First off, this is NOT meant to be an attack or demeaning to Bush supporters, but i really just want to know the thinking. I won't judge you so please answer with open mind.

Secondly,please don't answer with "Well how did you feel when Clinton whatever whatever". We can start a new thread if you want to discuss Clinton. This thread is about Bush's supporters.

So:

1. How do the religious people, who voted for Bush, feel NOW that Bush used them with issues like abortion, flag burning, and gay marriage and never talked about it again until another election came up? He did not do anything about these issues even though both the executive branch and the congress were republican controlled? He did not even try. So, do you feel used? If not, why not?

2. Also, do you feel that all is ok since "atleast we have a christian in the white house!"?

3. Do you feel its ok that Bush brought up "GOD" in one of the debates with Kerry? (this is not about kerry). Bush said "I believe that GOD wants us all to be free". This was of course to tap into and energize the relgious right. What did you feel about him brining up GOD in a political debate?

Just curious.

Loaded questions you got there, darlin.

Believe it or not, I voted for George W. Bush because I thought he was the best man for the job... not because I expected him to take a stance on social issues in this country. I never expected, nor did I experience, him taking advantage of his christianity to further his own agenda. He's a good husband, a good father and a man of high morals, having never been caught with an intern under his desk or even anything remotely close to that.

I helped elect him to do the very thing he's done (and which, BTW, is really the only thing he's constitutionally obliged to do) and that is KEEP US SAFE FROM THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO WIPE AMERICA OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

IMHO, all the other 'charges' and 'accusations' being hurled at him by liberals are nothing more than outrageous ploys to try and get a Democrat into the White House in 2008... and take everyone's attention away from the positive aspects of his two terms in office, like a strong economy and low unemployment.

Their plan might work, too... if only they'd come up with some better candidates. At this point, that doesn't seem likely.

:)
SMW

Loaded questions you got there, darlin.

Believe it or not, I voted for George W. Bush because I thought he was the best man for the job... not because I expected him to take a stance on social issues in this country. I never expected, nor did I experience, him taking advantage of his christianity to further his own agenda. He's a good husband, a good father and a man of high morals, having never been caught with an intern under his desk or even anything remotely close to that.

I helped elect him to do the very thing he's done (and which, BTW, is really the only thing he's constitutionally obliged to do) and that is KEEP US SAFE FROM THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO WIPE AMERICA OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

IMHO, all the other 'charges' and 'accusations' being hurled at him by liberals are nothing more than outrageous ploys to try and get a Democrat into the White House in 2008... and take everyone's attention away from the positive aspects of his two terms in office, like a strong economy and low unemployment.

Their plan might work, too... if only they'd come up with some better candidates. At this point, that doesn't seem likely.

:)
SMW

Thanks for the reply. But I feel your answer about him having high morals is that you believe he is a good christian. I think a DUI or whatever he got is worse than an intern giving a blowjob. With drunk driving you can KILL PEOPLE!

So, in the first election, how did you come to the conclusion that he has high morals?

I helped elect him to do the very thing he's done (and which, BTW, is really the only thing he's constitutionally obliged to do) and that is KEEP US SAFE FROM THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO WIPE AMERICA OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
:)
SMWAre you saying the only constitutional obligation of the Executive is to keep us safe from terrorists?

Are you saying the only constitutional obligation of the Executive is to keep us safe from terrorists?

Actually, No. His job is to provide for the common defense.

Certainly not the ONLY requirement of the presidency, but way up there ahead of deciding whether gays should be able to get married or not (which, BTW, is NOT mentioned in the constitution.)

I helped elect him to do the very thing he's done (and which, BTW, is really the only thing he's constitutionally obliged to do) and that is KEEP US SAFE FROM THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO WIPE AMERICA OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

HA!!! Not even close!

As spelled out in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, upon taking office, the President of the United States of America is required to solemnly swear that "I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I note, with great disgust, that Mr. Bush has done none of these things. Going by his actions, it would seem that one of his prime directives is to bastardize, weaken, and/or completely destroy the Constitution of the United States.


:mad:

Thanks for the reply. But I feel your answer about him having high morals is that you believe he is a good christian. I think a DUI or whatever he got is worse than an intern giving a blowjob. With drunk driving you can KILL PEOPLE!

So, in the first election, how did you come to the conclusion that he has high morals?
LOL @ traffic ticket, grasping for straws, are we M?

I also elected him Governor of my state. So he was not exactly a stranger to me when he ran for President.

Thanks for the reply. But I feel your answer about him having high morals is that you believe he is a good christian.People can be of "high morals" without being Christian.

I think a DUI or whatever he got is worse than an intern giving a blowjob. With drunk driving you can KILL PEOPLE! DWI is not the same thing as vehicular homicide while drunk. Do you honestly not see the dive-under-the-desk as immoral? It sure as hell is!

LOL @ traffic ticket, grasping for straws, are we M?

I also elected him Governor of my state. So he was not exactly a stranger to me when he ran for President.

No I'm just trying to figure out how you think he is a man of high moral standards?

I also elected him Governor of my state. So he was not exactly a stranger to me when he ran for President.I did not vote for Bush, but I actually like him. It's his policies I fault. He should be like the Queen in Britain: Front man, but no real role in policy making.

People can be of "high morals" without being Christian.

DWI is not the same thing as vehicular homicide while drunk. Do you honestly not see the dive-under-the-desk as immoral? It sure as hell is!

DWI can lead to vehicular homicide, no? So you feel DWI is ok.

I feel that that the "dive-under-the-desk" is totally immoral. Don't put words in my mouth.

Also, again this thread is not a comparison of Clinton and Bush as my first post states. We can discuss clinton's morals in another thread if you like.

DWI can lead to vehicular homicide, no? So you feel DWI is ok.

I feel that that the "dive-under-the-desk" is totally immoral. Don't put words in my mouth.

Also, again this thread is not a comparison of Clinton and Bush as my first post states. We can discuss clinton's morals in another thread if you like.I was just responding to you...sorry.

As for the DWI; no, it's not okay. But it is not a moral slip so much as a judgement slip. (Also, I think it's unfair to link simple DWI to homocide, for the same reason we don't link firing a gun into the air on New Years to murder. There is no intent. Stupidity, irresponsibility, yes.)

