The best thing about Arnold's victory
Endless <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-columnist-slopez,1,5531875.columnist">Steve Lopez</a> column fodder.
If Steve thought that the Boom-Boom Sisters were commentary gold...
Boom-Boom Sisters? I'm afraid to ask.
My biggest disappointments with the election are that Ned Roscoe was beaten by Gary Coleman and Angelyne. Come on people!
Also I was very disappointed with the outcome of the Prop 54 election. Anyone who is interested in actual equality among the races would have voted to pass this. The fact that the minorities voted against this means they don't want equality, they want handouts.
I'm not registered to read the LA Times and had to settle for second had accounts of their Hitler lovin', woman gropin', please for the love of GOD don't vote for the recall and especially not for Arnold" eve-of-the-election "hey-we-just-found-out-about-it" Blitzkrieg (pun intended).
I reckon they must be choking on their own spleens over there. Think I'll settle for a second hand account of that, too. :D
Use username "laexaminer", password "laexaminer".
The best thing about Arnold's victory is that now Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhnold is the governor of California.
I'm not going to judge him before he does his job, and I don't think anyone else should either. Say what you will about the man, but he's shown over the pasty twenty five years that he's got the drive to get things done (be it another movie or an 800lb bench press). Who knows how it will turn out?
Politics really are a funny thing with people. Does no one even attempt to look at them rationally anymore?
Wait and see what happens? What are you, nuts? I want to judge him now!
Arnold was interviewed by the LA Times about his victory. When asked what his first acts in office would be, he replied "I am fuust going to grab the aaass of every female on my staff. Den I am going to hang my picture of Hitler over the Governmor's desk"
The best was The Daily Show's Stephen Colbert, reporting that it had been learned that Schwarzenegger had groped Hitler.
(spit take)
If I ever break down and get a TiVo, it will be to record the Daily Show. It's one of those shows that I _should_ be watching voraciously, but don't because I'm usually doing other things when it's on.
The Daily Show is pretty easily the best thing on TV these days, though Spike TV's The Joe Schmo Show and Comedy Central's Tough Crowd (on right after The Daily Show) are pretty spectacular as well.
The best thing about the victory ...
was that I had an excuse to wear my "Terminator Governor" tee shirt to work today. :)
(yah, the one from newsmax.com -- the back says "Hasta la Vista, Davis." The nuts liked it.)
What scares me is that people are so disillusioned about politics that we can elect a nazi groping bad actor and a ex fake wrassler to hold the highest elected position in state gubment. Is it just me or are politics reverting to a class officer type popularity election contest?
I know we've always had ex-football stars actors turned politicians, but to have one who showed little or no interest in politics to be elected to a position of stature is a little frightening. I wonder if the rock is going to run for prez?
I may be wrong, but I think Swartzenegger has had a big interest in politics for quite some time.
I think this recall was a crock of shit, given that they just re-elected Davis 11 months ago. However, the people have spoken, and hopefully Arnold will rise up to the challenge.
I hadn't seen such excitement over a candidate since Clinton in '92. And that's part of the problem for Arnold...can he live up to the hype?
Whoa, Dave. What's that about? Jeep certainly isn't alone in that opinion as I've met a number of people who have expressed the same thing in mostly the same words.:confused:
Actually Bruce, while I don't approve of his approach Dave is pretty accurate here. Juju is right in that Arnold has been pretty active and outspoken about his political position for a long time. What's more, elections have been grade school-like popularity contests for a very long time. Long time as is that's why the founding fathers made the Electoral College long time. I'm pretty sure elections in the Roman Empire had the same problem long time.
This is pretty much common knowledge. Also the Rock comment at the end just came off as bitchy. So while I wouldn't call Jeep a retard, I'd say he came off as very uninformed, in a group where you are pretty well expected to know your shtuff.
Plus, Jeep is still new, and you have to know about Dave and newbie's. He's pretty much our unofficial 'Trial by Fire.' I think Jeep got off easy.
By the by, did you bother to educate the people you met as to the reality of Arnold's politics?
You're not, but that doesn't keep our mental giant from mouthing off about things he has no knowledge of.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Whoa, Dave. What's that about?
Calling him a Nazi? Hey, let's punish everyone for things their parents did! Yeah, that's a good idea! All Germans are Nazis! What do you say about that, you child molestor?
The groping allegations... what's easier to believe? Arnold, who has always been reported as a gentleman on the set and extremely respectful of women, is a groping maniac... or women are throwing themselves all over this beefcake millionaire actor? None of it has been proven, but that's no matter for our hero. Guilty until proven innocent - what this great country is all about!
Politics reverting to a class officer type popularity election contest... as if they've ever been anything else! You hear this from Democrats and Republicans after their guy loses to someone with better name recognition (such as the recall or Lazio & Clinton 2000). Let me ask you something, Democrats - when was the last time you went and voted for a Republican for Senate or President? Let me ask you something, Republicans - when was the last time you went and voted for a Democrat for Senate or President? You're mostly party line voters anyway, so shut your fucking mouth when it comes to this. As if you were going to vote for anyone but your party anyway. Republicans voted Republican, Democrats, by and large, voted Democrat, and swing voters flocked to Schwarzenegger for any number of reasons. BFD. Give him a chance, or get elected yourself, you whiny fucking cunt. Unless you're clairvoyant, you don't know how he's going to do. By opening your mouth now, you show yourself for who you really are - an ugly partisan voter.
Little or no interest in politics, such as campaigning for various reforms the last few years? Little or no interest in politics, such as being an outspoken Republican for the last, what, two decades?
Oh yeah, his argument just stands right up to scrutiny - in the same way that LUVBUGZ is actually a biologist, and tw is completely unbiased in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
I'm sure most people here already know this, but I was pretty surprised to find out he had a business degree. I guess that gives him at least a marginal sort of qualification?
Sigh, I saw the shadow of Dave looming and tried to divert that. Didn't figure it would work. Maybe I shouldn't have let the nazi thing go? It did bug me... 'Sides, seems silly to call Arnie a nazi when we've still got Ashcroft giving orders...
Juju, Arnie has shown quite a bit of inteligence in a number of ways. Even if he did do that Batman movie, he made some serious cash for it. He's done really well for himself. The degree is just icing. People love the image of some guy rising to the top in every field he enters. Arnie has pretty well done so. Now we get to see how he does in a new field.
Just to get back on topic. The best thing about Arnie winning, no End of Days 2 OR Return of Mr. Freeze Batman movie.
Sorry the Nazi jab was a feeble attempt to show my distaste for media. I guess not everybody knows that I'm not the sheep that follows CNN.
I know now not to make comments about wrasslin to Dave...He seemed to not like the rock comment. Sorry to talk ill of you favorite pasttime.
Let me follow Dave's logic on ahhhhnalds political experience, besides getting in with the kennedy clan, for a moment.
As you can tell from my name I do enjoy Jeeps. I've wrote numerous letters trying to keep PUBLIC lands PUBLIC for everybody. I work on my jeep daily, (harley owners would understand) and have became a semi-expert in all things jeep. Now where do I sign up for the CEO position for Chrysler????
Democrats voting for Democrates? Who gives a crap. The difference between party lines are blurring more and more everyday. Canidates are afraid to be too radical for fear of alienating voters. True welfare reform. Yeah right. I'm sure crackwhore mothers everywhere would register to vote to make sure they don't get elected. If you want to get elected, say what they want to hear, throw lots of money out, Woo ted turner and other media moguls so you are painted in a more favorable light and sit back and enjoy the ride.
The whole election was a farce, but in America you can have anything you want if you have enough money. Just ask O.J. and Arnold.
Originally posted by juju
I may be wrong, but I think Swartzenegger has had a big interest in politics for quite some time.
I just saw Arnie being interviewed on CBS this morning. He said he had no interest in *participating* in politics until this year.
He's been in the celebrity spotlight a long time and never one to shy away from giving his opinion. He's also been privy to the behind the scenes view of the process of getting elected and hopefully how to get things done.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
I know now not to make comments about wrasslin to Dave...He seemed to not like the rock comment. Sorry to talk ill of you favorite pasttime.
