The Players Corner Archive

I also don't vote because I hold no interest in politics at all, I don't follow anything said, and I remain aloof of the goings-on of everything political.

------------------
Caels Onae'Rae
AIM : Lord Caels

Emails:
caels_onaerae@hotmail.com
caels@gsplayers.com reg

Woah, now we are talking a bit above our heads... I'll tell you what rusval, you tell me which 2 presidents taxed us the highest in history. Once you get their names, get their political affiliation. Once you understand that, be my guest to take your foot out of your mouth. Democrats have done nothing but driven this country closer to the ground. Bill Clinton stole from us, using his lobbying brother to get millions of dollars. He accepted a bribe to pardon Mark Rich. A man who cheated the government out of at least 33 million dollars in unpaid taxes. Johnson put us in Vietnam AND kept our troops under his micromanagement. Him and that jerkoff Mcnamara couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, yet they decided to run the entire war. Republicans have won or gotten us out of wars. Reagan's administration, namely Rice, underminded the collapse of the USSR. Bush 1 won us a war. Bush 2 has done a great job so far with the terrorism thing. All that fat moron Gore has been able to do is gain 75 lbs and grow a stupid beard. Most democrats, along with most liberals think people get along. They, having been sheltered in the very country they are inadvertantly trying to destroy. Not to mention they screw the people that vote for them. Something like 91% of blacks for democrats. A lot of good that's done them considering you still have bitches like jesse jackson and sharpton screaming racist and prejudice at every black person stubbing their toe. The bottom line is that democrats, while not "stupid" people, really don't have the right foreign policies and even domestic policies to do more than barely sustain the country. Incase you didn't know, Clinton set us up for this recession. It has nothing to do with Bush or his administration.

Sonic reg

If Bush 1 got the job done in the Middle East in the first place. Then Bush 2 would never had to fight this war. Amazing how people see things differently.

We also can figure out Iraq has the military grade Anthrax. Amazing how its showing up in out mail.

edge reg

Sonic reg

I don't want to get into the Republican vs. Democrat argument.

The reason our deficit was getting smaller? Not Clinton. No...Clinton in my opinion is one of the most worthless presidents we've had. Yes...he did some good things on the surface. What's the reason our economy was booming? The head of the Treasury Department. Yes...Alan Greenspan. Oh wait! Who nominated him? That's right...Ronald Reagan.

Thank God Bush is President. Otherwise we would have had the inventor of the internet spending 130m dollars on a telescope taking pictures of the Earth from space. What a cause! I wish I would've voted for Gore.

Clinton as President with the previous fiasco that occurred in New York? Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions. With Bush as President: Hmm...he's a Texan. No Sanctions...let's just go blow up some s*i*.

reg

Sonic reg

So I stopped voting and now my conscious is clear. Ain't nobody can blame the present government on me now!

R
reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desharei:
I used to be very politically active and voted in every single election there was. And then I realized that no matter who I voted for, it was always the wrong one. Whether it was the one who won, or the one who lost, didn't matter. They were all the wrong choices.

So I stopped voting and now my conscious is clear. Ain't nobody can blame the present government on me now!

R

---

Roberta...you've gotta be the first person that actually fesses up that way...good for you.

My point: You don't vote. Don't bitch.

That's why you vote
reg

Life is good. I've no complaints at all. Let the warmongers worry about the war, let the politicians take care of politics.

reg

quote:

---

How can I possibly complain? I have a home, and soon to be a new house, gas prices have dropped below what they were a year ago, I just got a job, and I'm getting a tax refund next year. I am well fed, I have freedom to express myself and worship whatever deity I'm in the mood to worship at any given moment of the day or night.
Life is good. I've no complaints at all. Let the warmongers worry about the war, let the politicians take care of politics.

---

Amen. Being an Air Force "warmonger" I want to fight, but I'm glad you are enjoying your freedom. It's what too many people died for.

Oh yea, one more thing Rusval. I have respect for you in regards to the fact that you obviously seem to care about the well being of this country enough to learn about it. And I don't think anyone should lose sight of this when arguing politics. I know these types of debates can really piss me off, but everyone should remember that we are all arguing for ultimately the same thing... a better tomorrow, we just want to take different avenues. Anyway, back to the frey.

Sonic reg

MR TOM GULOTTA our republican county executive

Ah where to start, well firstly before the repblican patronage team as in 31 years as they're now being referred to, well first the overstaffing
in the last 5 years this guys insisted on a personal driver, which has cost the country 346,000 dollars which alone isnt bad but added to public pools with over 50 employees that see maybe 3 people a night. Getting to the point, if this new executive wipes out the unnecesary jobs, police civilianization, county real estate consolidation, elimination of waste and implenting in-house contracting, and cuts back to bare bone, he saves the count 100 million dollars thats how bad the situation has gotten to
in the last 31 years out debt has risen from 0 to 2.8 billion dollars FOR A COUNTY
Now folks i have just scraped the surface and maybe now alfador you see my frustration?

Are you done now buddy or you want some more of this

Rusval
Im awesome
reg

Sonic reg

And for all the people who've said they dont vote,because the man that wins is never the right person for the job, my philosophy is you saw his values in the elections and your not electing a perfect person. You are electing a person who will represent you. You wouldn't believe how many people IM'ed me today saying that, by that i mean the person isnt the right man for the job..
Well just my 2 cents reg

I think clinton was one of our countrys best pres's ever, and i respect his pimpatude(used in the definition of halfling if your thinking i makin it up)

1) During his presidency, the economy was at one of the highest points ever.