I think a DUI or whatever he got is worse than an intern giving a blowjob. With drunk driving you can KILL PEOPLE!


Apparently, you've never experienced the dangers associated with a phenomenal BJ.

I note, with great disgust, that Mr. Bush has done none of these things. Going by his actions, it would seem that one of his prime directives is to bastardize, weaken, and/or completely destroy the Constitution of the United States.


:mad:Hey, Marzi, are you and I about to agree on something? Damn, get me a popcicle!

No I'm just trying to figure out how you think he is a man of high moral standards?
Let's just say I 'know' his mother and his wife. ;)

Seriously, if he had ever so much as looked like he was going to do something immoral, don't you think the press would be all over that story in a heartbeat?

I've never seen any evidence of him being anything but a moral person.

HA!!! Not even close!

As spelled out in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, upon taking office, the President of the United States of America is required to solemnly swear that "I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I note, with great disgust, that Mr. Bush has done none of these things. Going by his actions, it would seem that one of his prime directives is to bastardize, weaken, and/or completely destroy the Constitution of the United States.


:mad:

Calm down, Frannie. We all know how you feel about the President. Guess you didn't read the paragraph I wrote acknowledging your feelings...

IMHO, all the other 'charges' and 'accusations' being hurled at him by liberals are nothing more than outrageous ploys to try and get a Democrat into the White House in 2008... and take everyone's attention away from the positive aspects of his two terms in office, like a strong economy and low unemployment.

And I might add... keeping your butt safe since 9/12/01.

;)
SMW

I did not vote for Bush, but I actually like him. It's his policies I fault. He should be like the Queen in Britain: Front man, but no real role in policy making.
Hah. This is a great post. I don't have anything against Bush as a person, either.

I've never seen any evidence of him being anything but a moral person.And just by way of comparison, on the moral issue, if my wife came home after a firm happy hour and said, "Man I shouldn't have driven home because I overdid it a little," I would be much less bothered than if she came home and said "I just had oral sex with someone."

As for the DWI; no, it's not okay. But it is not a moral slip so much as a judgement slip. (Also, I think it's unfair to link simple DWI to homocide, for the same reason we don't link firing a gun into the air on New Years to murder. There is no intent. Stupidity, irresponsibility, yes.)
Thank you, Shiloh. That aside, MeskDXB has obviously never dealt with a dishonest cop who has the ABILITY to fuck you when you're not guilty. OTOH, you can be as obsequious as you want, Mesk - the officer in question can STILL ruin your life over 3 drinks at a bar. When a DWI/DUI is issued (and the officers have quotas), they're actually two tickets in one; one is for operating a vehicle "under the influence" of an intoxicant, which as it happens, is assessed by an "expert evaluator" i.e., cop (whose highest education level may be slightly north of your average gibbon (read; high school graduate)), and the other is for being .08 or over. Depending on whatever you do, they're gonna stick you with one regardless. Try exercising your "right" not to blow there. They may not be able to "convict" you if you don't provide them with the "evidence" to fully prosecute you, however it's immaterial - it stays on your record FOREVER, even if you're NOT convicted. How fucked up is that!? :mad:

Yeah - what "murderers" all DWI offenders are.....

And just by way of comparison, on the moral issue, if my wife came home after a firm happy hour and said, "Man I shouldn't have driven home because I overdid it a little," I would be much less bothered than if she came home and said "I just had oral sex with someone."

Ok. Why do we keep comparing this with a blow job? I don't get it. Also, in the first election Clinton (the blowjob guy) was not even running. So, how did you compare the DWI to a blowjob as your basis for choosing Bush?
Let's stop the Clinton comparing. I already said an extra-marital blow job is immoral.

Also, bush has created way more enemies in Iraq for the US than we ever had. If he would have focused on Afghanistan and catching and squashing bin laden, we would have been better off. He has made Iraq into a recruitment center for islamic rage against the US. Instead of having Al Qaida in one country now it is everywhere.

He has actually HURT the safety of the US. I don't know why you can't see that. Because, we don't know who we are fighting in Iraq. The muslims will keep coming from different countries just to "fight for allah". It will never end - as it is NOT for israel.

Thank you, Shiloh. That aside, MeskDXB has obviously never dealt with a dishonest cop who has the ABILITY to fuck you when you're not guilty. OTOH, you can be as obsequious as you want, Mesk - the officer in question can STILL ruin your life over 3 drinks at a bar. When a DWI/DUI is issued, they're actually two tickets in one; one is for operating a vehicle "under the influence" of an intoxicant, which as it happens, is assessed by an "expert evaluator" i.e., cop (whose highest education level may be slightly north of your average gibbon (read; high school graduate)), and the other is for being .08 or over. Depending on whatever you do, they're gonna stick you with one regardless. Try exercising your "right" not to blow there. They may not be able to "convict" you if you don't provide them with the "evidence" to fully prosecute you, however it's immaterial - it stays on your record FOREVER, even if you're NOT convicted. How fucked up is that!? :mad:

Yeah - what "murderers" all DWI offenders are.....

So basically you guys will go so far to defend Bush to state "its ok to drink and drive". That's the whole fucked up thing here. Bush lovers will go to any lengths to defend him as is proven here. DRINK DRIVING IS OK - Hey, he didn't kill anyone!!".

I still have not heard from anyone who voted for bush on the abortion, gay marriage, flag burning issues. Anyone?

[QUOTE=
And I might add... keeping your butt safe since 9/12/01.

;)
SMW[/QUOTE]

How safe is that we American citizens can't travel safely abroad?

Try exercising your "right" not to blow there. They may not be able to "convict" you if you don't provide them with the "evidence" to fully prosecute you, however it's immaterial - it stays on your record FOREVER, even if you're NOT convicted. How fucked up is that!? :mad:

In my state, having a driver's license obligates you to submit to breathalyzer/drug tests at the request of a cop. I think they call it implied consent or something like that...

When a DWI/DUI is issued (and the officers have quotas), they're actually two tickets in one; one is for operating a vehicle "under the influence" of an intoxicant, which as it happens, is assessed by an "expert evaluator" i.e., cop (whose highest education level may be slightly north of your average gibbon (read; high school graduate)), and the other is for being .08 or over.

I wonder who came up with this whole quota thing. It kind of implies that even if no one is breaking the law make it up, we need the money.