Back it up. Where's your proof? Or was it an attempt to make me look uncultured and ignorant, too busy watching sweaty grown men rub each other to pay attention to what's going on in the world?
You're a really valuable user here. Really. What amazing contributions you've made. Probably better to go out on a high note and quit while you're ahead.
Originally posted by sycamore
I think this recall was a crock of shit, given that they just re-elected Davis 11 months ago.
Why do you keep saying this Syc? What does that have to do with anything?
So people changed their minds since then. Or Davis didn't live up to his promises. Or they just realized they don't like a guy.
So why do you keep drawing this arbitrary 11-month line? U.S. Representatives are up for election every 24 months. Sometimes, people don't vote the same way twice! Sometimes, people vote for one person one term, and then for their opponent the next term!
What's your point?
Originally posted by Tobiasly
Why do you keep saying this Syc?
I said this one other time--on August 8 in the "Schwarzenegger" thread.
What does that have to do with anything?
Californians had a chance to vote Gray Davis out last year. They could have made their voices/dissention known during the primaries or during the general election. Now granted, I don't live in California. But based on what I've seen, the problems out there have not drastically changed since he was re-elected last November. Therefore, I contend that there was no real reason to oust Davis.
So people changed their minds since then. Or Davis didn't live up to his promises. Or they just realized they don't like a guy.
Perhaps...but there was a fairly strong backlash against Davis leading up to the '02 election from what I remember. I remember the pundits noting that voter turnout for that election was rather low (just under 50%) and that the election was rather close, given that it was a Democrat incumbent facing re-election in California.
Did Californians have the right to change their mind? Absolutely, with the laws of the state behind them. But less than a year after re-electing him? To me, it sounds retarded...why did they even bothering re-electing him then? $60-someodd million more dollars were just wasted. And from what I understand of California's fiscal affairs, it seems to me that what Schwarzenegger can do is limited.
I do think it's kinda cool how accessible this election was. However, I wonder if that will be a good thing in the end...
So why do you keep drawing this arbitrary 11-month line?
Huh? See above...you must have me confused with someone else.
sycamore thinks the recall is a crock of shit because he's a liberal, and a liberal governor is being deposed. Welcome to politics.
Sorry the Nazi jab was a feeble attempt to show my distaste for media. I guess not everybody knows that I'm not the sheep that follows CNN.
No, that's me, and I can tell you for absolute certain than CNN was blatantly and annoyingly anti-Arnie from day one.
Well, I've heard that reasoning used numerous times, and I remembered you using it before, so I incorrectly assumed it was you I heard numerous times.
Did Californians have the right to change their mind? Absolutely, with the laws of the state behind them. But less than a year after re-electing him?
Once again, an arbitrary line drawn. More than a year would be OK then? You'd be happy if it were 13 months, or maybe 16?
You sum it up well when you say "I don't live in California", and neither do I. You might have some basis in calling the voters silly or fickle or ignorant, but to dub the recall a crock of shit because of the length of time since the previous election is pretty baseless.
As far as I'm concerned, this was democracy in action. Everything was done according to the laws of the state.
I do think it's kinda cool how accessible this election was. However, I wonder if that will be a good thing in the end...
Huh? Please explain. How is an accessible election bad?
Andrew Sullivan says
If some Dems want to delegitimize Schwarzenegger's triumph, they should surely consider this: in Gray Davis's re-election bid in 2002, he gained 3.47 million votes. Arnold just won 3.69 million votes. The vote to recall Davis garnered 4.36 million. If that isn't legitimacy, what is?
Makes sense to me
if ($conservatives_voting == 1 || $democrat_lost == 1) {
$election_accessible = "bad";
} else {
$election_accessible = "good";
}
print("The fact that the election was accessible was $election_accessible.\n");
You're a really valuable user here. Really. What amazing contributions you've made. Probably better to go out on a high note and quit while you're ahead.
To think he could have made amazingly intelligent and witty contributions such as these...
[list][*]You're mostly party line voters anyway, so shut your fucking mouth when it comes to this.
[*]Give him a chance, or get elected yourself, you whiny fucking cunt.
[*]Unless you're clairvoyant, you don't know how he's going to do. By opening your mouth now, you show yourself for who you really are - an ugly partisan voter.
[*]You're not, but that doesn't keep our mental giant from mouthing off about things he has no knowledge of.[/list]
While Arnold isn't a "Nazi" and the allegations of "groping" are highly suspect, he's still not even remotely qualified for this position. And it doesn't take a
"clairvoyant" to know how he's going to do. He will most likely do as all Republicans and Democrats do. He will shuffle things around, and when he leaves, government will be larger, more expensive, and more intrusive on our personal lives. It doesn't matter who you vote for unless its for a Libertarian. If you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you have wasted your vote.
Californians had a chance to vote Gray Davis out last year.
Californians were given a choice between a scumbag incumbant or an evil scumbag replacement. Californians didn't have much of a choice at all. If you ask a man on death row whether he'd prefer to be given the lethel injection or the electric chair, he doesn't really have a choice. Either way he is dead. And the fact that Davis was re-elected isn't a mandate from the people; especially with such a low voter turnout. It only proves how horrible Simon was.
To me, it sounds retarded...why did they even bothering re-electing him then?
Why? Because they were given a choice between burning at the stake (Simon), or taking a bottle full of sleeping pills (Davis).
sycamore thinks the recall is a crock of shit because he's a liberal, and a liberal governor is being deposed. Welcome to politics.
Spoken like a true doo-doo.....err....ditto head. Are you one of Limbaugh's minions who have already swallowed the cool-aid and avert all independent thought? One who throws the word "liberal" around as though it were an insult? One who mistakenly thinks the role of government includes forcing an arbitrary Christian morality down the throats of Americans while telling them America is a Christian nation? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from. It's clearly an angry and bitter place. I just want to know why.
Personally I think this recall was a good thing. It got voters off their asses and into the polls. It got many people interested in politics again. Sadly it didn't work out too well for the Libertarian party and I'm sure voter turnout will be scarce for my election next month. (Yes I'm on the ballot in November) I like the idea of voters being able to fire people who aren't doing a good job. Perhaps it will make public servants think twice about screwing over their constituents and help them to remember we are their boss and they answer to us.
Paul T. Ireland
Chairman
Libertarian Party of San Bernardino County
Arnold's not dumb. and he did head the President's Council on Physical Fitness. I wish him well.
Having caught some of the televised display, I am a liberal who would have picked Arnold over Davis or Bustamante.
The recall is troubling because of the way it occured. Werent people paid to go out and collect petition signatures? And Davis was not legally charged with incompetance or mismanagement. Sounds like a case could have been built, and should have been. It's a bit wild west. The petitions could be circulating for Arnold right now...I'm sure some are. So the question is how important is the term in office. I dont know all of the history and legalities here, one might correctly note that I am retarded in this regard, but how did it deteriorate to the point that the voters had no choice at the last election Simon/Davis?- or was it that not as many were engaged until the petition campaign whipped up? Will California be doing this next year too? Given he's able to stay in office his entire term, I'm curious how Arnold will work with his lieutennant Gov.
The recall is simply the latest manifestation of a principle of direct democracy that has been part of the California government far more than in any other state (and possible anywhere else period). I go back and forth on whether this is a good thing or not. Call me elitist, but I think the average person doesn't have good enough judgement to be trusted with a driver's license, much less decisions about government. I also don't think that gives me or anybody else any particular right to dictate to them. Good or bad, the people of California want it this way. If they don't like the theoretical prospect of a new gubernatorial election every 90 days, they can change their rules. Who are we non-Californians to second-guess? You can't stand Teddy Kennedy? Jesse Helms? Tough shit. Nobody held guns to the voters of Massachusetts and North Carolina all those years. Etc.
Originally posted by warch
The recall is troubling because of the way it occured. Werent people paid to go out and collect petition signatures?
So what? All this proves is that people with a lot of money can run better campaigns. Not news.