2) Despite him being an arkansas hick, he was an incredible speaker compared to a lot of the other dunces we had we took it for granted

3) he did other good stuff im just too tired to remember it and point it out... im goin to bed have fun tearing up my posts ya crazy insomniacs

Im awesome reg

Sonic reg

R
reg

I just had to register to respond to this, Since when has lobbyists ever "get money". The whole purpose for lobbying is to influence public officials about the views of certain interest groups, oh yeah and whats great about lobbying is they have to register that they are lobbyists.

<<All that fat moron Gore has been able to do is gain 75 lbs and grow a stupid beard>>
I don't know about you but if gore wasnt one of the few politicians who pushed for funding Darpa then we wouldn't have an internet.
reg

Sonic reg

I am a democrat. But hated Gore. So, I couldn't bring myself to vote for him. So what I do? Didn't vote.

But Bush is for the rich. He got that repetitive movement law out of there. That was a OSHA law stating so much weight can't be lifted within a certain amount of time. Guess what? My job fractured my lower vert because that got repelled.

He wants to get rid of the 40 hour work week. Which means, anything over 40 hours a week is no longer overtime.

My issues with Bush is about health and safty. What we fight day in and day out at my job for.

But bottom line is. I don't like everything my party does, but I dislike more of what yours does.

edge

reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Why didn't he get impeached fully? Because it was for the best of the country

---

Clinton was impeached. reg

Also I know people always say how boring politics are. Well another proven fact is that they always will be here. So people, you better look into them while you can because you never know when you need them, especially the law. Never heart anyone to put CNN on for a half an hour a day or C-SPAN to check out what is happening in our nation and the world.

Lord Deprav reg

I think any country who wants some extra real estate and has the means to move in with force/violence/terror can do whatever they want.

Sounds good to me. Dang that Mexico sure is looking nice.

World isn't as big as you think folks. Just because something happens a half globe away doesn't mean it can't happen to you. Hmm WTC is pretty close isn't it?

Well what do I know anyway...

Hiway-only been there and done that(T-shirt is too faded now anyway) reg

What I can argue is this...

Rusval...read my earlier posts.

Clinton quite possibly was one of the most overrated presidents in our country's history. Clinton didn't do jack. Alan Greenspan is the man that should be receiving the acclaim. He is the reason for the economy. Not Clinton. Yes...Clinton was a good speaker...but so am I when I talk out of my a*s. I can literally BS an entire room of 300 people and make you believe that _I_ am the president.

I can't see why Hiway or Alfador or anyone that has remotely come close to serving in any of our armed forces would like Clinton rather than Bush. Clinton cut all the armed forces spending. Hmm...where did that get us? Let's see...oh ya...that's right, we're bombing Afghanistan due to our lack of national security! Sheesh. Maybe we should've kept all that money in our armed forces? Ya think? Gosh...rocket science.

Bush is the man for this job. Presidents are determined by certain crises like the current one. Will Bush stand up for the job and do what is right for our country? It is yet to be determined. However, I think that he will amaze everyone. Not only is he a Texan (Since we are the best of course), but he's not as dumb as everyone thinks. I believe that you couldn't ask for a better person to be in the driver's seat for our country. I would be probably thinking about changing my identity to arabic if Gore was in the presidency. I'm terrified to think of what might have happened. I think I'd still be scared if Clinton was still president because he might be throwing around his favorite word: sanction. If John McCain were president...well...I'd feel probably the same as Bush. He'd be blowing up just as much stuff as we are now, and will be in the future.

I'm proud to be an American right now.

reg

Sonic reg

Lord Deprav
Proud to be an American reg

If you are in tune with the news stations throughout the country (yes, I'm one of the sad-folk that watch CNN most of the day)...you'd know that around the time of Richard Nixon's death that the entire country mourned one of the "greatest", yes "greatest" Presidents this country has ever known.

You might want to check in on some of the facts:

1) China and US had absolutely no relations whatsoever. We were leaving the era of the "Red Scare", "McCarthyism", etc. etc. Communism was at the brink of possibly coming to the homefront and making an attack. If China errupted...no one knew what would happen. What did Nixon do? Completely changed our relations with China. He upheld the relations with several of our foreign countries allowing for the thought of personal harm to our country lessen for a time.

2) OPEC: The price of gas was about to explode due to the fact of wars within Saudia Arabia and neighborring countries. What did Nixon do? Brought the prices back up.

3) Crime: Crime in the US was at one of its all time highs. Nixon fought against it...lashed out at the press for encouraging it...and dropped the crime rates throughout the country.

Now...Nixon did do a terrible thing. But the aforementioned are only a very small amoutn of his accomplishments.

Watch the movie Nixon with Anthony Hopkins...your grasp on Nixon will increase and you will respect him more as a president (although it is an oliver stone movie which is completely exaggerated in a certain direction, it conveys the point in my opinion).

Now...for Gore.

No attack on anyone on this, really. But never, never, never, I repeat, never get into an argument basing it on environmentalism and conservatism. You will absolutely never win. It's the hardest argument to base an opinion on in any political debate, in my opinion.

reg

I dont see why everyones so against clinton... he improved social security reduced the countrys debt significantly, was a strong and decisive president when it came to middle east crap, he was brilliant in the thing with israel and who ever else that was with.

Also i dont see how you can support bush, his tax reform is the most f***** up tax return i have ever seen, average people get like what 30 dollars extra a year? He's basically wasting all the trillions of dollars clintons budget turned up.

well my 2 cents again

Im awesome

********************************************
This is the first post I had to edit, and just so everyone knows, EVERYTHING I ever edit will be in brackets. I will TRY to maintain the integrity of post even though I will have to remove vulgarity and such.