So basically you guys will go so far to defend Bush to state "its ok to drink and drive". That's the whole fucked up thing here. Bush lovers will go to any lengths to defend him as is proven here. DRINK DRIVING IS OK - Hey, he didn't kill anyone!!".I am no Bush-lover. (Click on my user name and go to: "Find all posts by..." and you'll see that the complaints you've just made re Bush, Iraq, etc, have been made by me on these very forums.)

However, DWI is not a moral issue. And, to point that out is not tantamount to saying DWI is okay.

I still have not heard from anyone who voted for bush on the abortion, gay marriage, flag burning issues. Anyone?I guess I'm out, since I didn't vote for Bush.

But before I go: Abortion, pro-choice; Gay Marriage, your business not mine; Flag burning, you buy it, it's your to do with as you please.

So basically you guys will go so far to defend Bush to state "its ok to drink and drive".
I'm not saying it is - the state is, and thanks for bringing that up. Remember .08 for a "safe" state? Get pulled over for it, and the only thing you hear, in unison, is "don't ever drink and drive". The only hypocrisy here is the Secretary of State's. Why is it okay for them to talk outta both sides of their mouth? Because there's a fuckload of Ca$h-money in it, that's why.

Bush may have made a mistake, but he sure-as-shit didn't (with a sober mind and clear conscience, that is) stick his cock in a woman's mouth who wasn't his wife. Not only did Slick Willie have the INTENT to deceive and cheat on his wife, he then LIED about under oath to the American public. Sorry, but him lying here is a matter of fact, not conjecture.

Hey, Marzi, are you and I about to agree on something? Damn, get me a popcicle!

Hell, I'll get ya TWO! :thumbs:

In my state, having a driver's license obligates you to submit to breathalyzer/drug tests at the request of a cop. I think they call it implied consent or something like that...
We have implied consent here too (I'm impressed, DF :)), but it's still within your "rights" to OPT out if you weren't involved in an accident.

Thank you, Shiloh. That aside, MeskDXB has obviously never dealt with a dishonest cop who has the ABILITY to fuck you when you're not guilty. OTOH, you can be as obsequious as you want, Mesk - the officer in question can STILL ruin your life over 3 drinks at a bar. When a DWI/DUI is issued (and the officers have quotas), they're actually two tickets in one; one is for operating a vehicle "under the influence" of an intoxicant, which as it happens, is assessed by an "expert evaluator" i.e., cop (whose highest education level may be slightly north of your average gibbon (read; high school graduate)), and the other is for being .08 or over. Depending on whatever you do, they're gonna stick you with one regardless. Try exercising your "right" not to blow there. They may not be able to "convict" you if you don't provide them with the "evidence" to fully prosecute you, however it's immaterial - it stays on your record FOREVER, even if you're NOT convicted. How fucked up is that!? :mad:



Sorry, Prae, but some of this inaccurate.

First off, quotas are unconstitutional. So there can never be an official quota....with that said, there are arguably some quota-like practices out there (and I think a good defense attorney may one day make some hay out of this). Namely, there are officers on the streets funded by grants to do specific things, like catch drunk drivers or speeders. If the officer working one of these grants never caught any speeders or drunk drivers, I suspect they would have trouble getting those grants renewed. Thus, there is some pressure to catch at least some offenders. But there seem to be a surplus of offenders when these grants are issued....

Second, I want to clarify your characterizatioin of DWI law. You're right that there are two teirs to the prosecution of DWIs. There's an administrative teir and a criminal teir. (Disclaimer: I'm a Texas attorney so I only speak with certainty in relation to Texas law....but other states will have very similar legal practices)

The administrative teir involves your driver's license. Like DF said, you give implied consent to breathalizers/sobriety tests when you request a driver's license to the state. You can lose your DL simply by refusing to blow. Furthermore, you will likely be assesed some surcharges of some sort when you renew your license because your refusal to blow. Furthermore, legal standards with administrative proceedings are preponderence of the evidence, rather than reasonable doubt. And you have none of the protections of criminal law...no right to jury, no right to attorney, etc. Simply put, if a cop stops you and thinks you're drunk, you're going to be hit by this section unless you fully cooperate and blow less than a .08.

The criminal teir involves jail/probation/fines. This is the really nasty part. Criminal DWI is proven through two methods. The simple method is if the person blows a .08 BAC. The messier method is by proving that the suspect has lost the normal use of his mental or physical faculties due to an intoxicating substance. Thus, the state has to prove that you were either physically or mentally not all there and that was due to an intoxicating substance. The advent of dashboard cams has simplified this process by simply showing the judge/jury a video tape of you during your arrest. However, not all jurisdictions are wealthy enough to be able afford video cameras and then there is a lot of relying on officer testimony.

Either way, people who are innocent of DWI have an easy way out, and that is by blowing less than a .08. So, essentially, if you're not DWI, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. However, I will concede to you that I don't think the .08 drivers are the real dangers. It's really the .16+ drivers that are killers....that's why I think the DWI BAC maximum should be raised.

Btw, administrative proceedings do not go on your criminal record. However, an arrest will, and your "arrests"(e.g. no conviction) are not readily available to the public.

Edit: You have the right not to blow or do any sobriety tests (right against self-incrimination), but that only helps you for criminal proceedings. That hangs you in the administrative proceedings. With that said, in abnormal circumstances, the police can get a warrant to draw blood or something like that....but they have to get a warrant.

Also, I want to add in police officers defense, they see the ugly side of DWI. They work the accidents where innocent people are mangled cause some drunk veered into oncoming traffic. They deal with the families and they hear a lot of the testimony when they go to trial. So it's not really that they're dicks, it's that they know first-hand the harm that can come from DWI....and that will cause anyone to be more passionate about stopping DWIs.

Either way, people who are innocent of DWI have an easy way out, and that is by blowing less than a .08.
Thanks, Leper - reading what you said did ring true, however the comment quoted above is untrue (in Illinois, that is). If you are a .05 in my state, you can STILL be convicted of driving under the influence even though we've established .08 as the benchmark. In my experience, and from what I've been told by my attorneys, never consent to ANY test - line or otherwise.

Sorry, Prae, but some of this inaccurate.

First off, quotas are unconstitutional.
So are roadblocks.

The advent of dashboard cams has simplified this process by simply showing the judge/jury a video tape of you during your arrest.
And they're NEVER there if it doesn't make the prosecution's case look like a lock.

