Reply #51 February 10, 2005 1:45 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Reply #49 By: Citizen Moderateman - 2/10/2005 1:14:15 PM wrote: well then I will have to withdraw my support of a womans right to choose, gun control, stemcell research, conservation and other issues, but if it makes you happy I will be glad to do so... NOT!!!!!!!!!!

If those are really your positions, good for you. I've read some of your other posts and you give no hint of any of that.

Reply #52 February 10, 2005 1:49 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Reply #46 By: Citizen Dr. Guy wrote: See? You are wrong again! No Law was broken. You are grasping at straws and failing to even catch the hay. But nice non-answer. You are out of them, but then you never had any.

Repeat: None so blind as those who do not see.

I gave you your answer. You refuse to see it.

Here's another one, Mr StickMyHeadInTheGround:

<

Reply #53 February 10, 2005 1:51 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

And terms like "hanoijohn" and 'spew lies i HAVE A VALID REASON TO intensly dislike hanoijohn and will continue to call him that,.just as I refer to jane fonda as hanoijane.

I'm not fonda kerry either!

Reply #54 February 10, 2005 1:57 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: ProgressiveUSAPosted: Thursday, February 10, 2005BTW, why are you so afraid of the liberal label? You are not a progresive. A progressive is open to new ideas and new ways to do things. Well, that's a fair statement, but it's not accurate. Here's the American Heritage® Dictionary definition of progressive:1 - Moving forward; advancing. 2 - Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. 3 - Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

thats the dictionary defintion of liberal. but not even close to what liberals stand for these days, nice try, but as usual "no cigar"

Reply #55 February 10, 2005 1:58 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #46 By: Citizen Dr. Guy wrote: See? You are wrong again! No Law was broken. You are grasping at straws and failing to even catch the hay. But nice non-answer. You are out of them, but then you never had any. Repeat: None so blind as those who do not see. I gave you your answer. You refuse to see it. Here's another one, Mr StickMyHeadInTheGround: < WASHINGTON — In an extraordinary disclosure of classified material, the Bush administration released 258 pages of internal documents Tuesday that portray harsh interrogation techniques — including stripping terror suspects and threatening them with dogs — as a necessary response to threats from al-Qaeda terrorists.>> Link

Okay Mr. Smartguy.... have you read the Gonzales memo? I really don't think you have so let me help.Link

Both the Office for legal counsel AND the DOJ told him it was okay. But oh no according to you guys this is ALL Bushs fault.

Reply #56 February 10, 2005 1:58 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Reply #45 By: Citizen Moderateman - 2/10/2005 wrote: I see so the simple knowledge denotes guilt

Simple knowledge? C'mon dude. You can't be serious.

It was a series of memos leading directly to GWB through DOJ and DOD and WH counsel specifically about what torture techniques could be used under Geneva. Ultimately, the WH declared Geneva obsolete -- that was 'loophole' they settled on in order to allow torture. Hello?

That's policy-making -- not 'simple knowledge.'

Face it: You're living in a fantasyland of spin. And it doesn't have to be that way.

Reply #57 February 10, 2005 2:00 PM from PolMach Forums Top

I don't like the word liberal because I don't think it says anything. It's a misnomer, just like 'conservative'. There's nothing conservative about torture, preemptive war, etc.

Fair enough and well written. I will call you a left leaning progressive. And as for the definition, I think progressives come in conservative and liberal flavors. Altho the definition of a conservative is ' to stay the course', I think that in many ways Conservatives are being progresive. The New SS plan to name just one. It is moving forward and procedding in steps, and it is trying to make progress on an issue that must be fixed.

On the last, I think all agree, it is only the method of the fix, not that there is a problem. Ponzi schemes always inevitably fail.

Reply #58 February 10, 2005 2:02 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Repeat: None so blind as those who do not see. I gave you your answer. You refuse to see it. Here's another one, Mr StickMyHeadInTheGround: < WASHINGTON — In an extraordinary disclosure of classified material, the Bush administration released 258 pages of internal documents Tuesday that portray harsh interrogation techniques — including stripping terror suspects and threatening them with dogs — as a necessary response to threats from al-Qaeda terrorists.>>

I see, but not your point. And how was that a violation of the GC? First it was not a violation of the GC, and second, if you read the GC you find that it applies to soldiers in uniform for another country, not spies and terrorists. Nice try tho, but you are arguing blue when the issue is pink.