Sonic
********************************************

[This message has been edited by Alfador (edited 11-07-2001).] reg

If you really know you're stuff you'd know two things.

1) At the end of George H. W. Bush's term the economy was getting out of the recession it was in for the majority of his presidency.
2) It was the republican controlled HOUSE and SENATE that brought a fiscally responsible budget to the door. They had to force Clinton to sign it, and he walks away with the credit?
3) Clinton didn’t reduce the debt at all.

Is that all you can think of for Clinton being a good president?
Let me think of some.

1) SELLING OUT SECRETS TO THE CHINESE. Good move there Mr. Clinton, just give away all of our secrets that prior presidents used lots of money on to get. Why don’t we just give them our nukes?
2) Medicare… He lets his wife make a plan for Medicare which is a horrible failure and never gets anywhere.
3) Yep, let’s pardon everyone that donates to your party. Clinton gave out presidential pardons for money. That’s really sad.
4) Lying under oath.. “it depends on the definition of it’s”. HAH.
5) Selling the LINCOLN BEDROOM for 150k a night.

The only good point you make is that Clinton was a great speaker, which he was. And if he uses that talent to lie to the country, I don’t think it’s that great of an asset.

I give Gore one thing, he can gain 75 pounds and grow a 3 inch long beard in a year. Not to mention he created the internet.

-Pirub reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusval:
"He was a great speaker true, but who the hell cares."
For a few reasons this is important.
1) It gives our country a strong appearance, my main theory on the world trade center bombing was that the talliban waited for a weak president such as bush, an indecisive idiot who cant get the words outta his mouth to save our country.
2) If your saying who the hell cares about that, whats it matter if he had an affair? JFK had tons of affairs and it did not taint his reputation at all. As a society today we are obsessed with other peoples lives, networks drive us to it with shows like survivor, big brother temptation island love cruise all this bull shit turns such a trivial issue, into something that might have ruined his presency. In my eyes, clintons one flaw was ever conversing about the subject in the open, he should have said its a private affair and will not affect how i run the country so you should not be affected by it.

I dont see why everyones so against clinton... he improved social security reduced the countrys debt significantly, was a strong and decisive president when it came to middle east crap, he was brilliant in the thing with israel and who ever else that was with.

Also i dont see how you can support bush, his tax reform is the most f***** up tax return i have ever seen, average people get like what 30 dollars extra a year? He's basically wasting all the trillions of dollars clintons budget turned up.

well my 2 cents again

Im awesome

---

Rusval...

Read!

Read the posts I've written before and you will see why I dislike Clinton so much.

CLINTON DID NOT LESSEN THE DEFICIT

ALAN GREENSPAN DID

That should spell out it for you.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The Taliban waited for a weak President? Wrong. If you've watched the news, actually the Taliban waited for precisely the exact same time and the exact same anniversary as the peace agreements between Israel and Palestine which were supported by the United States. Hmm...5 years ago...that was...oh ya! Clinton.

So no...your Taliban argument is very crippled and basically wrong.

Bush can't speak? I'll fess up and agree with you on that. But did you watch his speeches around September 17th? If you were in the armed forces...and I know Hiway and Alfy can attest to this...his speech was enlightening and brought about an American spirit that I never felt when Clinton was around.

Clinton's presidency was a show in my opinion. I'm not quite sure exactly what he wanted to accomplish...but I do know that the suaveness and smoothness that he worked with brought about an aire to our country that our sh** smelled better than others.

Bush is going to do just fine. I have absolutely no worries. We've got a President with balls now...not one that's gunna just go sling'm around :P

reg

That might hurt your presidency. reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pirub9:
Fools fools fools..

If you really know you're stuff you'd know two things.

1) At the end of George H. W. Bush's term the economy was getting out of the recession it was in for the majority of his presidency.
2) It was the republican controlled HOUSE and SENATE that brought a fiscally responsible budget to the door. They had to force Clinton to sign it, and he walks away with the credit?
3) Clinton didn’t reduce the debt at all.

Is that all you can think of for Clinton being a good president?
Let me think of some.

1) SELLING OUT SECRETS TO THE CHINESE. Good move there Mr. Clinton, just give away all of our secrets that prior presidents used lots of money on to get. Why don’t we just give them our nukes?
2) Medicare… He lets his wife make a plan for Medicare which is a horrible failure and never gets anywhere.
3) Yep, let’s pardon everyone that donates to your party. Clinton gave out presidential pardons for money. That’s really sad.
4) Lying under oath.. “it depends on the definition of it’s”. HAH.
5) Selling the LINCOLN BEDROOM for 150k a night.

The only good point you make is that Clinton was a great speaker, which he was. And if he uses that talent to lie to the country, I don’t think it’s that great of an asset.

I give Gore one thing, he can gain 75 pounds and grow a 3 inch long beard in a year. Not to mention he created the internet.

-Pirub

---

Pirub...I knew I had faith in you.

His creation of the internet was fantastic. I'm so glad that he finally came up with the idea. I don't think anyone else would have ever thought of something so amazing. I mean...since he went to Harvard his genious came out when the thought of linking up everyone into one network came to his mind.

Gosh...I should just scrap the thought that the internet was used originally as a way to transfer codes amongst military bases.

Then I should scrap all ideas I have of COBOLD (sp?). The most uniform encrypted language amongst military bases for transference of information.

