Actions Speak louder than Words

Condi Rice was approved with 83 votes. Some of those were Democrats. The problem with Gonzales isn't that he is conservative, hispanic, a bad bowler, or any other reason you might delude yourself with. The reason is that he advocated torture, helped define legal loopholes that would short-circuit the constitution, and was very evasive on the subjects during questioning.

Now, keep trying, but I think you know the real reason for this and just want to bash people. Which make sense, since you support torture-boy Gonzales. The Republic for the torture of potential innocents, of the torture of potential innocents, and by the torture of potential innocents.

I think I slide a little furthur left every time I read one of these almost-coherent posts.

If Minorities can see that they do not need white libeals help to get ahead, some wil probably try to make it on their own,

that's gotta be one of the most patently offensive paternalistic presumptive generalizations ive seen in a while.  just outta curiosity, oh great white pillar of wisdom, what's the future hold for the rest? 

you know, the ones who arent able to stumble outta the liberal fog and remain blinded,  forever unable to see they dont need white liberals help?

or those who manage to get the white liberal fingers outta their eyes but probably wont try to make it on their own?  theyre gonna wander around listlessly hoping for someone to motivate them?

Reply #1 By: Myrrander - 2/4/2005 12:13:21 PM Condi Rice was approved with 83 votes. Some of those were Democrats. The problem with Gonzales isn't that he is conservative, hispanic, a bad bowler, or any other reason you might delude yourself with. The reason is that he advocated torture, helped define legal loopholes that would short-circuit the constitution, and was very evasive on the subjects during questioning. Now, keep trying, but I think you know the real reason for this and just want to bash people. Which make sense, since you support torture-boy Gonzales. The Republic for the torture of potential innocents, of the torture of potential innocents, and by the torture of potential innocents. I think I slide a little furthur left every time I read one of these almost-coherent posts.

Well Myrr to start with your numbers are a "little" off and you failed to address the demighraphics of those numbers. First the vote itself was 85-13 with 2 not voting. Second, every single nay vote was a democrat. 32 dems voted yea. still that 1/3 of their numbers saying no!

Link


Lastly you claim Mr. Gonzales is pro-torture. You couldn't be more wrong. Show me where he says that, I dare you. And don't bother using that memo from Jan 25. Because no where in the memo does he advocate torture. Me states that he was advising the president based on other people findings. The link below takes you to the memo. Please quote the section where he advocates torture.



Link

that's gotta be one of the most patently offensive paternalistic presumptive generalizations ive seen in a while. just outta curiosity, oh great white pillar of wisdom, what's the future hold for the rest? you know, the ones who arent able to stumble outta the liberal fog and remain blinded, forever unable to see they dont need white liberals help? or those who manage to get the white liberal fingers outta their eyes but probably wont try to make it on their own? theyre gonna wander around listlessly hoping for someone to motivate them?

Other than the patently offensive part, you seem to be supporting my point.  I am not sure you understood what you read, but if you have a point to make, please make it.

Lastly you claim Mr. Gonzales is pro-torture. You couldn't be more wrong. Show me where he says that, I dare you. And don't bother using that memo from Jan 25. Because no where in the memo does he advocate torture. Me states that he was advising the president based on other people findings. The link below takes you to the memo. Please quote the section where he advocates torture.

DR, they dont want to hear the truth.  They just wanted an excuse to vote against him because as a minority, he did not toe their line.

Liberals idea of not answering a question is when the question is asked "When did you stop supporting torture", the respondant says "The premise of your question is false".  That is a non answer to them.

I am not sure you understood what you read, but if you have a point to make, please make it.

this is your original statement as i quoted it earlier no?

If Minorities can see that they do not need white libeals help to get ahead, some wil probably try to make it on their own

ill try to go slow here so you dont get lost again.   

if minorities can see  suggests a possibility they are incapable of doing so. 

if they can see they do not need white libeals help to get ahead suggests minorities are now suffering under the misapprehension they DO need help to get aheard.

some wil probably try to make it on their own asserts some probably wont try to make it on their own

now if you go back and read my original comment you will probably be able to see what you missed the first time around

Reply #10 By: kingbee - 2/4/2005 1:34:54 PM I am not sure you understood what you read, but if you have a point to make, please make it. this is your original statement as i quoted it earlier no? If Minorities can see that they do not need white libeals help to get ahead, some wil probably try to make it on their own ill try to go slow here so you dont get lost again. if minorities can see suggests a possibility they are incapable of doing so.

I think your reading waaaay more into this than was intended.