And Davis was not legally charged with incompetance or mismanagement . . . It's a bit wild west.
Well again, that's the way they want it in California.
how did it deteriorate to the point that the voters had no choice at the last election Simon/Davis?
Well I don't know what happened in California at the last election, but I've felt for a long time that the best candidates usually get canned in the primaries, which is why we so often end up with a choice between two putzes in the general election. (Exhibit A: Bush vs. Gore, 2000) And once Davis was elected, I don't know what level of incompetence/criminality it would take for his party not to nominate him for a second term. So the only way for Democrats who didn't like Davis to get rid of him was to a) vote against him in the primary (that probably wasn't contested, but I admit I haven't looked it up), b) vote for a Republican, or c) have a recall.
In a certain way it makes perfect logical sense if you think about the extent to which the R's and D's choose candidates. The recall was an end-run around the party process as much as anything. I'm very skeptical of Arnold, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I generally support anything that reduces the influence of political parties.
All this proves is that people with a lot of money can run better campaigns.
And call elections when desired.
Originally posted by Radar
Limbaugh's minions who have already swallowed the cool-aid and avert all independent thought? One who throws the word "liberal" around as though it were an insult? One who mistakenly thinks the role of government includes forcing an arbitrary Christian morality down the throats of Americans while telling them America is a Christian nation? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from. It's clearly an angry and bitter place. I just want to know why.
1) No. 2) No. 3) Hahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Ah. No.
It's an "angry and bitter place" because people like JeepNGeorge have far too much influence over this country, and it's become one where the mindset is much like you describe in your questions. I am against precisely that - the elimination of independent thought, the overwhelming Christian majority in government, etc. I understand that you haven't devoted your time to reading my each and every post here, but if you had, you'd know this.
The democrats that are against the recall aren't against it on principle. You can bet that if a Republican were being recalled, they'd be all for it. It's simply the nature of the current major political parties. Liberals align with other liberals, conservatives align with other conservatives. This is hardly news.
To think he could have made amazingly intelligent and witty contributions such as these...
Ha. You're one to talk. Dig through your previous posts and count up how many times you resort to namecalling. You can stop when you reach 1,700.
Originally posted by warch
And call elections when desired.
Arnold alone got more votes than were cast against the recall. If you're so unpopular that you can be recalled so easily, perhaps it actually <b>is</b> time for a change.
Originally posted by juju
I may be wrong, but I think Swartzenegger has had a big interest in politics for quite some time.
He's married to a Kennedy - I think that by default you have to go into politics.
Just as a side note - being in insurance and I have handled claims in the State of California - as much as I don't like AARRRNNNOHHHLD - he's got some really really good ideas for the insurance regulations in the State of California. They are out of control down there right now - I mean everyone and their dog has an attorney and pretty much everything is paid for with no questions asked. Now - I know in my job I can be considered "the man" but I'm sure the (good?) people of Cali don't want to be paying out the ass for some dumb-ass fradulent lying injured worker to be sitting at home eating bon bons.
Originally posted by dave
The democrats that are against the recall aren't against it on principle.
Sean Hannity was interviewing Jesse Jackson the night of the election before the results were known. He let Jackson blab on and on about how Jackson was going to file a lawsuit as soon as the polls closed on the grounds of voter disenfranchisment (i.e., the Florida argument). Jackson argued passionately for those "whose voices would not be heard!"
At the conclusion of Jackson's diatribe, Sean asked the esteemed reverend if he would proceed with the lawsuit if the recall was defeated.
Jackson, who seemed stunned by the question, paused before replying "No."
Ha. You're one to talk. Dig through your previous posts and count up how many times you resort to namecalling. You can stop when you reach 1,700.
1,700 in 250 posts. That's got to be a record. I need someone to submit my name to Ripley's!
:3eye:
Originally posted by dave
sycamore thinks the recall is a crock of shit because he's a liberal, and a liberal governor is being deposed.
Not true. For example, I disagree with the small but apparently growing number of people that think Bush should be impeached. I don't think he's done anything that merits that action.
Anything like this or impeachment just depends on the situation. The party doesn't matter.
I'm just giving you a hard time, ugly. I know that you personally are, for the most part, above such things. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for most.
For example, I disagree with the small but apparently growing number of people that think Bush should be impeached. I don't think he's done anything that merits that action.
You don't think lying to the American people to gain support for an unconstitutional use of our military in a war against a sovereign nation that has never attacked America, poses no threat to America, and has no connections with anyone who has attacked America doesn't merit impeachment? I think it merits execution for treason.
How about violating the Constitution more than all previous presidents combined including Lincoln? Championing the single most unconstitutional piece of legislation in America's history? Violating his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? Military Desertion? Endangering America and the entire world through his imperialistic military interventionism? Sending American soldiers to murder and be killed instead of doing thier job of defending America? Mass Murder? Wrecking the economy?
What exactly do you consider an impeachable offense if not lying to the American people, committing mass murder, violating his oath and the highest law of the land, endangering America and the rest of the world, etc...? What does someone have to do in your eyes; start WW3?
Right, and A G A I N, that Constitutionality ought to be determined by the body that the Constitution says should determine it. I.e., not you.
If Arnie hasn't gotten over his groping problem, I will personally volunteer to be his designated groppee
Originally posted by dave
Back it up. Where's your proof? Or was it an attempt to make me look uncultured and ignorant, too busy watching sweaty grown men rub each other to pay attention to what's going on in the world?
You're a really valuable user here. Really. What amazing contributions you've made. Probably better to go out on a high note and quit while you're ahead.
I thought the your a fucking retard comment did that.
Originally posted by Undertoad
No, that's me, and I can tell you for absolute certain than CNN was blatantly and annoyingly anti-Arnie from day one.
I refuse to watch that rubbish. Good thing the weekly world sun is still available for all my news sources. :D
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
I thought the your a fucking retard comment did that.
As opposed to you, the obviously well spoken and educated user who, despite his awesome qualifications, cannot properly use quotation marks or contract two words? Wow, you really told me. Rent a brain before you post again.
(If you didn't understand that, I'll write it how you will: "Your an idiot JeepNGeorge you cant even use punctuation good.")
Right, and A G A I N, that Constitutionality ought to be determined by the body that the Constitution says should determine it. I.e., not you.
Wrong
A-G-A-I-N. The President is a public servant. He answers to
ME. I and every other American determine the Constitutionality of his actions. 90% of Americans can barely read the Constitution let alone comprehend its meaning well enough to make this determination accurately
(Like those who think that only the Supreme Court can have a valid opinion about the Constitution or those who think any decision the Supreme Court makes is automatically Constitutional)
There doesn't need to be a court case to determine whether or not his actions were Constitutional and the Supreme Court doesn't define the Constitution or "interpret" it. George Bush's actions were unconstitutional in their face. If I were to take a platoon of soldiers into a town and force people at gunpoint to allow soldiers to stay in their homes it would be unconstitutional. It wouldn't magically become unconstitutional when the Supreme Court's determination said it was. It would be unconstitutional the moment I did it. It would be unconstitutional even if the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. It would be unconstitutional even if it never went to any court anywhere and it wouldn't take a judge to determine it.
The best way to describe the job of the Supreme Court for someone like you is to describe it like a factory job. Imagine someone had a job where differently shaped blocks came down a conveyer belt toward them all day. And that person would pick up a block, look at the shape and see if there were a hole in a board where it would fit. If there were a round block, it would go into a round hole, a star shaped block would go into the star shaped hole, and so on. This is the job of the Supreme Court justices.
They get a law, hold it up to the Constitution and see whether or not it will fit. They don't figure out if they can make a new hole for the block to fit in. They don't make a new block to fit into a hole that hasn't been used. They don't try to grease up a block and hammer it into a hole where it doesn't fit. And they don't dictate which holes or blocks will be used or come down the conveyer belt. They are also not the only people with a conveyer belt or blocks so they aren't the only ones who get to compare the blocks and the holes.