Gosh...Gore's a genious.

(This message brought to you buy "BS R US") reg

um if your referring to the spy plane incident, it wasnt our secrets it was secrets of country's we were spying on, why would we store vital information about our country in a plane flying in enemy territroy.

Bush is going to do just fine. I have absolutely no worries. We've got a President with balls now...not one that's gunna just go sling'm around :P

"

We dont know yet because i have heard one sincere speach out of his mouth. he is a tool of his staff, the only reason he was even considered was because of his southern region and because of the name recognition, expecting normal americans to recognize the name of his father and vote blindly for him

"The Taliban waited for a weak President? Wrong. If you've watched the news, actually the Taliban waited for precisely the exact same time and the exact same anniversary as the peace agreements between Israel and Palestine which were supported by the United States. Hmm...5 years ago...that was...oh ya! Clinton.

So no...your Taliban argument is very crippled and basically wrong."

I recognized and realized that it was the same date as the camp david peace accords but theres no significance in the amount of years, they did this in bush's first year as president, why didnt they wait 10 years or 15 years? by that time they could have perfected it so they had 25 jets flying into major cities and taken us completely by surprise. This was a golden oppurtunity, an incompetant president.

"2) It was the republican controlled HOUSE and SENATE that brought a fiscally responsible budget to the door. They had to force Clinton to sign it, and he walks away with the credit?
3) Clinton didn’t reduce the debt at all.
"
Firstly if you remember, thats all a president CAN DO is sign a document, they have no real sway in what happens except voicing their opinions, what did you expect him to do? its not part of his job

And clinton not only did reduce the debt but he balanced the budget with the trillions of dollar surplus that bush is wasting right now

"Medicare… He lets his wife make a plan for Medicare which is a horrible failure and never gets anywhere."
Firstly who cares if he let his wife make the decision, shes actually an intelligent person new york senator right now, and advised clinton not forced him to do it.

"Yep, let’s pardon everyone that donates to your party. Clinton gave out presidential pardons for money. That’s really sad."
Let me remind you of what Jefferson did, he used his presidential pardon to pardon those involved in the burr scandle to force them to go to the stand againts burr. There were underlying reasons for Clintons decision but i never paid much attention to incident.

"Selling the LINCOLN BEDROOM for 150k a night."
Thats ridiculas, it seems we cant have a discussion with out folks bringing about rumors and untruths, what might have been appropriate is them taking the furniture they brought into the white house.
"I give Gore one thing, he can gain 75 pounds and grow a 3 inch long beard in a year. Not to mention he created the internet."
i hate gore with a passion to tell you the truth, but still what the hell does that have anything to do with anything, and read kharhazzs post about the internet

Well thats all i got to say for now

Im awesome

reg

Sonic reg

Also, it wasn't even a spyplane, it was a surveillance plane. The "only" real spy plane are flying now is the u-2 since the sr-71 was scrapped back in like 92.

Sonic reg

Im awesome reg

Yea, Clinton did a great job of catching the people who bombed the USS Cole. Talk about a military that hated it's president. A fairly high ranking officer told me after Bush was sworn in that he was very glad Clinton was finally out of office so that everyone could start bad-mouthing him. Is this the type of feeling that you think the military should have toward it's commander in chief? I sure don't and I'm glad that Bush has the support of the overwhelming majority of the military and apparently with his approval rating, the overwhelming majority of the country.

Sonic reg

Rusval.

This is not a personal attack on you in anyway...want to get that out of the way in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusval:
We dont know yet because i have heard one sincere speach out of his mouth. he is a tool of his staff, the only reason he was even considered was because of his southern region and because of the name recognition, expecting normal americans to recognize the name of his father and vote blindly for him

---

You're joking hopefully. "A tool of his staff". Do you have even a close grip on the people working for Bush? I can compare his cabinet vs. Clinton's cabinet to the Lakers vs. Clippers in an NBA game. Collin Powell as Secretary of State...you couldn't have picked a better candidate. Candoleeza Rice...excellent National Security Advisor. Cheney...as VP...hell when Bush is gone...I won't be surprised whatsoever if Cheney becomes President.

Rusval...before making statements like that...you really need to be informed. If you read newspapers around election time, you'd know that Bush himself even made it a point to say that he expects people under him to be working extremely hard. He wants a team effort. The amount of effort that he expects from his VP is unprecidented vs. President's before him. The powers of the VP are so limited and in the past they've been used as "tools of the staff". They did nothing in my opinion but look good. What good did Gore do? I rest my case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusval:
I recognized and realized that it was the same date as the camp david peace accords but theres no significance in the amount of years, they did this in bush's first year as president, why didnt they wait 10 years or 15 years? by that time they could have perfected it so they had 25 jets flying into major cities and taken us completely by surprise. This was a golden oppurtunity, an incompetant president.

---

I already spoke on this matter. You don't watch the news or read the newspaper in my opinion. It's been clearly stated that this is the anniversary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusval:
Firstly if you remember, thats all a president CAN DO is sign a document, they have no real sway in what happens except voicing their opinions, what did you expect him to do? its not part of his job

---

There goes your argument.