Sorry, Prae, but some of this inaccurate.

First off, quotas are unconstitutional. So there can never be an official quota....with that said, there are arguably some quota-like practices out there (and I think a good defense attorney may one day make some hay out of this). Namely, there are officers on the streets funded by grants to do specific things, like catch drunk drivers or speeders. If the officer working one of these grants never caught any speeders or drunk drivers, I suspect they would have trouble getting those grants renewed. Thus, there is some pressure to catch at least some offenders. But there seem to be a surplus of offenders when these grants are issued....

Second, I want to clarify your characterizatioin of DWI law. You're right that there are two teirs to the prosecution of DWIs. There's an administrative teir and a criminal teir. (Disclaimer: I'm a Texas attorney so I only speak with certainty in relation to Texas law....but other states will have very similar legal practices)

The administrative teir involves your driver's license. Like DF said, you give implied consent to breathalizers/sobriety tests when you request a driver's license to the state. You can lose your DL simply by refusing to blow. Furthermore, you will likely be assesed some surcharges of some sort when you renew your license because your refusal to blow. Furthermore, legal standards with administrative proceedings are preponderence of the evidence, rather than reasonable doubt. And you have none of the protections of criminal law...no right to jury, no right to attorney, etc. Simply put, if a cop stops you and thinks you're drunk, you're going to be hit by this section unless you fully cooperate and blow less than a .08.

The criminal teir involves jail/probation/fines. This is the really nasty part. Criminal DWI is proven through two methods. The simple method is if the person blows a .08 BAC. The messier method is by proving that the suspect has lost the normal use of his mental or physical faculties due to an intoxicating substance. Thus, the state has to prove that you were either physically or mentally not all there and that was due to an intoxicating substance. The advent of dashboard cams has simplified this process by simply showing the judge/jury a video tape of you during your arrest. However, not all jurisdictions are wealthy enough to be able afford video cameras and then there is a lot of relying on officer testimony.
Either way, people who are innocent of DWI have an easy way out, and that is by blowing less than a .08. So, essentially, if you're not DWI, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. However, I will concede to you that I don't think the .08 drivers are the real dangers. It's really the .16+ drivers that are killers....that's why I think the DWI BAC maximum should be raised.

Btw, administrative proceedings do not go on your criminal record. However, an arrest will, and your "arrests"(e.g. no conviction) are not readily available to the public.

Edit: You have the right not to blow or do any sobriety tests (right against self-incrimination), but that only helps you for criminal proceedings. That hangs you in the administrative proceedings.

Interesting, Leper. Thanks.

The bolded paragraph brings back a case I was unfortunate enough to sit on a jury for last year. To protect him from 'discrimination' we were never told what the guy did for a living, but most of us figured he was also an atty.

He was stopped doing 80 mph while driving his Lexus on a downtown freeway at 11:30 p.m. while returning home from a Mav's game. The officer who stopped him had the dash cam going the entire time. When asked if he would consent to a breath test, he shook his head no. He was warned of the consequences, but still, simply shook his head no. The guy did just OK on his sobriety tests... swaying a little and missing a step or two. Inconclusive since they were standing on the shoulder of the freeway with traffic zipping by a few feet from him. He also refused to SPEAK loud enough for his voice to be picked up by the recorder.

He was put into the patrol car, where he sat by himself for at least 15 min while the officer talked to another officer outside the car... camera rolling the whole time. While he 'looked' drunk (had trouble keeping his eyes open, etc.) he never uttered a word. Shortly after the cop got into the car and took off, the dash cam mysteriously malfunctioned and quit working.

Our job, as jury members, was to ascertain whether or not he was DRUNK.

Which, of course, we could not do. We had no choice but to find him not guilty.

On the way out of the courtroom, I ran into him and his atty in the hall. He tapped me on the shoulder and said, "I just wanted to say thanks."

I coulda slapped him silly.

Was he drunk? Of course he was. Could we PROVE, beyond reasonable doubt that he was? Nope.

Lesson learned. If you know the loopholes, you can beat a DUI in Texas.

:(
SMW

I feel like the President has done some things I like and some things I don't like. I feel he has gotten some things right and some things wrong.

I felt when I voted that he was the better of the two major party candidates and I still feel that way. I much prefer having Bush as President than any Democrat who had a chance of being elected.

I feel the same about the upcoming crop of candidates. I can find no Democrat in the pack who I would prefer over any of the Republican candidates.

I toadly agree, Frogger.

:)
SMW

Lesson learned. If you know the loopholes, you can beat a DUI in Texas.

:(
SMW
It's on your record FOREVER, SMW, even if you "beat" it. You still have to jump through hoops to get your privileges reinstated, pay thousands in attorney fees, and every cop who pulls you over from then on out will see your "beating" it as a personal affront to their "authority" and throw the book at you for speeding, low tread wear on your tires, poor visibility because of your dash-mounted GPS, and everything else under the sun. God forbid you square off to them for being the blatant dicks they are - they might just site you for driving under the influence again.

It's on your record FOREVER, SMW, even if you "beat" it. You still have to jump through hoops to get your privileges reinstated, pay thousands in attorney fees, and every cop who pulls you over from then on out will see your "beating" it as a personal affront to their "authority" and throw the book at you for speeding, low tread wear on your tires, poor visibility because of your dash-mounted GPS, and everything else under the sun. God forbid you square off to them for being the blatant dicks they are - they might just site you for driving under the influence again.

It's not on HIS record, Prae... he was found NOT GUILTY!

His atty mentioned once that his client refused to take the breath test because he feared the equipment would malfunction and show him intoxicated when he wasn't. No one was allowed to ask him anything else about why he didn't take the test.

Having said all that... it's probably not a good idea (unless one is an atty) to 'try this at home.' I have no doubt it was a fluke deal.

This whole discussion goes along the same lines as the "To Catch a Predator" topic, IMHO. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

(Want me to call you a cab?)

;)
SMW

So are roadblocks.

Roadblocks are not unconstitutional, if applied correctly.

It's not on HIS record, Prae... he was found NOT GUILTY!
It is in Illinois, even if you're found NOT GUILTY.

Roadblocks are not unconstitutional, if applied correctly.
Then I suppose neither are quotas, if applied correctly.