I think your reading waaaay more into this than was intended.

you responded to a partial post that was quadruplicated for no apparent reason (i know i hit the enter key by mistake but only once) but im reading exactly what was written.  if thats not what he intended to say, perhaps a lil more precision is in order.  if he--or you--cant perceive the obious insults in that sentence, then its notta question of actions speaking louder than words.  its more a matter of attitudes revealed by words.

ill try to go slow here so you dont get lost again. if minorities can see suggests a possibility they are incapable of doing so. if they can see they do not need white libeals help to get ahead suggests minorities are now suffering under the misapprehension they DO need help to get aheard. some wil probably try to make it on their own asserts some probably wont try to make it on their own now if you go back and read my original comment you will probably be able to see what you missed the first time around

AH, the old pot calling the kettle black!  You see your simple mis-assumption is that I know what is best for them, I do not.  Your second mis-assumption is that Liberals do not think (not me or them) they can get ahead without them, hence they vote for the largess the liberals promise them that produces nothing but votes for liberals.

Finally, your final mis-assumption is that given the opportunity, all would chose to get ahead.  This is definitely not the case for any segment of the population, and is a simple statement of fact. 

Nice try tho, trying to turn the tables on debate.  But as the title stated, ACTIONS speak louder than words, and the actions of the liberals show that they dont want minorities get ahead unless liberals are calling the shots.

p.s. I'll take care of the posts.  It does it to me at times.  Dont know why.

if he--or you--cant perceive the obious insults in that sentence, then its notta question of actions speaking louder than words. its more a matter of attitudes revealed by words.

No, it is simply the facts.  Many people are swayed by propaganda, you dont have to be a minority to be so swayed.  The Minorities have been told (some not all) so long that they need liberal programs to get ahead that those minorities that have done so on their own have to be hidden from the rest so as not to destroy  the effect of the propaganda.

Unlike, or perhaps just as, liberals, I know minorities dont need liberals telling them what they can and cannot do to get ahead.  I say just as because I think the liberal leadership knows that too, and they are afraid of losing their constituency should their constituency realize that fact.

Actions speak louder than words.  Look at the actions of the liberal leadership and tell me that is not blantantly racist in their attitude to a conservative minority.

Look at the actions of the liberal leadership and tell me that is not blantantly racist in their attitude to a conservative minority.

how many white conservative nominees for attorney general have been approved by liberal democrats (or liberal republicans) after learning the nominee in question advised the president there were ways to shield anyone indicted for acting on the president's orders in violation of a federal statute which expressly prohibits americans from engaging in torture on both american and foreign soil? 

unless you can name one, youve sorta painted yourself into a racialist corner by suggesting they should make an exception in gonzales case.    hey moe!

how many white conservative nominees for attorney general have been approved by liberal democrats (or liberal republicans) after learning the nominee in question advised the president there were ways to shield anyone indicted for acting on the president's orders in violation of a federal statute which expressly prohibits americans from engaging in torture on both american and foreign soil?

Hello!  (knocking on head).  Anyone there?  If you are a lawyer and asked for what is legal, are you going to quote ethics or what you are asked for?  Hello?  Anyone home?

So your last question is irrelevant!  You just painted yourself as a sheep.  Not looking into the why, just following

If you are a lawyer and asked for what is legal

yeah...nobody should expect the attorney general of the united states to have any ethics or respect for the united states code he's supposer to enforce.

Look at the actions of the liberal leadership and tell me that is not blantantly racist in their attitude to a conservative minority.

how many white conservative nominees who've opined the executive branch is superior to the other two branches are there?  since no authentic conservative would ever sign off on such nonsense, the question now becomes how many white (or green or purple) unprincipled  imitation conservatives possessed of such a bizarre misunderstanding of a core constitutional element so easily comprehensible it's taught in third grade have been nominated to the highest law enforcement position in our government? 

here's a followup question: if the president nominated johnny cochoran for the post and liberal democrats didnt vote to approve, would you still play the race card?  

yeah...nobody should expect the attorney general of the united states to have any ethics or respect for the united states code he's supposer to enforce.

It is called following the law, not making it.  That is the difference between liberals and the rest of society.  We want to make our laws, not activist judges.  Guess that is why you love activist judges so much, cause you cannot get your own pathetic agenda passed.

how many white conservative nominees who've opined the executive branch is superior to the other two branches are there? since no authentic conservative would ever sign off on such nonsense, the question now becomes how many white (or green or purple) unprincipled imitation conservatives possessed of such a bizarre misunderstanding of a core constitutional element so easily comprehensible it's taught in third grade have been nominated to the highest law enforcement position in our government?

Is there any intelligence there?  Or just rantings and ravings of a liberal mind?  You have no point or facts, and no rational thought with the above.

here's a followup question: if the president nominated johnny cochoran for the post and liberal democrats didnt vote to approve, would you still play the race card?

Yep, it would follow their racist pattern.  What is wrong with Cochran?  He seems to be a damn fine attorney, and unlike Sharpton and Jackson, is out for the best of his client, not for his subjugation to the white liberal masters.