Reply #59 February 10, 2005 2:04 PM from PolMach Forums Top

thats the dictionary defintion of liberal.

Wrong. Link

Deal with it.

but not even close to what liberals stand for these days, nice try, but as usual "no cigar".

Really? What do you think 'liberals' stand for? A womans right to choose, gun control, stemcell research, conservation and other issues?

Reply #60 February 10, 2005 2:08 PM from PolMach Forums Top

First it was not a violation of the GC, and second, if you read the GC you find that it applies to soldiers in uniform for another country, not spies and terrorists.

Well, that's exactly the loophole Team Bush used. I don't know if it's been tested in court. Maybe you do.

But the memo trail shows how they arrived at that conclusion: They started by seeking legal use of torture. And this is where they ended up.

Reply #61 February 10, 2005 2:09 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Really? What do you think 'liberals' stand for? A womans right to choose, gun control, stemcell research, conservation and other issues?

No, in a nut shell, lack of choice. Liberals think that only the government has our best intentions at heart. That we are too stupid to make choices for ourselves so some mindless bureaucrat must do it for us. that all good descends from the Government and all bad from individual choices.

That is a liberal

Reply #62 February 10, 2005 2:18 PM from PolMach Forums Top

No, in a nut shell, lack of choice. Liberals think that only the government has our best intentions at heart. we are too stupid to make choices for ourselves so some mindless bureaucrat must do it for us. that all good descends from the Government and all bad from individual choices.

Again, respectfully, the labels don't work.

For example, you realize, of course, that it's the GOP who are now the party of big govt right? Record $400 B deficit, $750B prescription drug plan, no state pharma re-importation, ban on gay marriage, ban on abortion, taking away class action from states, No Child Left Behind, ban on death with dignity in Oregon, etc. etc.

That's today's GOP. Borrow & spend. Big govt standing on your neck.

Reply #63 February 10, 2005 2:18 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Okay Mr. Smartguy.... have you read the Gonzales memo? I really don't think you have so let me help.Link Both the Office for legal counsel AND the DOJ told him it was okay. But oh no according to you guys this is ALL Bushs fault.

I'm confused by who you think the DOJ works for? and the Office of Legal Counsel?

To clarify--they all work for the President. All branches of the administration view the President as their ultimate boss. So yes, if DOJ makes a huge mistake, it's going to reflect on the whole Administration--and that includes the President.

Reply #64 February 10, 2005 2:25 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Again, respectfully, the labels don't work. For example, you realize, of course, that it's the GOP who are now the party of big govt right? Record $400 B deficit, $750B prescription drug plan, no state pharma re-importation, ban on gay marriage, ban on abortion, taking away class action from states, No Child Left Behind, ban on death with dignity in Oregon, etc. etc. That's today's GOP. Borrow & spend. Big govt standing on your neck.

I agree, and I dont condone it. It however does not negate my definition. Libertarians and Goldwater Republicans are the true conservatives. But that does not change what liberals are.

Reply #65 February 10, 2005 2:28 PM from PolMach Forums Top

I'm confused by who you think the DOJ works for? and the Office of Legal Counsel? To clarify--they all work for the President. All branches of the administration view the President as their ultimate boss. So yes, if DOJ makes a huge mistake, it's going to reflect on the whole Administration--and that includes the President.

True. But then it goes to how the administration is run. If you want the truth, you dont fire a person over something you dont like. In the end, do you hire yes men, or competant individuals. I beleive that Bush hired the competant. And at times that means they disagree with him.

or in this case offered their opinion of the law. That is not wrong. INdeed it is good as the president may not like what he hears. And often will have to acknowledge that fact and change policy.

Reply #66 February 10, 2005 2:30 PM from PolMach Forums Top

To clarify--they all work for the President. All branches of the administration view the President as their ultimate boss. So yes, if DOJ makes a huge mistake, it's going to reflect on the whole Administration--and that includes the President.