I hope I've broken it down to shapes and blocks (an elementary level even you should be able to understand)
Originally posted by dave
As opposed to you, the obviously well spoken and educated user who, despite his awesome qualifications, cannot properly use quotation marks or contract two words? Wow, you really told me. Rent a brain before you post again.
(If you didn't understand that, I'll write it how you will: "Your an idiot JeepNGeorge you cant even use punctuation good.")
Didn't you forget the nanynanybooboo stick your head in doodoo? I wish I had the ability to turn a phrase liek contract two words. I'm tarded enough to use contraction instead. Do you feel better when you attack random people on boards? Does it make you lil wee-wee get all warm?
You are by far the superior intellect. I'll concede the victory to you. I hope you have a good wank for a doing such a good job.
"Arguing on the message board is like the Special Olympics.....Even if you win, you are still a retard."
If you're so unpopular that you can be recalled so easily, perhaps it actually is time for a change.
Its interesting that the idea of Bush's impeachment comes up, or you can flashback on Clinton if you prefer. If his "popularity" drops to the lowest of low, but he's not been convicted of an impeachable act , is it time for a change before the next scheduled election? Should we make that possible? Would that really make elected officials more responsible to the people? - they might be more concerned with making cases for action. Or would it make them even more driven by polls and pandering to interest groups? We could get rid of bums but we could also boot out bold leaders. The idea of set terms, I think, can help perspective.
Sorry, that's wrong.
No, it isn't wrong. The Supreme Court doesn't define the Constitution. They don't "alter" the Constitution through their rulings. They aren't above the Constitution and they don't "interpret" the Constitution. Their job is to hold laws up to the Constitution to see if they fit. They have no legal authority to make "exceptions" to the Constitution because it is in the best interest of the government (something they routinely do). They still answer to the Constitution and are subordinate to it because the Constitution is THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND. It's higher than case law including the cases decided by the Supreme Court, it's higher than acts of Congress, and it's higher than the President. It can't be altered by anything other than an amendment which means an act of Congress (like a war powers act) does NOT alter the Constitution and if that act of Congress is contradictory to any part of the Constitution that act is automatically unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
Originally posted by dave
I'm just giving you a hard time, ugly. I know that you personally are, for the most part, above such things. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for most.
And that's the crux of the problem. Rho and I were just talking about this...people seem afraid to think outside the two-party box. Way too much blind loyalty, IMO.
Originally posted by Beestie
At the conclusion of Jackson's diatribe, Sean asked the esteemed reverend if he would proceed with the lawsuit if the recall was defeated.
Jackson, who seemed stunned by the question, paused before replying "No."
Well, Jesse does like a good photo op, but he could still get away with that comment. From what I understand, most of the punch card ballots were in areas that have large minority populations...populations that (in most cases) would go to a Democrat. And with the Democrats' stance of "vote no on the recall", it could have screwed the recall vote.
I'm not saying I agree with that necessarily...just making it plausible.
Originally posted by Undertoad
*the Andrew Sullivan quote*
But remember, even if you voted no on the recall, you could still choose a replacement. I wonder how many "no" voters picked Arnie.
*watching
The Running Man*
Originally posted by Tobiasly
Well, I've heard that reasoning used numerous times, and I remembered you using it before, so I incorrectly assumed it was you I heard numerous times.
Yep...you're a jackass. :)
Once again, an arbitrary line drawn. More than a year would be OK then? You'd be happy if it were 13 months, or maybe 16?
Understand Tob that I'm not really looking at it in terms of numbers. My main contention is that the recall should have never occurred.
Folks have been relatively unhappy with Davis for some time now--I believe it started around the time of the power problems. If there was so much discontent with Davis before the '02 election (and there seemed to be a lot of it), why would you even bother putting him back in office for (presumably) another 4 years? I understand what Radar said about the choices, and I understand the whole "party unity" concept too. But as I see it, if Californians really wanted to stick it to Davis, they should have done so prior to last year.
You might have some basis in calling the voters silly or fickle or ignorant, but to dub the recall a crock of shit because of the length of time since the previous election is pretty baseless.
See above.
As far as I'm concerned, this was democracy in action. Everything was done according to the laws of the state.
I don't argue that...it was done by the book.
Huh? Please explain. How is an accessible election bad?
This election was as close as Americans will get to true democracy, IMO. It didn't take a lot of signatures to get this thing rolling, and even I could have gotten on the ballot--seriously.
Maybe this is a one-time thing that won't happen again for many years. But I see way too many people hanging on to Florida (dems) and Clinton (GOP), and now that Californians really know what it takes to remove their governor, I sense it will happen again sooner rather than later. I know I'm playing pessimist here, but if this sort of thing were to happen more frequently (more states and/or more often), I don't think anything would ever get done...not to mention it would cost a lot.
And is Davis taking too much of the fall here? Sorta like the way the president gets credit/blame for the economy. I don't know how much power the governor has out there, but that's still only one branch of government. And the Dems control the state legislature. Maybe they'll get thrown out later on...*shrugs*
At the very least, both parties should keep these concerns in mind. But like Steve said, if this is what California wants, so be it. That's the beauty of having 50 different states and a handful of territories.
Maybe good will come of this. Schwarzenegger will lead California back to true prosperity. People will do more outside-of-the-box thinking. A third party or independent candidate will have a real chance. Israel and the Palestinians will achieve peace. Life will be good. :)
Hello, Secret Service? Yes, it's Cellar.org, thread "The best thing about Arnold's victory" and the name is Radar, that's R_A_D_A_R. Yes, threatened the President's life. Yes. Very unstable. :D
I fear this recall thing could become so regular, the incumbent would have to pander to those that could afford to recall him. Bad business to not have a definate term to implement plans.
Originally posted by Radar
No, it isn't wrong. [<i>blah blah blah</i>]
Yes it is. It says in the Constitution that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret it. Welcome to reality. Fantasy... reality... fantasy... reality. Work on that... then get back to me.
Originally posted by Radar
Their job is to hold laws up to the Constitution to see if they fit.
I completely agree it *was* thier job to do only this. Until we collectively bastardized the whole system.
In addition, I'd like to add that the USC is *****not***** a "living document" in the sense that phrase is used today.
It *is* changeable but only through a constitutional ammendment. In this way, it's living (capable of being changed) but IMO as someone that can read English, the courts do not have the legal authority to interpret it to fit what they think is best. Whats even more irritating now is that the USSC is now using European law for guidance!
The point is lost on the fact that there doesnt seem to be any workable solution to bring us back where we should be. The road back would lead us into an America no one would even recognize, but many of us would greatly appreciate.
Originally posted by Undertoad
No, that's me, and I can tell you for absolute certain than CNN was blatantly and annoyingly anti-Arnie from day one.
Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
I refuse to watch that rubbish. Good thing the weekly world sun is still available for all my news sources. :D
Ha, ha, Undertoad watches CNN!!
All communication between humans is subject to interpretation. Even "no" can mean "yes". Words have multiple, sometimes broad definitons, and when you string them together, the potentially different meanings goes up exponentially. Given that all the people who wrote the inital document are dead, <i>someone</i> has to decide which interpretation we go by.
I disagree with your specific notion that the USC needs to be interpretted Ju. You already knew that though.
If there was an ammendment that said " you have the right to wear blue shoes" would that need interpretation?
Many words have changed meanings, yes. Many things mean precisely what they say though.
In any case, your still a cool dude (for a guy with long hair) and I dont challenge you to a duel for holding your beliefs.
(juju)
All communication between humans is subject to interpretation. Even "no" can mean "yes". Words have multiple, sometimes broad definitons, and when you string them together, the potentially different meanings goes up exponentially. Given that all the people who wrote the inital document are dead, someone has to decide which interpretation we go by.
The fuckin' English gave us a faulty language. If the Constitution was translated to Esperanto, we wouldn't have this problem.
In all seriousness, I'm not too worried. He can't go much lower, I gather--they did get rid of the last guy, after all, and if Arnold sucks more, wouldn't he be removed even quicker?