It is in Illinois, even if you're found NOT GUILTY.
I don't see how that could be, Prae. Unless you took a breath test and failed it, but pled not guilty anyway??

Thanks, Leper - reading what you said did ring true, however the comment quoted above is untrue (in Illinois, that is). If you are a .05 in my state, you can STILL be convicted of driving under the influence even though we've established .08 as the benchmark. In my experience, and from what I've been told by my attorneys, never consent to ANY test - line or otherwise.

You're right here. Actually, in Texas, it's the same way...there's no .05 mark, but you could still theoretically be convicted if you blow something less than .08. It would be a tough case for the state, but it's theoretically possible.

I wouldn't say "never" consent. I would say consent only if you're sure you haven't been drinking a significant amount of alcohol. Cause if you don't consent, you get the administrative mess, which is nasty in itself (but only a fraction of the nastiness of the criminal charges).

I don't see how that could be, Prae. Unless you took a breath test and failed it, but pled not guilty anyway??
It's on your permanent record as a non-conviction, but nevertheless, it always shows up on your driving record. EVERY cop who pulls you over from then on out sees it. You don't think there's a built-in component of animus on their end? Think again.

It's on your permanent record as a non-conviction, but nevertheless, it always shows up on your driving record. EVERY cop who pulls you over from then on out sees it. You don't think there's a built-in component of animus on their end? Think again.

That might be an Illinois thing, but Texas cops don't have people's driving records stuffed down the front of their pants. And those lucky enough to have a computer handy can only see criminal records.

Also, arrest records can probably be expunged if there was no conviction.

It's on your permanent record as a non-conviction, but nevertheless, it always shows up on your driving record. EVERY cop who pulls you over from then on out sees it. You don't think there's a built-in component of animus on their end? Think again.
I don't doubt you, Prae... just never thought of it that way. Must be kinda like my friend who's 6'5" and was stopped one night in the 70's while driving with a Jack & Coke in his hand. Stepped out of the car and put his drink on the roof. Cop walked up behind him and grabbed ahold of his (long) hair and pulled him back... but not before my friend turned around and bitch-slapped that Highway Patrolman.

To this day, if my friend gets stopped for failure to use his blinker, they're gonna pull him outta that car and cuff him on the spot.

BTW, he gave up Jack & Coke after that. Said it made him turn into a moron.

:)
SMW

That might be an Illinois thing, but Texas cops don't have people's driving records stuffed down the front of their pants. And those lucky enough to have a computer handy can only see criminal records.
That's the way it should be. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that here.
Also, arrest records can probably be expunged if there was no conviction.
I've heard that it's possible, but very difficult to do because of the fact that your driving record isn't "yours" (well, at least, not technically speaking, it isn't) - it's property of the Secretary of State, hence they'll stick anything in it they believe to be pertinent.

Bush has been a below average president...

I voted for him both times, and it was mostly based on the moronic thinking that voting for Bush would mean Gore or Kerry WOULDN'T be president. I now know that you vote for whoever is best for the job, not who is the better of the big powerful 2.

Bush has put way too much money into the military, hasn't followed up on campaign projects, and hasn't been an inspirational leader in the slightest. He seems to be hiding or something, that's not what I want in a president. If people are crying foul, come out with a strong hand and say they are wrong... prove they are wrong. If you don't, you open yourself up to looking guilty.

However, reguardless of where the money has gone, Bush has been a superb fundraiser.

Bush has been a below average president....
Time will undoubtedly tell.
I voted for him both times, and it was mostly based on the moronic thinking that voting for Bush would mean Gore or Kerry WOULDN'T be president.
Wow - it certainly was.
I now know that you vote for whoever is best for the job, not who is the better of the big powerful 2.
I agree, in principle (if I'm reading you correctly here).
Bush has put way too much money into the military...
Nonsense. Our money went into creating Homeland Security and funding the war - not into "research and development" where it belongs.
...hasn't followed up on campaign projects...
Not that I'm disagreeing entirely, but like what, for example?...and hasn't been an inspirational leader in the slightest.
Here, I agree (well, at least, partially I do). Elaborate please.
However, reguardless of where the money has gone, Bush has been a superb fundraiser.
For whom? The military industrial complex?

For whom? The military industrial complex?

Lol...

Either way, people who are innocent of DWI have an easy way out, and that is by blowing less than a .08. So, essentially, if you're not DWI, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Even if you blow a 0.00 you can be arrested and convicted of DWI if the officer believes and can convince a jury that you were intoxicated by anything other than alcohol. The 0.08 level is DWI de facto, but not the only way to be convicted.

Bush has been a below average president...

I voted for him both times, and it was mostly based on the moronic thinking that voting for Bush would mean Gore or Kerry WOULDN'T be president. I now know that you vote for whoever is best for the job, not who is the better of the big powerful 2.

Bush has put way too much money into the military, hasn't followed up on campaign projects, and hasn't been an inspirational leader in the slightest. He seems to be hiding or something, that's not what I want in a president. If people are crying foul, come out with a strong hand and say they are wrong... prove they are wrong. If you don't, you open yourself up to looking guilty.

However, reguardless of where the money has gone, Bush has been a superb fundraiser.
Great post, Decka.

He (B*sh) is a good husband, a good father and a man of high morals, having never been caught with an intern under his desk or even anything remotely close to that.

No I'm just trying to figure out how you think he is a man of high moral standards?

Well, he lied the nation into an illegal war, threw away the lives of over 3200 U.S. soldiers, caused over 600,00 human beings in Iraq to be killed, and wasted around a trillion taxdollars (cost estimates now run to over two trillion) on a hopeless, ill-conceived quagmire.

Gee. That's "high moral standards", I guess. From a Reichwing perspective.

No wonder all the little Eichmanns love him so.

________________________________________

http://www.funny-tshirts.biz/images/t_16326.jpg

Thanks for the compliment Dark... ;)

Time will undoubtedly tell.

Yes it will.. we probably won't know what the Iraq situation will be all about until 10-15 years down the road. That is pretty much what will make or break Bush in historical perspective.

Wow - it certainly was.
I agree, in principle (if I'm reading you correctly here).

My point is that I'm taking all party affiliations away from the equation and voting on whoever represents my beliefs and opinions the most... whether it be libertarian, ralph nader LOL...

Nonsense. Our money went into creating Homeland Security and funding the war - not into "research and development" where it belongs.