Well said. Exactly right. Plus I'd note this administration's allergy to dissent in any form.

And BTW, I furnished the link to the Gonzales memo before DrMiller did (in post 34)

Reply #67 February 10, 2005 2:35 PM from PolMach Forums Top

I agree, and I dont condone it. It however does not negate my definition. Libertarians and Goldwater Republicans are the true conservatives. But that does not change what liberals are.

But then it sounds like you think today's GOP is liberal in these respects...true?

And those opposing those positions are conservative...yes? Many of those issues are local choice or individual choice issues (no state pharma re-importation, ban on gay marriage, ban on abortion, taking away class action from states, No Child Left Behind, death with dignity).

And the ones traditionally called 'liberals' are on the Libertarian/Goldwater side.

Reply #68 February 10, 2005 2:45 PM from PolMach Forums Top

But then it sounds like you think today's GOP is liberal in these respects...true? And those opposing those positions are conservative...yes?

True on the first point, not on the second. It is called politics and it is played by politicians. I call them as they state them, not on what they want to do. If theywant to do it, try. But dont wimp out.

And the ones traditionally called 'liberals' are on the Libertarian/Goldwater side.

Not when they would deny us our freedom of choice. Then they are just spouting platitudes. Libertarin/Goldwater republicans want freedom to choose, not half assed solutions dictated by know it all politicians.

let us decide what is best for us. Sure we will make mistakes, but then it is our fault. And we have to live with them. We dont need nannism to protect us from our wrong decisions.

Reply #69 February 10, 2005 2:51 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

wow I can just sit here and watch my fellow republicans beat ya morons up.. fun to read and fun to laugh..

Reply #70 February 10, 2005 2:57 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Not when they would deny us our freedom of choice.

Progressives are pro-choice, pro-local control on all of these big govt GOP issues: no state pharma re-importation, ban on gay marriage, ban on abortion, taking away class action from states, No Child Left Behind, death with dignity.

And I agree with your earlier point: Some in the GOP are likewise pro-choice on these issues. And I say God bless them. But they are not the Bushes, Hasterts, DeLays & Frists of today's GOP. They are the ones being squeezed out by today's intolerant anti-freedom big govt GOP.

That's why I think the labels 'conservative' and 'liberal' are TOTAL misnomers these days.

Reply #71 February 10, 2005 3:01 PM from PolMach Forums Top

wow I can just sit here and watch my fellow republicans beat ya morons up.. fun to read and fun to laugh..

Naw. I think DrGuy can disagree without being disagreeable. And I respect that.

Besides, we seem to agree on a lot of stuff. We just call it different things. !

BTW, do you guys own/play the Political Machine video game or did you stumble onto this site some other way? If you do, what's your opinion of it?

Reply #72 February 10, 2005 3:06 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

BTW, do you guys own/play the Political Machine video game or did you stumble onto this site some other way? If you do, what's your opinion of it?

I stumbleds here by accident... love the sight, love the differance of opinions, love the brawls. love even more sane discourse and rational disagreements.

Reply #73 February 10, 2005 3:11 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Progressives are pro-choice, pro-local control on all of these big govt GOP issues: no state pharma re-importation, ban on gay marriage, ban on abortion, taking away class action from states, No Child Left Behind, death with dignity.

So you agree with Bush's changes to SS?  Welcome to the club!

Reply #74 February 10, 2005 3:13 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

BTW, do you guys own/play the Political Machine video game or did you stumble onto this site some other way? If you do, what's your opinion of it?

No, but I did Follow Brads development.  It is too much democrat vs republican, instead of what we really feel.  Libertarian!

Reply #75 February 10, 2005 3:14 PM from PolMach Forums Top

I stumbleds here by accident... love the sight, love the differance of opinions, love the brawls. love even more sane discourse and rational disagreements.

I'll gladly avoid name calling if you will...

BTW, the game is a lot fun. And it's only $10 at Best Buy. Link

I'm too cheap to pay $89 to play it on the Web though.