The way I see it, the only reasonable outcomes are:
a) Arnold kicks ass, and everybody loves him for his political skills.
b) Arnold does nothing notable, isn't re-elected, and life goes on.
c) Arnold sucks, and comedians the world over are given an infinite supply of jokes for a few months to a year.
c.2) Voting is reworked to prevent stupid things like this from happening.
I'd be fine with any of the above, with a bit of a leaning toward a) or c.2), as I don't have a TV anymore. (I miss Jon Stewart. -sniff-)
Originally posted by Radar
90% of Americans can barely read the Constitution let alone comprehend its meaning well enough to make this determination accurately
90% of Americans also think you're full of crap. Of course, I pulled that number out of my ass, but why stop now?
(I'm sure it's much closer to 98%).
Originally posted by slang
If there was an ammendment that said "you have the right to wear blue shoes" would that need interpretation?
Actually, yes. The Constitution also says we have the right to bear arms. Not so cut and dried, is it?
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Hello, Secret Service? Yes, it's Cellar.org, thread "The best thing about Arnold's victory" and the name is Radar, that's R_A_D_A_R. Yes, threatened the President's life. Yes. Very unstable. :D
We were discussing just this sort of thing at home the other day when our phones were making odd noises (no, not the Constituion...the Constitution makes Radar make odd noises).
What if Raptor caught you saying "President Bush is da Bomb! I live in terror thinking that he might not be re-elected, and I swear to Allah that I'll kill myself if he isn't!?
Maybe if everyone posted, emailed and telephonically spoke this phrase over the next few weeks, we could bring the automatic monitoring systems to their knees?
Hello, Secret Service? Yes, it's Cellar.org, thread "The best thing about Arnold's victory" and the name is Radar, that's R_A_D_A_R. Yes, threatened the President's life. Yes. Very unstable.
Nowhere have I threatened the president. I have suggested an appropriate punishment for a military deserter who later commits treason and endangers the entire world, has Americans killed, or turned into mercenaries, attacks our civil rights, violates the Constitution, etc.
Yes it is. It says in the Constitution that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret it.
Show me the word "interpret" in the duties of the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't require interpretation. It was written in simple English. It isn't ambiguous or vague and it means exactly what it says without exception.
The point is lost on the fact that there doesnt seem to be any workable solution to bring us back where we should be. The road back would lead us into an America no one would even recognize, but many of us would greatly appreciate.
The door is quickly closing for any kind of a peaceful solution. But hopefully we'll be able to return America to a Constitutional republic before blood must be spilled. But either way, America will be returned to a Constitutional government that defends our rights and doesn't attempt to limit them or overstep thier limited authority.
Actually, yes. The Constitution also says we have the right to bear arms. Not so cut and dried, is it?
It's extremely cut and dry. What part of "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do some people have a problem understanding? How about "congress shall make no law"? Some don't understand that either. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, not a privilige. It's something we're born with. The government doesn't give us rights or have the authority to limit rights. It is only here to defend those rights we're born with.
I like elpsode's plan, and find it funny. It would be nice to get some kind of email campain where people just sprinkle words like "jihad", "allah", "bomb", "nuke", etc. into thier emails, and phone conversations. Or if we all start checking out books about terrorism, bombs making, etc.
It's extremely cut and dry. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do some people have a problem understanding?
OK:
Nowhere have I threatened the president. I have suggested an appropriate punishment for a military deserter who later commits treason
What part of "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. " do you not understand?
Show me the word "interpret" in the duties of the Supreme Court.
Article 3, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;...
The courts have the power to Judge. Seems pretty cut n dried.
English is not simple, and is always open to interpretation.
What about deadly, radioactive shoes that do nothing in a 2 foot radius, but in a 10 foot radius after that cause terminal cancer? If I painted them blue, should I have a right to wear them? What about millions of little boxes that have a small button on them that, if pressed, would blow up Utah? Should millions of Americans have a right to own those? Should we all have a right to own nuclear missles?
In fact, I'd say that "The right to bear arms" is usually interpreted as, "The right to own muskets, or weapons of similar power". Because there is no way in hell that the founding fathers would ever have wanted every American to own a nuclear weapon. You see, we are interpreting what they meant based on their knowledge at the time.
[necessary rant]The further we get, intellectually, from the revolution the more control government will assume. The counter-revolutionary document of 1787 left people remarkably free by todays standards but it was a far cry from what was fought for. In the intervening years we've chosen government power over freedom countless times, like it or not the Constitution became a living document and its original amending process was supplanted by more responsive (to whom?) democratic processes with predicted and predictable results. This is all to get to the point that the revolutionaries would be appalled by the Bill of Rights restrictions but the reactionaries would be proud of their work. What do you suppose the smuggler Hancock would have thought about the idea that his merchantman could only carry muskets? I suspect folks like Hamilton would be very pleased with America as a global mercantilist empire with a stable sheeplike electorate but a visionary like Jefferson might have cause to feel shame for a people who neglect hearth and home to serve our masters view of freedom.[/rant]
I feel better now. :)
What part of "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. " do you not understand?
I understand every part of that and Bush is guilty of treason. He has aided our enemies. Let's not even discuss the 40 million he gave to the Taliban 3 months before the September 11th attacks.
Bush has empowered the enemies of the United States through his violations of the Constitution by starting an unprovoked war against a non-threatening, sovereign nation, that had no affiliations with anyone else who had attacked us and he knowingly lied to the American people to do it. Bush has also levied war against the American people and our civil rights. He has placed Americans in danger and violated his oath.
But even if you don't consider this treason, Bush clearly fits into the definition of "traitor", and "military deserter" which are:
Traitor - One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.
Deserter - To abandon (a military post, for example) in violation of orders or an oath
In fact, I'd say that "The right to bear arms" is usually interpreted as, "The right to own muskets, or weapons of similar power". Because there is no way in hell that the founding fathers would ever have wanted every American to own a nuclear weapon.
The founders wanted the American public to have each and every single weapon at thier disposal that the government had. They wanted the people to ALWAYS be able to outgun the government to keep them in check. They would still want it now.
Sorry, that's wrong. If everyone had a nuclear weapon, the human race would be extinct. Unlike you, the founding fathers would be intelligent enough to understand this.
When you interpret words, you have to consider the intent of the author.
Unlike you, I'm not interpreting words. I'm reading them for their actual meaning. And the founders were clear on their intent to ensure that the government could have no weapons that individual citizens couldn't own WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
So we we don't think people should have nukes, we should take them away from the government.
Some people say, "Everyone is more polite if everyone has a gun". Just imagine how polite people would be if everyone had a nuke.
The principles behind the desire to have the American public be able to outgun the government are every bit as fresh, important, and valid now as they were back when the weapons were muskets.
I, unlike you, comprehend the principles that drove the founding fathers to write the Constitution in the specific language in which it was written. The founders were very intelligent, like me, and understood the true meaning words like "freedom", "liberty", "justice", and "responsibility".
Those who try to put words in their mouth because they don't understand these principles are violating everything great this country stands for. It wouldn't matter if we had muskets, or disintigrating ray guns, the principle still holds true. Government must never have more physical force than the general populace.
Wow! Radar quote of the day:
Unlike you, I'm not interpreting words. I'm reading them for their actual meaning.
honorable mention:
The founders were very intelligent, like me, and understood the true meaning words like "freedom","liberty", "justice", and "responsibility".
Reading isn't "interpreting" genius.
And I stand by the second comment.
Now is that
Reading isn't "interpreting" genius.
('Cause you know there *are* some brilliant writers out there.)
or Reading isn't "interpreting", genius.
('Cause then I'd argue that, yes it is an act of interpreting if you are able to build any meaningful understanding at all out of the cluster of letters.)
You cannot read words without interpreting them. It's impossible.
Also, in your fantasy-land where the government has no nuclear weapons, there is no American government, becuase it was destroyed by the Soviets 20 years ago, who do have nuclear weapons.
Originally posted by juju
You cannot read words without interpreting them. It's impossible.
William S Burroughs has a great thought on Language.
"Language is a Virus....We must find out what words are and how they function. They become images when written down,
but images of words repeated in the mind
and not of the image of the thing itself."