Hmm...I _do_ remember from when I was your age in my high-school government class learning about something called commander-in-chief. Small phrase, big meaning:

"SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
REPORTING
Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months." (War of Powers Act of 1973)

Oh...hmm...more powers of the president:

The Constitution also confers upon an elected President the power to:

Make the Statement of Government Policy in Parliament at the commencement of each parliamentary session
Preside at ceremonial sittings of Parliament
Receive and recognise, and to appoint and accredit Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Plenipotentiaries and other diplomatic agents
Keep the Public Seal of the Republic and to make and execute under the Public Seal the Acts of Appointment of the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme Court, such grants and dispositions of lands and immovable property vested in the Republic as The President is by law required or empowered to do, and to use the Public Seal for sealing all things whatsoever that shall pass that Seal
Declare War and Peace
Perform all such acts and things, not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or written law, as by international law, custom or usage The President is required or authorised to do, and
Grant pardon, grant any respite, substitute a less severe form of punishment for any punishment and remit the whole or any part of any punishment imposed.

That's the worst argument you've put forth so far.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusval:
Firstly who cares if he let his wife make the decision, shes actually an intelligent person new york senator right now, and advised clinton not forced him to do it.

---

<laugh> I have absolutely no comment on this one. I'll let my republican counterparts here just eat that statement up, chew it 4 or 5 times, and spit it back.

I'm basically believing that you're a Democrat...yet you don't know why. Perhaps your parents were or your friends are...but you really don't know why at all.

You're taking the usual Democratic approach to argument. Ducking out whenever you can. Blaming others. And using others remarkable accomplishments and crediting them to yourself. You don't read everything line for line...you read them between the lines. I've pointed out now 3 times that Alan Greenspan is the reason for deficit decrease...however you don't even remotely point that out in any of arguments...knowing that it is true.

Sorry if this comes across as a mockery of you Rusval. Just certain things push my buttons...and politics is number 1 on the list.

[This message has been edited by Omni (edited 11-07-2001).] reg

im awesome reg

im not gonna bother reading all that ill assume yer right if you went to that length

reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusval:
Bush deserves no credit whatsoever for the American patriotism, your giving him credit for saying united we stand divided we fall after a terrible tragedy. Most of the American pride is after seeing the Men of the FDNY go up the building trying to save lives and die. We saw American people die for their country trying to save innocent lives from it. The huge response from America is because we are being attacked at home, bush is still a moron, if you listened to one of his adresses youd think his staff didnt know of thesaurus's. These evil people, the evil ones, the evil doers, christ allmight, he gave the country what they needed and what his staff fed him. This is one of the few times america has ever been attacked at home by a real threat. He got a few catch phrases together and your worshipping him.

Im awesome

---

Maybe you should write his speeches.

You'd also know that thesaurus's is not a word
reg

quote:

---

Oh that was all before my time i think

---

Before your time? This was in like 1999. You want to catch up a bit on the people you are defending. That happened in his second term.

Sonic reg

[This message has been edited by Rusval (edited 11-07-2001).] reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusval:
"You're joking hopefully. "A tool of his staff". Do you have even a close grip on the people working for Bush? I can compare his cabinet vs. Clinton's cabinet to the Lakers vs. Clippers in an NBA game. Collin Powell as Secretary of State...you couldn't have picked a better candidate. Candoleeza Rice...excellent Nation Security Advisor. Cheney...as VP...hell when Bush is gone...I won't be surprised whatsoever if Cheney becomes President."
The cabinet doesnt write speaches

im not gonna bother reading all that ill assume yer right if you went to that length

---

Gosh...I should buy some new glasses.

Is the word speech in any of the paragraph relating whether Bush is a tool of his staff? Um no.

I think you misquoted...or you have no idea what you're talking about.

[This message has been edited by Omni (edited 11-07-2001).] reg

[This message has been edited by Rusval (edited 11-07-2001).] reg

‘Oh that was all before my time i think, i thought he was talking about the spy plane who crashed with the japanese figheter and was imprisoned for a few days...’
It happened in China, get it right.

‘And clinton not only did reduce the debt but he balanced the budget with the trillions of dollar surplus that bush is wasting right now.’
Are you an idiot, we never had trillions of dollars in surplus. Maybe the number you are looking for is surplus in the next 10 years?

‘Firstly if you remember, thats all a president CAN DO is sign a document, they have no real sway in what happens except voicing their opinions, what did you expect him to do? its not part of his job.’
If you didn’t know a president can use a thing called a VETO, which takes 2/3rds of the majority in the house and senate to overthrow.

Bro read up on your stuff, get a spell checker and then post.

-Pirub reg

and i realize a pres can veto, but it had nothing to do what we were talking about. We were talking about clinton gettin all the credit for the economy when congress did everything and i said all he could do was sign it... snicker reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusval:
Surplus in 10 years my ass if your thinking about the lockbox you cant predict economic stability, and you notice how he predicted it just after his maximum possible term could be?

and i realize a pres can veto, but it had nothing to do what we were talking about. We were talking about clinton gettin all the credit for the economy when congress did everything and i said all he could do was sign it... snicker

---

Ok.

Let's see here.

So your first argument is that it was Clinton's incredible presidential aire that aloud him to lessen the deficit. Now you're saying that Congress did it? Make up your mind Rusval. You can't choose yes/no/maybe/perhaps/sure/i guess, etc. all at the sametime on a multiple choice test can you?

This is fun seeing your non-informed democratic personality come through in your posts. You change your mind just as much as my girlfriend. So do all democrats for that matter :P reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusval:
Adding to my earlier post, if bush really wanted to impress me hed do it before THIS term was up, just so i could see this pathetic plan crash and burn

---

I hope you're still reading the boards when it happens. So I can stick my tongue out and do the Phbtphbtphbt sound like in GS @ you! :P reg

Reagan=====> What was that he did? Iran Contra? Ooh! Pasty named North! hahahaha! All Clinton lied about was a BJ which was NONE of our business. At least he liked women, made him look more human.

