide bombers," or the U.N.? Why don't you (any of you anti-war folk) ever have anything to say about the Oil for Food program?
C) It's amusing that you are hooting and hollering for the 9/11 recommendations to be unilaterally adopted (as though any recommendations from the blindly partisan panel are automatically good ideas), yet are against actual operations that do make us safer.
CHUCK SAID:
1) To act like that the alabama amendment was anything but racism is pathetic. the article points out that those suggestions of taxation were silly, and a way to mask racism. No Question.
2) YOU ARE A FUCKING ASSHOLE to claim I vote w/ friends of terrorists, etc....that is shitty. What is your basis, anyways? Additionally, the UN is a good thing, and to act like its not is moronic. The UN should not run our country, but to just mock it shows massive ignorance.
3) 9/11 recommendations are blindly parisan? what are you implying? i really have no idea. Addtionally, the people obstructing its passage should be put in jail.
4) take it to the blog. but you wont, you'll just duck in for a minute, attempt to seem profound, and then not be heard from for 2 months.
PETE SAID:
Chuck, I think it's funny that I'm a "fucking asshole" for pointing out that Democrats vote with "Friends of the Suicide Bombers" aka interest groups that deny Israel's right to exist and people like Noam Chomsky that celebrated 9/11 yet you are somehow less of a "fucking asshole" for pointing out that there are racists that voted for Bush. News flash: there are racists that vote Democratic too. My point was that you really were making no point.
Is it really massive ignorance to mock the U.N when Libya is on its human rights commission? Again, do you even know what the Oil for food scandal is? Why won't you address it? I've brought it up countless times, but nobody's said a word of it...what am I to think of this but that you're not even aware of it. (and I'm the massively ignorant one?) In a nutshell, it appears that French, Russian and Chinese interests were receiving serious kickbacks from Saddam who was able to funnel BILLIONS (estimates are now up to 24) of what was
supposed to be UN aid to do God knows what with...(pay families of suicide bombers?) This has now been exposed, thanks to the Iraq war.
This is to say nothing of the fact that Kofi Annan's (Secretary General of the UN) son Kojo was given a job at a company that was receiving these kickbacks from Saddam? And we're supposed to listen when these people tell us not to go to war? How does my concern with
this make me massively ignorant? How does your seeming ignorance of the very existance of this scandal not make you massively moreso? Please explain.
Finally, yes, after this back and forth I will probably not send another email until after I'm finished with my exams. As much as I appreciate your suggestion that I only write in some vain attempt to seem profound, the truth is that I'm not after profundity, just factual accuracy and well reasoned arguments. The issues discussed here are quite complex, and to discuss them intelligently (as opposed to saying things like "UN good, 9/11 commission good, Pete and Viscione morons") would take time for further research that I just don't have right now as I've got quite a bit of studying to do. I'd like a decent job when I get out of school. Sorry.
CHUCK SAID:
apologies to all for my irrational explosion on pattakos
First, one risk of using this new Blog format is that we might get anonymous people making personal attacks.
Just to fill this guy in, personally, I am completely cut of from the folks. In my life I have worked in 10 restaurants including recently being a dishwasher at BOSTON MARKET (glamorous huh?)!
I am presently living in a small mountain town in the Southeast of Brazil (Itajubá) working my ass for $3 per hour teaching English trying to land a job in São Paulo on the weekends…and believe me, I am having some money problems of my own. Quite frankly, I don’t know how I will afford a $1100 plane ticket to get back home when that time comes. Obviously, this person doesn’t know me very well.
About the cabinet-shake-up, I agree with Dan and Ben. I think this kind of thing is normal and isn't necessarily a reflection on Bush. It doesn't matter if 10 or 7 or 9 of Clintons positions turned-over…the point was right on REPs.
Now back to that anonymous post:
The guy says a few things that I really loved:
(1)"The U.S. is the best place to live in the world."
Maybe it is…maybe it isn’t. But the way that this guy drops this ‘fact’ is an indication of small-town patriotism at its best. I wonder has this person ever lived outside of the U.S.? I found an article at CNN international. It is a bit old (2001) but I’d like to share it with the group. It says:
“UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations Human Development Report has
ranked 162 countries according to per capita income, health care, life
expectancy and educational levels.
Top 20
1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Canada
4. Sweden
5. Belgium
6. United States
etc...."
Now, I am not dogging the U.S. I love the U.S. and I love living there, but I also loved living in Australia…and I think it is fair to say that this title of the 'obvious best place in the world to live' is open to discussion.
I'd just like to return to the point that I made in Thread #20…that is that we Americans have this huge chip on our shoulder…and view everything outside our borders as primitive/inferior. This is a sure sign that this guy is not well traveled.
(2) Then he says… “if you don’t love it...leave it.” This is one of my favorite backwoods bumperstickers. How ignorant. I think everyone at this Blog understands the role that we all play as citizen watchdogs. And the importance of forums like this...people speaking freely and questioning their government is a vital part of any true democracy.