- W.S. Burroughs
RADAR says:
Nowhere have I threatened the president. I have suggested an appropriate punishment for a military deserter who later commits treason and endangers the entire world, has Americans killed, or turned into mercenaries, attacks our civil rights, violates the Constitution, etc.
Ahem
You don't think lying to the American people to gain support for an unconstitutional use of our military in a war against a sovereign nation that has never attacked America, poses no threat to America, and has no connections with anyone who has attacked America doesn't merit impeachment? I think it merits execution for treason.
And then
Wrong A-G-A-I-N. The President is a public servant. He answers to ME.
:rolleyes:
Oh, you don't have to go through all that. He directly threatened the president's life in the "Happy Tax Day!" thread. He's just forgotten about it.
So, Radar, as I recall you were either about to get married or had just gotten married?Either way, how's that workin' for ya?
xoxoxoBruce: You have failed to prove I have threatened the president. I've said he richly deserves to be executed for his crimes against America and I'd even volunteer to pull the switch if given the opportunity, but that is not a threat. Just wishfull thinking.
Oh, you don't have to go through all that. He directly threatened the president's life in the "Happy Tax Day!" thread. He's just forgotten about it.
That is an outright lie. I have not now, nor have I ever threatened the life of the president. I wish for it, hope for it, know he deserves it, and would gladly volunteer to carry out his execution if the courts gave him the punishment he deserves, but I have never threatened him. He will be remembered among names like Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Saddam Hussein, etc.
So, Radar, as I recall you were either about to get married or had just gotten married?Either way, how's that workin' for ya?
The considerably large amount of paperwork is finished. The wedding date has been scheduled for February, and I will be traveling to Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) to marry her soon. Luckily I've been working at Boeing and making a decent living so I will be able to afford a nice wedding. Only 200-400 of my closest strangers.
We'll go to Thailand for the honeymoon, and then it will take me another 6-8 months before she can come to America so we can get started on the family thing. in the meantime we've been visiting each other every week on the webcam, email, letters, and phone calls. Thanks for asking.
Originally posted by Radar
That is an outright lie.
No it's not. It's a cold, hard fact.
Also, Bruce was right. So that makes twice now!
Luckily I've been working at Boeing and making a decent living so I will be able to afford a nice wedding. Only 200-400 of my closest strangers
I see, so this whole affair is being paid for with profits generated by W's warmongering.;)
Originally posted by Radar
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do some people have a problem understanding?
Well, let's see:
<b>the people</b>: Who are "the people"? Does this include 4-year olds? Prison inmates? Cop killers?
<b>keep and bear</b>: Does this mean I can mount a machine gun on a turret to the roof of my truck, and drive around town? Can I bring it into a high school, day care, or airport?
<b>arms</b>: What sort of arms? Apparently you seem to think this includes thermonuclear warheads. Most people don't.
To make it clear, I have no interest whatsoever in what your answers to these questions are, because I could probably figure that out myself. I'm just illustrating that a seemingly simple phrase can have vastly different meanings to different people.
Whether or not the word "interpret" was actually used in the Constitution, the simple fact is that any words written by humans are open to interpretation.
<i>(Edit: typos)</i>
Originally posted by Radar
To abandon (a military post, for example) in violation of orders or an oath
When exactly did Bush do this? I need a general timeframe, as well as the specific orders or oath he violated.
No it's not. It's a cold, hard fact.
Prove it.
I see, so this whole affair is being paid for with profits generated by W's warmongering
No, I work in Commercial Sattelite (Electron Dynamics) part. Not the military part.
Who are "the people"?
"The People" are the same people referred to in every other part of the Constitution when "the people" are mentioned.
Does this mean I can mount a machine gun on a turret to the roof of my truck, and drive around town? Can I bring it into a high school, day care, or airport?
Why not? I don't see anything wrong with any of those. You're having or carrying a gun doesn't endanger others regardless of where you have it.
What sort of arms? Apparently you seem to think this includes thermonuclear warheads. Most people don't.
Any arms the government has access to.
When exactly did Bush do this? I need a general timeframe, as well as the specific orders or oath he violated.
Roughly 1971-1973
If you would like actual copies of letters written by his commanding officer regarding his desertion from the military and a list of which specific orders he violated in the UCMJ feel free to visit this website.
http://www.awolbush.com
He has also violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution because he has violated the Constitution more than all previous presidents combined. He championed the single most unconstitutional piece of legislation in the history of the United States (The Patriot Act), he created a new unconstitutional part of government (Homeland Security), he started an unprovoked war even though our military is for DEFENSE only, etc.
Originally posted by Radar
If you would like actual copies of letters written by his commanding officer regarding his desertion from the military and a list of which specific orders he violated in the UCMJ feel free to visit this website.
http://www.awolbush.com
That's a rather amusing site you've found there. I didn't have time to wade through all of it, but it seems that its argument is contained entirely in
this letter.
Unfortunately, it contains no record of desertion. His commanding officers "can't remember" seeing him at drill, decades after the fact. That's hardly what any non-biased person would call proof.
It also states his being a citizen of Texas as "proof" that he didn't drill in Alabama. But as I'm sure you well know, since you've done so much research in this area, you are not required to be a citizen of the state you attend drill with.
[COLOR=indigo]You know, I have completely avoided this whole area of the Cellar until this morning.
The only reason I came in is that I saw Radar as the last to post in a thread, and I'd heard so much about him, but had never seen one of his posts.
Now I know why I didn't come into this thread before.
[/COLOR]
That's a rather amusing site you've found there. I didn't have time to wade through all of it, but it seems that its argument is contained entirely in this letter.
Try again. The letters I'm talking about were written at the time. Not afterward. These records not only have an undeniable record of his desertion but also contain actual copies of the letters written by his commanding officers during the years in question.
This time read the following:
Suspended from flying August 1972...
Annual Officer Effectiveness Report, 5/2/73: "Not Observed" from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973...
In June of 1973, Air Force HQ asks for more information...
...and in November, Major Rufus Martin tells them he has none to give.
And you can also check out other documents relating to the Military records of George Walker Bush
HERE
Now I know why I didn't come into this thread before.
I don't know you personally, but if this is your attitude, I'm glad I don't.
I couldn't read any of those links.:rolleyes:
First link exerpt:
6. Verbal orders of the Momdr on 1 Aug 72 suspending 1STLT GEORGE W BUSH, XXXXXXXXX, ANGUS (Not on EAU), TX ANG, Nq 147 Ftr C. Ellington AFB, Houston TX, from flying status are confirmed, exigencies of the service having been such as to preclude the publication of competent written orders in advance. Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination.
Second Link exerpt:
Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama.
The other two links are a request for info, and a reply that: "Report for this period not availible for administrative reasons". Nothing was mentioned about the equivalent service in Alabama either way.
In other words, you've got nothing at all to indicate desertion.
He left his post without permission and didn't come back. He went to another state to work on his political career and never reported for duty elsewhere. In other words he is a deserter.
Item #3
Item 18. Ratings must be entered on this officer in Sections V & VI. An AF Fm 77a should be requested from the training unit so this officer can be rated in the position he held. This officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he no longer is training in his AFSC or with his unit of assignment.
Item #4
Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73.
Report for this period not available for administrative reasons.
From his Suspension from flying...
Verbal orders of the Comdr on 1 Aug 72 suspending 1STLT GEORGE W BUSH, XXXXXXXX, Angus (Not on EAD), TX ANG, Hq 147 Ftr Gp, Ellington AFB, Houston TX, from flying status are confirmed, exigencies of the service having been such as to preclude the publication of competent written orders in advance. Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Off will complay with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13.
There are other supporting documents like penalties for poor attendance, discharge papers, the days in which he was credited, etc. proving that he was indeed a military deserter. He was also a coward and still is one. Daddy got him out of the Vietnam war. It's out of the question for him to go to war, but it's just fine for him to send others to die in a war, even when it's an unconstitutional use of our military. He's a hypocrite, a mass murderer, a coward, a military deserter, an idiot, and a lying weasel. He thinks when he used drugs it's a "youthful indescretion" but when others do it they should go to jail.