Bush 1 was in what? CIA? God, he at least knows how not to get caught lying. Makes me feel real good.

Bush 2 didn't unite anything. The Media did.

And Bush may have put Greenspan in, but Clinton kept him in. So that means Clinton was responsible for the good times. Greenspans term is only 6 years.

edge

I'm not a crook!

reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
You guys are so bent on showing the bad in Clinton....

Reagan=====> What was that he did? Iran Contra? Ooh! Pasty named North! hahahaha! All Clinton lied about was a BJ which was NONE of our business. At least he liked women, made him look more human.

Bush 1 was in what? CIA? God, he at least knows how not to get caught lying. Makes me feel real good.

Bush 2 didn't unite anything. The Media did.

And Bush may have put Greenspan in, but Clinton kept him in. So that means Clinton was responsible for the good times. Greenspans term is only 6 years.

edge

I'm not a crook!

---

Hey Dumbo!

Reagan put Greenspan in you putz

Reagan is the republicans definition of President. You talk about a patriot...it don't get much better than that.

Dangit Rusval why you gone? Edge is denser than anyone here! <pinches Edge> reg

From all the points made, my own is that at a national level the country isn't based on the president. On an international level and a militaristic level it may matter which president is in office, but apart from that very little about peoples lives or society changes because a republican is in office instead of a democrat.

What kind of democracy is it to have the same two political parties relatively the same battling each other every 4 years? That however is another arguement...

Also Pirub, no need to point out linguistic errors in others posts because your post itself contains several.

- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg

::kicks Omnirus::

You got my point.

edge reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
I hate politics and i hate you!

::kicks Omnirus::

You got my point.

edge

---

I just talked to politics...and politics and I both hate you!

<punches Edgeleaf> reg

Im awesome reg

'That however is another arguement...'
Perhaps you meant argument?
And no it was a typo stuff.

-Pirub

[This message has been edited by Pirub9 (edited 11-07-2001).] reg

‘Reagan=====> What was that he did? Iran Contra? Ooh! Pasty named North! hahahaha! All Clinton lied about was a BJ which was NONE of our business. At least he liked women, made him look more human.’
Ever mention he brought the unemployment from 10% to 5%? Collapse of the Soviet Union? Economic prosperity?

‘So that means Clinton was responsible for the good times. Greenspans term is only 6 years.’
No, not really. That means Clinton continued what previous people already made.

-Pirub

[This message has been edited by Pirub9 (edited 11-07-2001).] reg

No. I was trying to tell you that it's absolutely silly to try and make a point about spelling mistakes since your posts also contain mistakes of their own.

<< Bro read up on your stuff, get a spell checker and then post. >>

It's nice that this BBS provides a spell check option, we're glad people put it to use. Unfortunately it doesn't correct grammatical errors so while you may like to believe your posts are free of mistakes because you spelled every word correctly, you should take a second look at your posts and find the numerous grammatical errors you make which are not the result of a typo.

I offer this advice only because you seem so uptight on trying to correct everyone else but yourself.

- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard

[This message has been edited by LordKranar (edited 11-07-2001).] reg

This is a little late in the epic saga that precedes this post, but my main point was that I don't care enough about politics to vote. If you thought my reasons are crappy, then that is your opinion, and I don't much care about that either .

Besides, there are enough people already voting so that my vote will most likely never matter. And don't give me any of that 'it could happen' stuff, cuz I realize that it could happen, and I still think I wouldn't care either way.

------------------
Caels Onae'Rae
AIM : Lord Caels

Emails:
caels_onaerae@hotmail.com
caels@gsplayers.com reg

‘your posts and find the numerous grammatical errors you make which are not the result of a typo.’
Are not the results of a typo?

-Pirub reg

Only those that _do_ vote can hold some serious opinions on political matters. Of course...my opinion.
reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zentalin:
Clinton wasn't a president, he was a pimp. A guy who can't even store his cigars in a humidor (hint hint) shouldn't be running the country. -Dru

---

Gosh, I learn something new every time I read these boards... I didn't know Clinton smoked cigars!

Summer
reg

Are not the results of a typo? >>

Settle down Pirub.

- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard

[This message has been edited by LordKranar (edited 11-07-2001).] reg

65 posts in one day I believe. reg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pirub9:
‘scandle’ it’s scandal get it right. Rip up bush you even though he’s 5 times smarter than you. If you didn’t pay attention don’t make stupid comments.

---

"It's" should be capitalized, and you're missing a comma between "scandal" and "get".

quote:

---

‘And clinton not only did reduce the debt but he balanced the budget with the trillions of dollar surplus that bush is wasting right now.’
Are you an idiot, we never had trillions of dollars in surplus. Maybe the number you are looking for is surplus in the next 10 years?

---

The first half of the first sentence in your response stands alone as a question, and is unrelated to the rest of the sentence. The correction would be:

Are you an idiot? We never had trillions of dollars in surplus.

quote:

---

‘Firstly if you remember, thats all a president CAN DO is sign a document, they have no real sway in what happens except voicing their opinions, what did you expect him to do? its not part of his job.’
If you didn’t know a president can use a thing called a VETO, which takes 2/3rds of the majority in the house and senate to overthrow.

---

You're missing a comma between "know" and "a". The symbol 2/3 is already pronounced "two-thirds," therefore the added "rds" is improper and incorrect. You ended your sentence with a perfect tense verb ("to overthrow"), which would make even the average elementary school student cringe.

quote:

---

Bro read up on your stuff, get a spell checker and then post.
-Pirub

---

"Bro" needs to be followed by a comma, as does the word "checker." You are writing a list of items for "Bro's" perusal, and if a list contains three or more items then each item must be separated by a comma.