Yes but hardly any funding has gone into securing our boarders, providing health care for veterans, education..

Here, I agree (well, at least, partially I do). Elaborate please.

Bush is like Barry Bonds. There is all the noise out there about 9-11 and about how it was constructed by Bush, and about how he is only in Iraq for oil... Now if it were some small little complaint, i'd say ignore it. But something this big should be addressed by bush directly. He has dodged it. Bonds is knee deep in Balco and steroids.. and he is hush-hush on the subject... I don't know.. what makes someone look more guilty? Not saying anything or denying it?

I want a president who addresses the people all the time. Someone who explains his actions and tries to establish a relationship with the american people aka the people who voted him into office. All the secrecy is scary.

For whom? The military industrial complex?

While it has mostly gone to the military, it IS a shitload of money.

Thanks for the response, Decka.

No wonder all the little Eichmanns love him so.
Whatever, Ward.

Whatever, Ward.

Thanks for the compliment, Prae.

Yeah, he's a fine example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

Yeah, he's a fine example...


I agree. He's one of the very,very few people in this country that both

--knows what is going on.

--will speak the truth about it.

I agree. He's one of the very,very few people in this country that both

--knows what is going on.

--will speak the truth about it.He appears to not even know his own ancestry.

I helped elect him to do the very thing he's done (and which, BTW, is really the only thing he's constitutionally obliged to do) and that is KEEP US SAFE FROM THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO WIPE AMERICA OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

Actually SMW, the only thing the President is Constitutionally obliged to do is
"preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is granted other powers but that is the only thing he swears an oath to do as prescribed in the Constitution.

"Keeping us safe" is the job of the Defense Deptartment, the Police and the National Guard.

The President's job is to PRESERVE (not circumvent), PROTECT (not undermine), and DEFEND (not abandon) the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html).

.

I agree. He's one of the very,very few people in this country that both

--knows what is going on.

--will speak the truth about it.

It seems that truth is something he has a wee bit of a problem with.

Actually SMW, the only thing the President is Constitutionally obliged to do is
"preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is granted other powers but that is the only thing he swears an oath to do as prescribed in the Constitution.

"Keeping us safe" is the job of the Defense Deptartment, the Police and the National Guard.

The President's job is to PRESERVE (not circumvent), PROTECT (not undermine), and DEFEND (not abandon) the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html).

.

Well, Dharma, I guess you think the title COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF is just window-dressing, huh?

Def: A commander-in-chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces. In the latter case, the force element may be defined as those forces within a particular region or those forces which are associated by function. As a practical term it refers to the military competencies which reside in a nation-state's executive, head of state or government. Often, a given country's commander-in-chief need not be or have been a commissioned officer or even a veteran, and it is by this legal statute that civilian control of the military is realized in states where it is constitutionally required.

What the Constitution does NOT require the president to do is make decisions on whether or not gays can marry, women can have abortions, 100% of Americans have healthcare, children get a quality education, etc., etc.

You know? The very things you libs complain so much about him NOT doing?

Other than those little discrepancies, I'd say your post is 100% incorrect.

;)
SMW

I agree. He's one of the very,very few people in this country that both

--knows what is going on.

--will speak the truth about it.

Nice role model for you, eh FT?

"In 2005, he was widely discussed and criticized in the mass media for a 2001 essay in which he questioned the innocence of people killed in the World Trade Center attacks."

SMW, i guess its hard to debate with you regarding Bush, since you admit to "know"ing his wife and mother. Whatever that means. So, once you know someone personally, you understand them too deeply and forgive their faults.
I'm sure Hitler's friends would say "he's just misunderstood".

You have given no examples of why you consider him to have "high morals". Just accepten' Jesus as your Lord and Saviour after being a total fuck-up does not make you one with high morals or ethics.

It seems that truth is something he (Churchill) has a wee bit of a problem with.

Not when it comes to political realities.

He is scathingly, excrutiatingly truthful about the machinations of the extreme RightWing thugs who run this country.

Of course I don't have a right for election in US, and I wouldn't tell about it.
But, Bush demand Japan to proceed to join and support to the War on Terrorism. If Japan will take the will and capacity and a theory of law, ultimately Japan will fight against "terrorism" by ourselves without permission of US.
Of course, Japanese political skill is and had been not good. Therefore, it means, Japanese politician and people apt to take another way. The way means either by economy or by military.
Bush may not think it, but it's very important for us.

Not when it comes to political realities.

He is scathingly, excrutiatingly truthful about the machinations of the extreme RightWing thugs who run this country.

...or in other words, he agrees with you.

...or in other words, he agrees with you.

Nope.

His agreement or disagreement with me or any other person has nothing to do with the fact that he speaks truthfully about this country's leaders and their agenda.

Nice role model for you, eh FT?

"In 2005, he was widely discussed and criticized in the mass media for a 2001 essay in which he questioned the innocence of people killed in the World Trade Center attacks."

And he doesn't retort, what a surprise.

And he doesn't retort, what a surprise.

Sorry. I missed it. I'd love to respond.

Nice role model for you, eh FT?

"In 2005, he was widely discussed and criticized in the mass media for a 2001 essay in which he questioned the innocence of people killed in the World Trade Center attacks."

Absolutely.

He is someone I admire immensely.

To answer the question, quickly. Bush voters have NO feelings, they are completely, and totally, brain dead. One would have to be considering all that has been exposed about the fascist pig that calls himself president and all that surround him.

Nope.

His agreement or disagreement with me or any other person has nothing to do with the fact that he speaks truthfully about this country's leaders and their agenda.
Oh, so it has nothing to do with the fact that his radical (and widely laughed at, no less) political suppositions happen to coincide with yours? Mmmkay, FT...:rolleyes:

Whatever you say, pal. Why don't you move, and take Churchill with ya - I head he's looking for work anyway. Maybe you can teach him new ways to plagiarize "original" ideas in France. (He'll probably have to take a pay cut, though...:( )

Either way, good luck and good riddance.

Well, Dharma, I guess you think the title COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF is just window-dressing, huh?