He wants to promote peace by starting wars, balance the budget through record setting deficit spending, help the economy by costing us jobs, defend our freedom by attacking our civil rights, uphold and defend the constitution by completely ignoring it and violating it at every turn, etc.
Is there any way to verify that he didn't serve in Alabama? Obviously, it isn't likely that there is a report saying "George Bush didn't show up today", but is there a report that should exist but doesn't?
Why would he be in Alabama? He wasn't stationed there. He wasn't transfered there. His assignments are listed on one of the forms and it says from November 30, 1969 to October 1, 1973 he was assigned to Ellington Air Force Base in Texas.
Another one of the forms is a request for transfer by Bush, and another is when his transfer was turned down.
He left anyway and didn't come back.
I'm just pointing out the weasel area. People will claim that he wasn't AWOL if the document saying "A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." is true. I was hoping there was evidence that he was actually NOT "performing equivalent training" when the author thought he was.
Me too. But I think the reports were sugar coated due to the political connection of GWB. He wouldn't have even gotten into the Air National Guard if it weren't for daddy's influence.
Because YOU would never do such an evil thing as avoiding conscripted service?
You've still got nothing to indicate he's a deserter. The most you've got is that
1) He missed a physical. This is not desertion
2) One part of the military thought he was in one place when he was in another. This, too, is not desertion.
Because YOU would never do such an evil thing as avoiding conscripted service?
I'm obviously against conscription, though I wouldn't avoid it. But George Bush is all for it. He doesn't mind sending other people to die, but when he's the one who has to fight, forget it.
1) He missed a physical and his commanders didn't know his whereabouts.
2) He was assigned to a base in Texas.
3) He applied for a transfer.
4) The transfer was turned down.
5) He stopped showing up in Texas and his commanders
THINK he might have finished his service in Alabama even though there is no evidence to support it. This is known as AWOL - Absent without leave for a certain period and becomes desertion after 6 months.
6) Even if he did go to Alabama, he did so without a transfer and violated his orders, his assignment, etc. and was absent from the location he was assigned to which is still AWOL at the very least and technically becomes desertion (even if he's still on a military base) after 6 months.
There isn't one shred of evidence to suggest he finished his duty in Alabama but there is actual proof that his request for a transfer was denied.
George W. Bush is a corrupt, theiving, military deserter, a hypocrite, a coward, an idiot, a liar, a mass-murderer, an imperialistic tyrant, and a traitor who has violated his oath to god and the American people, and has endangered not only Americans, but the rest of the world through his irresponsible decisions and behavior. He is an enemy of America every bit as much as Osama Bin Laden although Bush is more dangerous to America than Bin Laden and Hussein combined.
Originally posted by Radar
I'm obviously against conscription, though I wouldn't avoid it. But George Bush is all for it. He doesn't mind sending other people to die, but when he's the one who has to fight, forget it.
You must be confused in your terminology. Conscription means involuntary service, i.e. being drafted. No one who has died in this war was drafted. Every one of them volunteered for service.
You say you wouldn't avoid being drafted. So if the Bush administration instituted a draft tomorrow, and your name was called, you would show up? Oh, wait, you think this war is unconstitutional. So I guess your political stance against the war would probably excuse you from service, in your eyes.
As far as all your documented proof of Bush's desertion, none of it comes anywhere near proof that he did any such thing. Do you really think that if those papers meant what you're reading into them, none of the doves running for president would have made an issue of them?
No, they realize something you don't, or at least what you pretend you don't. These papers don't mean a thing. If anything, they show that record-keeping in the military is horrible at times.
I am supposed to receive an Officer Evaluation Report once a year, but that hasn't always happened. But I have never missed a drill. If someone years from now requested my OER, they would probably get the response "not rated during this period due to administrative reasons". That doesn't mean shit. It's a CYA response from some admin who didn't file his paperwork properly.
Originally posted by Radar
There are other supporting documents like penalties for poor attendance, discharge papers, the days in which he was credited, etc. proving that he was indeed a military deserter.
The more of these documents I read, the funnier it gets!
I like the one labeled
Document 23, Penalty for Bad Attendance. Taken out of context, one would assume it means Bush had bad attendance. I'm not sure whether you actually believe this, or know the truth but like to use its vagueness because it supports your agenda.
I have been counseled this date regarding the provisions of DOD Directive 1215.15, 23 February 1967. I understand that I may be ordered to active duty... for unsatisfactory participation as presently defined.... Further, I understand that if I am unable to satisfactorily participate in the ANG, and have unfulfilled military service obligation, that I may be discharged from the State ANG....
This doesn't mean his attendance was unsatisfactory, it means he was
counseled on the possible consequences of poor attendance. You sign dozens of these papers when you sign up. It's so someone can't go AWOL, and then later on say "well I didn't know that wasn't allowed", because they have proof that you were indeed told.
So Radar, I'm curious.. how much military experience have you got under your belt? You seem to be pretty naive on what exactly all these papers mean, so of course you'll excuse anyone's hesitation at accepting your interpretation of them at face value.
Originally posted by Radar
Even if he did go to Alabama, he did so without a transfer and violated his orders, his assignment, etc. and was absent from the location he was assigned to
The documents seem to indicate this chain of events: he applied for transfer to Alabama. The Alabama unit approved it, but AF HQ denied it for reasons I can't figure out (I think they're saying a National Guardsman can't be reassigned to a Reserve unit). So he requested a temporary transfer for three months to a different Alabama National Guard unit instead.
Again, none of this means a thing. People have stuff that comes up all the time, and making such exceptions is routine. The National Guard and Reserves try very hard to keep employers happy whenever possible, because they recognize the sacrifice employers make when reservists are called up. Your suggestion that it was "sugar-coated" because of "daddy's connections" is absurd.
You must be confused in your terminology
No, I'm not. And I never claimed those who volunteered to
DEFEND AMERICA and are taking part in this unconstitutional war were drafted. They were sent to take part in a war by a lying weasel who wouldn't do it himself.
As far as all your documented proof of Bush's desertion, none of it comes anywhere near proof that he did any such thing
Wrong. It proves it perfectly.
So Radar, I'm curious.. how much military experience have you got under your belt?
I was in and out in only 2 years. They had a special program back in 1987 called "Sea College". You get in, get college money and get out with no time in the reserves. I hated every second of it. Nothing but a bunch of idiots. But I'm sure you must be a special case....cough
Your suggestion that it was "sugar-coated" because of "daddy's connections" is absurd.
Your suggestion that it was anything else is ludicrous. You can't be so stupid as to think Bush's father didn't have anything to do with him being assigned to a air national guard post while everyone else was being sent to die in a war we shouldn't have been involved in. Or can you? Hopefully you won't compound that ignorance by suggesting that even though all the paperwork points to the fact that Bush is a military deserter that it was just a clerical error. Please tell me you're not so I can sleep better tonight.
He'll be tossin' and turnin', tossin' and turnin'............:D
Originally posted by Radar
Wrong. It proves it perfectly.
Thanks for that well-thought-out and articulated reply. I notice you have managed to completely avoid commenting on any of the specific flaws I pointed out in those documents and what you're trying to prove with them.
So, for this military idiot, please spell out exactly how any of this
proves that Bush was a deserter.
I've already pointed out how it proves beyond any doubt that Bush is a military deserter. Your argument amounts to "Nuh uh" by making laughable claims that it was a clerical error, or that he wasn't transfered but just showed up at another base even though there is no record of him at the other base.
I've shown that he applied for a transfer, was denied the transfer, and he stopped showing up and never came back. You claim he went to a base in Alabama because his commander said he thought it might have happened, with NOTHING to substantiate it.
So again, I've proven perfectly that Bush is a military deserter and you've proven NOTHING. You haven't pointed out a single flaw in my argument as you claim. You haven't proven that he showed up at another base. You haven't proven anything and all the evidence points to the fact that Bush is a military deserter.