Don't ever; and I really mean this; EVER; criticize someone's spelling or grammar on these boards. That goes for the bunch of you. Do it and you'll answer to me.

-The Anal-Retentive Grammar Queen
reg

But before I go, Nixon did do some good things during his presidency just like everyone president has, although he has quite a few coverups still that people do not know and will never know.

Also what I do want to say also. When Clinton first came into office if I had a vote it was for Perot. But I supported Clinton not because he was a democrat nor republican but that he was the President of the United States. Now this previous election I voted for Gore. Now I did not like Bush and yet I still would have voted for Gore no matter what, but since Bush is the President of the United States, all Americans should support him and his descision and not bash him. We all know presidents have had there hidden secrets but if anything they are one of the biggest symbols of America.

Lord Deprav reg

Lord Deprav
reg

reg

'Don't ever; and I really mean this; EVER; criticize someone's spelling or grammar on these boards. That goes for the bunch of you. Do it and you'll answer to me.'
If I wanted'
Oh no, I'm scared now!

-Pirub reg

quote:

---

but apart from that very little about peoples lives or society changes because a republican is in office instead of a democrat.

---

The way our party system is set up, it can matter quite a bit.

Party Majority in congress is one of the best assets to a president. Let us not forget the VP counts towards the senate party tallys(which is pretty major considering the almost 50/50 party split). The heads of all the standing committees are all from the majority party.

quote:

---

What kind of democracy is it to have the same two political parties relatively the same battling each other every 4 years? That however is another arguement

---

One of the 4 main requirements for a marketplace of ideas is a single national language.

And to rusval, i can only say "Cloture!!!"

'lood

reg

quote:

---

What kind of democracy is it to have two national languages?

---

I HATE spanish more than anyone can imagine.

Sonic reg

Since Canada has a marketplace this should make it quite clear that logically a single national language is not a requirement.

Canada is one of the few countries with 2 national languages so whatever text book told you that 1 language is a requirement obviously lacked empirical data.

Not to mention 2 national languages and democracy really don't have one to do with another. Choice however does...

<< The way our party system is set up, it can matter quite a bit. >>

Whether it CAN matter or not isn't the question. The question is when you have either one party or the other which are relatively the same running every 4 years, does it matter?

Since this is a political issue, the answer is best left with what the majority of Americans think and since the voter turn out is at an all time low, that should send a message that Americans don't really care which party wins and that it's not affecting their lives in a significant way.

- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard

[This message has been edited by LordKranar (edited 11-08-2001).] reg

One last thing. Politic parties favor issues which gain them votes, they will change when public opinion does. reg

And can someone start moderating this topic please? The grammar and typo arguments are getting out of hand.

------------------
Caels Onae'Rae
AIM : Lord Caels

Emails:
caels_onaerae@hotmail.com
caels@gsplayers.com reg

This actually isn't the case.

In terms of law and government, the highest level of power is an Executive Order. Only the president can execute this and an Executive Order overrides congress and can be used to suspend the constitution (the constitution infact gives the president the power to do so).

There is only one thing that overrides an EO, and that's simply another EO. Congress can try and pressure the president to override a previous EO but the point is that when all is said and done, the president does hold the highest level of power.

- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg

Sonic reg

quote:

---

<< One of the 4 main requirements for a marketplace of ideas is a single national language. >>
Since Canada has a marketplace this should make it quite clear that logically a single national language is not a requirement.

Canada is one of the few countries with 2 national languages so whatever text book told you that 1 language is a requirement obviously lacked empirical data.

Not to mention 2 national languages and democracy really don't have one to do with another. Choice however does...

---

I was just countering your statement with one of equal tone and merit. You want emperical data? What kind of democracy is the US for having its two parties? Obviously a pretty good one to elevate the united states to the world status it has now. On the other hand, I believe only two or three countries attempt democracy with more than one national language , thats Canada and switzerland (possibly a third)-- both huge world powers...

As for the checks and balances system, it prevents one branch from taking over the other two-- but it still leaves room for one to be more powerful than another.

Times change, the focus of the government changes. Since around the 1930's, the executive branch has held the most power of the three branches.

'lood

reg

Ok, I'll shut up now.

------------------
Caels Onae'Rae
AIM : Lord Caels

Emails:
caels_onaerae@hotmail.com
caels@gsplayers.com reg

You hardly ever counter my statements. You try and disprove them by bringing in something that has no relevance or logical tie to the original arguement. A counter statement should stick to the point of what I said. Regardless of whether Canada or Iraq or Japan has 5 or 100 national languages, it has nothing to do with the U.S. When debating an issue about a particular subject, try and stick to the subject.

<< Obviously a pretty good one to elevate the united states to the world status it has now. >>

That's getting away from the point of what a democracy is. I never said what kind of government does the U.S. have, I said what kind of democracy does the U.S. have when you have such little choice.

If a country is run by a dictatorship but it so happens that the dictator has done great things for his country and the people of his country love him, it's still a dictatorship, not a democracy.

The lack of choice in the U.S. political system has little to do with the availability of people willing to run and more to do with lack of funding. It's as if politics in the US is some industry and each party is a company, only problem is that two companies have a strong and tight monopoly leaving no room for the other guys to rise up.