The power as Commander in Chief of the military is just another one of the powers the President is granted in order to fulfill his primary duty, which is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Not "keep us safe". His role as commander in chief was reserved for such time as when Congress declared the nation to be in a state of war. The President is not given the power to declare when the troops should be used. That power is clearly given to the Congress. The ONLY thing the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlei) says about the President's power is this:

Article 2, section 2 of the US Constitution describes the powers of the President:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;



During the time of the framers and the Revolution, they seriously debated whether we should have any standing military at all. It was not normal at all back then to keep a full standing Army in times of peace. After times of war, up until after WW2, we always seriously drew back on our standing forces as a matter of practicality. The only thing it was considered necessary to keep standing at the time was the Navy, and the Constitution granted the Legislature considerable powers over regulating the military.

Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution describes the powers and responsibilities of the Legislature:
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

In summary, you are 100% incorrect.

The US Constitution proves that the duty of "keeping us safe" clearly rests far more in the Legislative branch than in the executive.

:thumbs:

The power as Commander in Chief of the military is just another one of the powers the President is granted in order to fulfill his primary duty, which is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Not "keep us safe". His role as commander in chief was reserved for such time as when Congress declared the nation to be in a state of war. The President is not given the power to declare when the troops should be used. That power is clearly given to the Congress. The ONLY thing the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlei) says about the President's power is this:

Article 2, section 2 of the US Constitution:




During the time of the framers and the Revolution, they seriously debated whether we should have any standing military at all. It was not normal at all back then to keep a full standing Army in times of peace. After times of war, up until after WW2, we always seriously drew back on our standing forces as a matter of practicality. The only thing it was considered necessary to keep standing at the time was the Navy, and the Constitution granted the Legislature considerable powers over regulating the military.

Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution:


In summary, you are 100% incorrect.

The US Constitution proves that the duty of "keeping us safe" clearly rests far more in the Legislative branch than in the executive.

:thumbs:
Oh quit dancing, Dharma. You're wrong and you know it, but it would be out of character for you to admit it.

Besides... this thread is entitled HOW DO VOTERS OF BUSH FEEL?

You ain't a voter of Bush, so you shouldn't even be here.

Git lost.

;)
SMW

Oh quit dancing, Dharma. You're wrong and you know it, but it would be out of character for you to admit it.

Are you insane?
There is no other logical explanation for your lack of rationality.

I just quoted directly from the US Constitution and proved that you are completely wrong.

The question is, why can't you admit it?

:thumbs:

The question is, why can't you admit it?
Oh, yeah, 'cause she's the one who's NEVER wrong....pfft - :rolleyes:

I've never met a bigger pontificating, sanctimonious, fuck nut in my life.
:thumbs:
Get bent, you smarmy little assbag.

Quit splitting hairs, Dharma. You can quote War & Peace if you want... but it still doesn't change the fact that the president's primary responsibility is to keep America safe from those who would have us wiped out. Who do you think goes to Congress to seek approval to send troops into combat... Peewee Herman?

I've never met a bigger pontificating, sanctimonious, fuck nut in my life.

I may disagree with SMW on a lot of issues, but that was uncalled for.

:thumbs:

SMW,

As I already proved, the US Constitution says the President's primary duty is to "Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution."

Not "keep us safe".

The Legislature is given that responsibility.

The President was made commander in chief because they wanted the military to be run by a civilian during times of war. (which would be declared by Congress, because it is their job to keep us safe.).

:thumbs:

I may disagree with SMW on a lot of issues, but that was uncalled for.

:thumbs:
I guess that all depends on which side of the monitor you're sitting. Despite being called out by, well, pretty much EVERY poster here (liberal and conservative alike) for being completely and utterly wrong (on MULTIPLE issues, no less), you've never ceded ONE argument, period.

That, IMO, makes you a pontificating, sanctimonious, fuck nut of unprecedented proportions.

you've never ceded ONE argument, period.

you are quite wrong.

I have ceded several arguments.

Just never to an ignorant fool like yourself.

:thumbs:

you are quite wrong.

I have ceded several arguments.
Oh, reeeeealy - then you should have no trouble naming them, right?

P.S. I'm not holding my breath.

Oh, reeeeealy - then you should have no trouble naming them, right?

I don't keep a list of them all. Sorry.

Here is one example. (http://www.allforums.net/showpost.php?p=307899&postcount=100)

Now the question is, will you be a bigger person than SMW has been and admit you are wrong?

I don't keep a list of them all. Sorry.

Here is one example. (http://www.allforums.net/showpost.php?p=307899&postcount=100)

Now the question is, will you be a bigger person than SMW has been and admit you are wrong?
Oh, brother. You had to go back to APRIL to find the last time you were wrong??

Sorry, Dharma, but you're WRONG about the president not being responsible for national security. I understand you're trying to nitpick to make your point. I even searched the web for 'responsibilities of the president of the us' and came up with numerous educational sites (mostly elementary level) that explain how the president is responsible for establishing foreign policy, sending troops into battle (with approval from Congress) and negotiating with foreign leaders... but decided against continuing this silly argument with you.

I'll give you this much though... the constitution does not specifically elaborate on the PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE segment of the Bill of Rights. However, that doesn't alter the fact that, if and when this country is ATTACKED, its citizens will always turn to the president for assurance that we're not going down the tubes without a fight.

Which means to me that the president is ultimately the one responsible for deciding direction in terms of national defense. It can mean anything you like to you.

SMW

Well SMW, I guess that is one difference between us, I sincerely care about the Constitution and the law.

You apparently do not.

You didn't have to go searching very far.

As I pointed out, the Constitution of the United States spells out quite clearly what the roles and responsibilities of our three branches of government are and specificly names the press as being protected in order to act as a "fourth estate" in our system of checks and balances.

This President is taking unprecedented powers onto himself in the name of "national security" and "protecting the homeland". He has corrupted the Judiciary with partisan politics in order to enable his power grab and protect him from the Legislature.

Incorrect assumptions by people like yourself about what powers the President is supposed to have only enable his abuses, eroding the checks and balances and upsetting the balance of power among the branches of our government.

This situation is obviously acceptable to you.

It is not to me.

We should agree to disagree on that.

:thumbs:

Let's agree that you're a spindoctor who twists things around to 'win' arguments.

Oh wait, you're a Democrat, so that's no big surprise. I'll bet you learned everything you know at Ted Kennedy's knee, huh?

"Keep dancing, sonny... that way they'll never pin ya down!"

Oh, brother. You had to go back to APRIL to find the last time you were wrong??
And for being the dedicated contrarian he is.......we get.....::drum roll, please::....ONE example in which he ceded an argument lost to Sisko, of all people....