Hey Tob, I was wondering what you thought about George Sr. pulling strings to get him in the Guard and away from the draft?
I admit, I don't have any links to the story, I kinda thought it was common knowledge. For all I know you don't believe that happened. I read about it in the paper in Dallas while Bush was running for Governor. As I recall, GW got moved from the 57th slot to the top of the list after Dads phone call. This means that someone else that earned the spot got bumped.
Anyway, this bugs me, but I've never served in the military. As a guy that just got the sand out of his boots I was wondering what your opinion was on just that. Leaving out the desertion thing entirely, of course.
Originally posted by Whit
Hey Tob, I was wondering what you thought about George Sr. pulling strings to get him in the Guard and away from the draft?
I admit, I don't have any links to the story, I kinda thought it was common knowledge. For all I know you don't believe that happened. I read about it in the paper in Dallas while Bush was running for Governor. As I recall, GW got moved from the 57th slot to the top of the list after Dads phone call. This means that someone else that earned the spot got bumped.
To be honest, I have never looked into that aspect of it much. If someone has a link to some substantive information, I'd appreciate it.
If those allegations are true, then yes, I agree it was shirking his duty and using connections to get special treatment. It doesn't, however, reduce my faith in him as my current commander-in-chief.
Anyway, this bugs me, but I've never served in the military. As a guy that just got the sand out of his boots I was wondering what your opinion was on just that. Leaving out the desertion thing entirely, of course.
You must have me confused with someone else; my boots are still very much filled with sand! I'm just at a camp that has interent connections now.
Originally posted by Radar
Your argument amounts to "Nuh uh" by making laughable claims that it was a clerical error, or that he wasn't transfered but just showed up at another base even though there is no record of him at the other base.
OK, one more time:
1. He requested transfer to an Alabama Air Reserve unit,
24 May 1972.
2. The Alabama Air Reserve unit accepted him,
26 May 1972.
3.
However, Air Force HQ, upon learning of the request, informs him that it is not possible to transfer from Air National Guard to an Air Reserve unit,
here (date unreadable)
4. So, on
September 5, he requests temporary transfer to an Air National Guard unit instead.
So, unless you're hiding some documents from the Alabama
National Guard unit showing that he didn't show up, you have nothing.
Since I can pretty much assume you're not going to post anything constructive in that regard, what about my reply to your implication that he was punished for poor attendance? Do you still think that happened,
or do you admit you were misrepresenting the meaning of that letter,
or do you plead ignorance as to the true meaning of the letter?
It doesn't, however, reduce my faith in him as my current commander-in-chief.
If you have
any faith in George W. Bush as a commander-in-chief or even as a decent human being, you're an idiot.
And for the record, nobody in Iraq is defending America. Not one. In fact they are doing the opposite. They are putting America in danger, costing America billions of dollars, violating the sovereignty of another nation, violating their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, committing murder, and oppressing people who were starved to death, kept from medicine, and attacked by America for 12 years. Every single American and Iraqi person who has died in this war rests on GWB's head. He alone started this illegal war. You can tell that to anyone with sand in their boots and tell them I said it and I'll say it to their face.
So, unless you're hiding some documents from the Alabama National Guard unit showing that he didn't show up, you have nothing.
What part of "his transfer request was turned down" do you not understand? He did not have a valid transfer to Alabama even if they said they'd take him. I've seen no proof that he did show up in Alabama and you haven't presented any. It wouldn't matter if he did show up in Alabama, he was assigned to Texas and he didn't show up there. Even if he's on another base, it becomes desertion if he doesn't show up at his assigned base for 6 months.
If those allegations are true, then yes, I agree it was shirking his duty and using connections to get special treatment.
He is still shirking his duty to the American people. He's a traitor and should be executed as one.
As far as penalties for poor attendance, I could hardly read the document and posted based on its description. It doesn't detract from the fact that his transfer request was
DENIED so it doesn't matter if he took up Alabama on their offer, he's still a deserter because he deserted his assigned post without permission.
Originally posted by Radar
What part of "his transfer request was turned down" do you not understand? He did not have a valid transfer to Alabama even if they said they'd take him.
Do you understand the difference between National Guard and Reserves? Do you understand the difference between a permanent transfer, and a temporary transfer (i.e. "split training")?
He requested
two different transfers. Even the website you reference acknowledges this. The transfer to the Reserve unit was denied, but you don't have any information regarding his temporary duty with the other unit.
Split training is so common in reserve (lower-case "r", meaning Reserves or National Guard) units that it is often not documented. It simply shows up as a different job code on the pay stub. You are completely misinterpreting these documents because you have no administrative military experience whatsoever.
Please, call all the national newspapers with your proof; I'm sure they'd love to get some good dirt on the president. Call Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman or Wesley Clark. They would love to have your "proof". I know you don't agree with these guys either, but your loathing for Bush is obviously so deep-seated that I'm sure you'd love to see him smeared.
I don't need to contact the media, it's common knowledge. Yes, you're right, I have extremely limited military experience and maybe I'm wrong about the paperwork having not seen any since 1989. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong about the military desertion. Anything is possible. The site seems convincing to me though.
But even if he's not a military deserter. He used his father's political influence to avoid the war, and now he's sending other people to die in a war that he personally started with a country that poses no threat to America. He personally championed the single most unconstitutional piece of legislation in American history. He personally lied to the American people of his own accord to support this illegal use of the military even though the CIA told him specifically that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and they posed no danger to America. There are still no WMD's and Americans are still dying because GWB sent them into someone else's sovereign nation.
America has no authority beyond our own borders. Neither the UN, nor America has any authority to tell any sovereign nation what weapons they may or may now possess. America is not the boss of the world or the police of the world. And the only valid use of the American military is to DEFEND against eminent attacks on American soil. Not for humanitarian aid missions, not to stabilize other countries, not to overthrow foreign "regimes" we don't like, and not to train the military of other nations. It's not even for defending our allies.
I have great reason to hate George W. Bush. He has earned it and richly deserves it. He is as anti-American as it gets. We would have been better off even wish a scumbag like Gore. Hell if Bin Laden himself were appointed to the office of the President by the Supreme Court like Bush was, even he couldn't be more anti-American than Bush.
Bush is against everything America stands for. We were created to escape from imperialistic tyranny and oppression, and now we're practicing it thanks to people like him. We had a country that kept religion and government apart, and thanks to people like Bush they're coming together.
I sincerely believe that Bush is a worse president than any random heroin addicted homeless guy.
I dunno, I think bin Laden might be worse as President with regard to freedoms.
Yeah...plus, I can't grow a full beard...makes me itch like crazy.
I dunno, I think bin Laden might be worse as President with regard to freedoms.
The way Bush/Ashcroft are attacking our rights, I'd say they differ slightly in degree but both are against what makes America great.
Man, everyone disses the random heroin addicted homeless guy.
Originally posted by Radar
Maybe you're right and I'm wrong...
WTF? (slang falls out of his chair in disbelief)
You caught that too, eh?
I think that line from Radar makes the greatest
hits.
Originally posted by slang
WTF? (slang falls out of his chair in disbelief)
Yeah no shit, I think I could have countered any other reply besides that one. It left me dumbfounded for two days!
Do you think those Georgism idiots have been harassing him so much elsewhere he's looking for refuge in the kinder gentler Cellar.:)
Why so shocked? It's possible that even I could be wrong. ;) :D
Originally posted by Radar
Why so shocked? It's possible that even [b]I could be wrong. ;) :D [/B]
We're not at all shocked at you being wrong. It's the admission that caused the vapors.:D
I, of course knew you were a teddy bear all along. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Radar
Why so shocked? It's possible that even [b]I could be wrong. ;) :D [/B]
Admitting the possibility is the source of the shock!!
[size=5]
Behold, the new, less offensive Radar. [/size]
Wow, you really are running for office.
"Let's not go sucking each other's dicks just yet."--Mr. Wolf (Harvey Keitel) from Pulp Fiction.
Originally posted by Griff
Wow, you really are running for office.
Maybe, Lord High Executioner. ;)