We want to make our laws, not activist judges. Guess that is why you love activist judges so much, cause you cannot get your own pathetic agenda passed.

you realize youre referring to law 'we' already made by virtue of its enactment in congress?  what's truly pathetic is the ignorance manifested in your activist judge jingoism.

you realize youre referring to law 'we' already made by virtue of its enactment in congress? what's truly pathetic is the ignorance manifested in your activist judge jingoism.

Your ignorance is in not knowing the difference.  What law pray tell did you pass in congress?  Answer? None.  Judges making law is bypassing congress by definition.  Seems your trolley just jumped the track.

What law pray tell did you pass in congress? Answer? None

War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. $2441 (Supp. 111 1997)

Your ignorance is in not knowing the difference

my foolishness is realizing this late in the discussion you're totally clueless about the wca--which explains your irrelevant comments about judges as well as your inability to appreciate the gravity of gonzales' malfeasance.  if we're gonna have a slimeball lawyer as attorney general, id much prefer a smart slimeball with proven skills who doesnt pretend to be something he's not..bruce cutler, for instance.  

Seems your trolley just jumped the track

you must be spending way too much time watchin dr phil.

my foolishness is realizing this late in the discussion you're totally clueless about the wca--which explains your irrelevant comments about judges as well as your inability to appreciate the gravity of gonzales' malfeasance. if we're gonna have a slimeball lawyer as attorney general, id much prefer a smart slimeball with proven skills who doesnt pretend to be something he's not..bruce cutler, for instance.

And how is that relevant to the bigotry of the left?  You just pulling stuff out of your ass?  Apparently, because I dont recall saying that the WCA was illegal or wrong, or even anyone discussing it.  Berhaps your trolley has jumped the track, or at least the blog. Try rereading the blog and then pull your stupid, irrelevant comments to the correct blog.  This aint it.

Apparently, because I dont recall saying that the WCA was illegal or wrong, or even anyone discussing it

nice try.  go back and reread this thread paying close attention to replies#s 1, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15, the gist of which was there is a very good reason to vote against gonzales or any other lawyer of any race or ethnicity who spent the past two years conjuring up ways to undermine part of the us federal code  the attorney general is sworn to enforce. (gonzales himself claimed his work "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act"; lawyers who knowing abet clients while they're actively engaging in criminal activity--note that gonzales isnt disputing criminal culpability-- have crossed the line and, rather than being nominated to be the nation's top law enforcers, are generally considered to be co-conspirators.)

And how is that relevant to the bigotry of the left?

i agree it's much more relevant to demonstrating what a buncha crap youre trying to pass off as fact.  not that you require any more effort on my part.  anyone with a halfway open mind,  the reading skills of a 10th grader and a high tolerance for your childish admonitions is gonna easily see whatta admirable job you yourself have done in that regard. 

nice try. go back and reread this thread paying close attention to replies#s 1, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15, the gist of which was there is a very good reason to vote against gonzales or any other lawyer of any race or ethnicity who spent the past two years conjuring up ways to undermine part of the us federal code the attorney general is sworn to enforce. (gonzales himself claimed his work "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act"; lawyers who knowing abet clients while they're actively engaging in criminal activity--note that gonzales isnt disputing criminal culpability-- have crossed the line and, rather than being nominated to be the nation's top law enforcers, are generally considered to be co-conspirators.)

Trolling again?  The FACTS are he was asked for a judicial opinion.  He gave them.  The Democrats did not like what he said, but then he was just interpreting the law, not circumventing it or breaking it.  So you last post has nothing to do with the thread, and this one has totally missed the point and in the process tried, ala the democrat leadership, to slander a good person.

My Statement stands.  You dont like a law?  change it, dont break it or get a judge to rewrite it.  That is why Gonzalez is overly qualified for the AG, and the Democrats are a bunch of incompetant boobs.  Dont throw yourself into their pyre.  Read the law, then read his letters. Dont rely on a drunk, war criminal, embezzler and Plagarist to do your thinking for you.

Reply #22 By: kingbee - 2/7/2005 1:31:41 PM Apparently, because I dont recall saying that the WCA was illegal or wrong, or even anyone discussing it nice try. go back and reread this thread paying close attention to replies#s 1, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15, the gist of which was there is a very good reason to vote against gonzales or any other lawyer of any race or ethnicity who spent the past two years conjuring up ways to undermine part of the us federal code the attorney general is sworn to enforce. (gonzales himself claimed his work "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act"; lawyers who knowing abet clients while they're actively engaging in criminal activity--note that gonzales isnt disputing criminal culpability-- have crossed the line and, rather than being nominated to be the nation's top law enforcers, are generally considered to be co-conspirators.)

The main problem here is that reply #1 is incorrect. Gonzales has *never* advocated torture. So the entire pretense for this arguement is messed up to start with.