Now, don't get me wrong here, if he'll "stand corrected" when he's given concrete evidence that a "fact" he pulled outta his ass is entirely erroneous, then who am I to question his ethicality or debating prowess?

I don't mind a good debate... but when someone keeps trying to point out that one's opinion is wrong because they're not quoting EXACTLY from historical documents, that's not a debate, it's more like dodgeball.

Sort of like entering a religious discussion with the following PROOF that God exists:

Jesus loves me, this I know.
'Cause the bible tells me so.

Who could argue with that logic?

;)
SMW

I don't mind a good debate... but when someone keeps trying to point out that one's opinion is wrong because they're not quoting EXACTLY from historical documents, that's not a debate, it's more like dodgeball.
Yeah - it's called "Dharmaball", and that's EXACTLY how he debates sans any logic. The only time he'll ever "stand corrected" is when he states a "fact" (i.e., a number, a percentage, a quote, or a total) that he can be irrefutably nailed on without being able to quibble his way out.

Everything else is a "gray area" - including, but not limited to, common sense.

Yeah - it's called "Dharmaball", and that's EXACTLY how he debates sans any logic. The only time he'll ever "stand corrected" is when he states a "fact" (i.e., a number, a percentage, a quote, or a total) that he can be irrefutably nailed on without being able to quibble his way out.

Everything else is a "gray area" - including, but not limited to, common sense.

You are right about Mr.Dharma. But in this case, he clearly proved SMW wrong. The president's job is NOT to protect the country but to protect the constitution.

And also, if you feel that bush has made the country safer, you need to wake up.

For example, one guy lives in a town where he DOES not need to lock his doors, he says "I'm safe"

Another guy lives in a town where he has 10 locks on his doors and 5 guns pointing out at his door and he says "I'm safe".

Bush has made this country into a fucking police state!

But in this case, he clearly proved SMW wrong. The president's job is NOT to protect the country but to protect the constitution.
I'll admit that I didn't read into the argument this time, for I've found that with the last 10 or so involving him, he's been decidedly wrong. IOW, as a general rule of thumb, when shit goes in, shit comes out. That said, I think saying it's NOT the president's job to protect our country is...well, how should I put this...a very literal interpretation of his "duty".

I will apologize for not giving you a fair shake in that regard, Dharma.
And also, if you feel that bush has made the country safer, you need to wake up.
I think that's a gray area. IOW, it's a moot point. The only way we can definitively determine whether or not "Bush" has made our country safer is with the passage of time. I also think it's a catch 22 for him currently, and by that, I mean, if we're not attacked, then it's because we've been lucky - and if we ARE attacked, it's because "Bush" brought it on. Either way, he loses. Now that's very convenient for his detractors, isn't it? (Especially considering an alternative course of action - not that ANY dyed-in-the-wool liberal would EVER advocate fighting terrorism with our military in a "sovereign" nation...perish the thought...)
Bush has made this country into a fucking police state!
To a degree, I completely concur (although, calling it a "police state" is a bit harsh - I haven't had to worry about being stopped for no reason, and nor have I had the Gestapo show up at my door step with a warrant to search my home). In that vein, I think some concessions needed to be made, and roving phone taps (which, in theory, I fear the government will abuse) were a necessary evil (provided that they're being used fairly).

Has anyone ever heard of "implied powers"?

They are those that the president has but are not directly written in the constitution. However, because of his/her responsibilities... they have fallen to the president's control.

Dhrama is right on a nit-picking, hair-splitting level.. the constitution DOES NOT technically say that.. he (drama) actually has quite a conservative view of the constitution. I guess not all liberals are liberal on every topic.

Well have any of you had any run in with the Patriot Act? Well I have. I work for a company in Pennsylvania that sells steel making equipment (namely rolling mills) to India, China, Pakistan, and UAE. The company has been in biz since 1983. Well about 2 years ago, we were raided. The state dept thought we were selling something else to that part of the world. We were all locked in our conference room and each employee was taken out and searched physically- basically they grabbed our balls in the search. I mean we have well respected WHITE engineers who have worked in the PA steel industry for over 40 years now beirng grabbed in the balls by some agents! It was really demeaning for all!!

We were totally shut down for 2 weeks while they copied our servers, files, etc. etc.

And guess what, they found nothing! Because we are a legit machinery manufacturer!! After about 3 weeks they returned our servers, files, etc. NOTHING!!! So after such a show they found some steel items which we shipped to Pakistan which they questioned. We have sales of over 50 Million USD per year and these parts they were questioning were 17,000 USD. We gave them all documents, contact info of overseas buyers, etc. et.c Only questions, no charges, nothing. THen we never heard from them again.

So, those of you think "well if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be scared of the government". Well we thought that too. This can happen to you to.

THIS IS A POLICE STATE PEOPLE! The patriot act has made theUS a police state.

Let's agree that you're a spindoctor who twists things around to 'win' arguments.

I have a better idea, lets agree you are a habitual liar who cannot admit when she is wrong, even when proof is paraded right under your nose.


:thumbs:

No wonder all the little Eichmanns love him so.

No, the Little Eichmanns died in the World Trade Center.
You need to brush up on your left-wing kookspeak.

I will apologize for not giving you a fair shake in that regard, Dharma.


I am used to it.

It is exactly the same as every other interaction I have ever had with you.

:thumbs:

1. How do the religious people, who voted for Bush, feel NOW that Bush used them with issues like abortion, flag burning, and gay marriage and never talked about it again until another election came up?
2. Also, do you feel that all is ok since "atleast we have a christian in the white house!"?
3. Do you feel its ok that Bush brought up "GOD" in one of the debates with Kerry? ... This was of course to tap into and energize the relgious right.
1. What else do you feel he could have done for any of these issues? You seem to feel he could have done more.

And I don't accept your premise that flag burning and gay marraige were major election issues (unless some people here can tell me that's what they based their decision on).


2. That's pretty much all we've ever had professor.


3. Is it alright for Edwards to bring up poverty to tap into the poor?
Is it alright for Obama to bring up the war to tap into the anti-war crowd?
Is it alright for Hillary to speak at black churches to tap into the black vote?

This crazy idea of tapping into a voting block must be stopped immediately.
Once President Bush invented it, it should have been outlawed.