So, in closing. All are welcome to participate, but if you're gonna get nasty...
PUT YOUR NAME ON IT.
(and remember we are all friends, so don't get too nasty, please.)
Okay, lets keep it all friendly. And again, sorry for my role in being a dick.
Dan, like I said, I do agree w/ your basic premise that this is not unprecedented. And I think we are just juggling around numbers to make our points. Either way, both Clinton and Bush had 7 replacements from term one to term 2. (and both clinton and bush had other replacements in the middle of sessions, which would alter the number)
Again, you found some nice bullet point presentation about the assault weapons ban about all this stuff I have no idea about. What I do have an idea about is that AK47's were NOT legal, and now they ARE LEGAL. (along w/ a whole series of guns).
Dan, you are basically saying the assault weapon ban had no effect. I disagree, and I think the facts support my case. The law basically outlawed rapid fire (repeatedly pulling the trigger w/out reloading) guns. Also, you were earlier discussing Automatic Weapons being legal. That was simply wrong.
Bob,
I was kinda hoping my embarassing exchange w/ pete would disappear in to trashed email. But that's okay.
I should just add, then, that I also sent Pete a personal apology because i acted ridiculous.
Well, just letting everyone know that I have set up the Blog so that it DOES NOT ALLOW ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. This means that everyone who wants to comment needs to setup an account with Blogspot...most of you already have done this and it only takes a second.
I also put a new poll on the site...the question is which type of format is the best for this forum. So let me know. It just seems like we had 20 full threads of dialog with less name calling and cursing than this thread alone (maybe that's not true, but it's close). I hope this will help.
Chuck, I figured that everyone had already read your exchange with Pete and I was trying to move everyone over to the Blog. Hope I didn't piss you off, man.
Justin (and everyone else new), usually things here are heated, but not personal. Don't get discouraged by this ugly thread.
So glad I didn't get 40 emails. This is a much better to read all the comments in the flow. I also welcome Justin to the forum. Kudos to Hewitt and File. I look forward to future discussions.
No problem Bob. I actually didnt like getting my ass ripped up by Pete. I need to look more into this food-for-oil thing, which appears to be pretty bad (which doesnt make the UN bad or iraq acceptable)
Also, I am pretty sure i know how "Anonymous" was (so does justin). He is just a bitter asshole. Pay no attention.
GUNS:
I would love a ban, and would vote for such a ban and support gun control politicians. However, this fight is not something I am willing to put myself on the line for. I dont get it, but there are a lot of gun lovers out there, so if they are safe, have fun.
Dan: You are saying the weapon ban was "overall" bad w/ no basis. I dont want to keep fighting this issue. I do want to point out the premise of my initial comment about the Wisconsin massacre:
6 People Died, from an UNALTERED SEMI-AUTO Weapon, which was banned until 2004.
This weapon was previously banned because of its ability to rapidly fire.
The man that killed 6 would likely not w/out a gun w/ rapid fire.
Maybe this is an isolated incident and you don't think its a big deal. But a person or 2 died, when they may not have if this nut job did not have access to the rapid fire gun.
well, i guess we agree more then i realize.
and if there was something i felt like rebutting, i would. and you would respond.
HEWITT..this is matt smith you bastard...anyways...where is nugent at?? Guns are terrible in any, way, shape or form and when are you coming home?? new years, xmas or both?? later
Well, I'm not finished with the gun arguement.
I do support a citizens right to carry a firearm and think that some liberals are being a bit idealistic. I will be laying that arguement out later today.
Also, I will start a new thread today. I think that after 50 posts..it is time. This thread filled up alot faster than I expected. Good work boys.
Don't forget to vote in the poll about which format you want to use for this forum...I am still torn if we should open it up for anonymous snippers.
And Smith...I will not be coming home for the holidays. I have another tour of duty here in Brazil (6 months?) Thanks for asking though.
Bob,
Karen Adler here. I just wanted to commend you - I found out about your site via Chief Source and have been reading. I think it's great. Well done.
Also, in regards to Anonymous Ranter, I don't know who it is, but I don't think he/she is likely to reveal identity anytime soon. It sounds as if it started as a bitter rant that almost inadvertently, and maybe unintentionally, took aim at Justin. Calling the person out as a "pussy" and a "pile of shit" probably scared him/her into submission. Just a thought.
I think I am the first girl thus far to post, so I apologize for breaking up the boys club, but I don't think your site should be closed off. There are a lot of people out here (including myself) who do read. However, this is probably my first and last post; as I am really not informed enough to address most of these issues (although I am very good at name-calling).
Thanks for the consideration,
Karen
FORMAT:
I really have no problem w/ allowing anonymous w/ our current requirement of saying your name. If anyone is as big an ass as the original "anonymous" I think we will sufficiently embarrass that person w/ verbal assaults.
Bob, also one other suggestion (you may be planning on it). Try to steer the discussion, or at least give an intial topic. Then if later we veer off into other stuff 10 posts later, you can just rename the subject so outsiders know what we are talking about.
Post a Comment
<< Home