Democracy has a definition and has a particular practice. The definition doesn't say anything about it being good, bad, moral, immoral or whatever... The U.S. government does work relative to other governments, but it isn't a democracy in the true sense.

- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard

[This message has been edited by LordKranar (edited 11-09-2001).] reg

"Jesse 'the body' Ventura"

'lood

reg

quote:

---

<< I was just countering your statement with one of equal tone and merit. >>
You hardly ever counter my statements. You try and disprove them by bringing in something that has no relevance or logical tie to the original arguement. A counter statement should stick to the point of what I said. Regardless of whether Canada or Iraq or Japan has 5 or 100 national languages, it has nothing to do with the U.S. When debating an issue about a particular subject, try and stick to the subject.

---

You questioned the United States' legitimacy as a democracy, which didn't really have anything to do with the current debate (as you even stated). You questioned my countries legitimacy, and i questioned yours. That is a counter in my book.

'lood

reg

Actually congress can override the president as well with a 2/3 vote, It happened with truman I believe, and yes we can amend the constitution, and I am not sure but I believe the president can only suspend the constitution when he declares a state of emergency, and only for 30 days and than the congress can meet in order to decide whether or not to discontinue the state of emergency.

See there is always a way to balance out power in the government.Our government was set up to stop tyranny from occuring.

[This message has been edited by Kharhazz (edited 11-09-2001).] reg

Oh, By the way canada also has a very big problem with regionalism it is a threat of spliting up canada, now we know that can't be great to the country. reg

Common example-- overturning vetos.

One could say that equals things out, but in reality it doesn't.

If the President doesn't want something passed, 90% of the time it doesn't get passed.

Not including pocket vetos (which account for about 1000 of the total vetos), around 100 vetos out of almost 1500 total since 1778 have been overturned by congress.

If my memory serves me right, i believe it was FDR who had 41 vetoes and only 1 overturn.

'lood

reg

Checks and balances are the constitutional controls whereby separate branches of government have limiting powers over each other so that no branch will become supreme. Perhaps the best known system of checks and balances operates in the U.S. government under provisions of the federal CONSTITUTION.

Most national, state, and local governments have at least the mechanics of a system of checks and balances. Even dictatorial governments, otherwise scorning restraints on powers, provide internal checks to insure proper performance by governmental agencies and to fix responsibility.

Theory of Checks and Balances

The concept of constitutional checks arose as an outgrowth of the classical theory of separation of powers, by which the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government were held properly to be vested in three different units. The purpose of this, and of the later development of checks and balances, was to ensure that governmental power would not be used in an abusive manner. However, in its original form the concept involved social classes rather than government departments.

Classical political philosophers from Aristotle onward favored a "mixed" government combining the elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The English theorist James Harrington in his Oceana (1656) derived a theory akin to separation of powers from the old idea of mixed government. Later, John Locke, in his second treatise Of Civil Government (1690), urged that the best way to avoid a perverted government was to provide constitutionally for separation of the legislative and executive powers. Montesquieu, in his Spirit of the Laws (1748), added the third power of the judiciary to this concept, and the modern expression of separation of powers came into being. The mechanics of checks and balances were refined by the founders of the American republic.

Provisions in the U. S. Government

The framers the U. S. Constitution were strongly influenced by the advantages of separation of powers and of checks and balances. These theories had been in practice in the governments of the American colonies, and they underlie the fundamental laws of the United States. The Constitution distinctly separates the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The federal system adds to the checking because power is divided constitutionally between the central government and the states. Further, the constitutional provisions for direct election of members of both houses of CONGRESS and virtually direct election of the president puts two branches of the government under check of the electorate.

However, procedural requirements in the Constitution ensure that even measures popular with the voters cannot be adopted without presumably adequate consideration. The operation of checks and balances in the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution. The two houses of Congress legislate separately, and this legislation is subject to presidential veto; however, Congress, by a two thirds vote of each house, can override a presidential VETO. The judicial branch, in determining cases, may declare legislation unconstitutional, but the judiciary itself is subject to executive and legislative checking through the appointment of judges and the passage of legislation governing organization, procedure, and jurisdiction of the courts. There also is a possibility of amendment of the Constitution to reverse judicial determinations. Other constitutional checks are the possible legislative removal of the president and of judges by IMPEACHMENT and approval by the Senate of treaties and major presidential appointments.

Indeed, so impressed were certain of the framers with the viability of Montesquieu's concepts of separation and balance of power that John Adams counted eight explicit balancing mechanisms and proudly proclaimed them as evidence of the Constitution's republican virtue. These instances of government branches checking one another were as follows:
(1) The states v. the central government
(2) the House v. the Senate
(3) the president v. Congress
(4) the courts v. Congress
(5) the Senate v. the president (with regard to appointments and treaties)
(6) the people v. their representatives
(7) the state legislatures v. the Senate (in the original election of senators)
(8) the Electoral College v. the people

[This message has been edited by Omni (edited 11-09-2001).] reg

One could say that equals things out, but in reality it doesn't.>>

Yes it does even things out, but do we do it too often no. Just know the option is there and it can happen.

Our government works so well, that we have only had 27 amendments in 200 some years. just no that one branch may seem to have more power, but it surely cannot be abused and if it ever happens, then we have the power to change it. The question is will we use it, like we should use our right to vote. reg

quote:

---

Oh, By the way canada also has a very big problem with regionalism it is a threat of spliting up canada, now we know that can't be great to the country

---

Exactly. Democracy at its heart is about free exchange of ideas. The difference between 1 national language and 100 is evident here. How can you have free exchange of ideas when you can't properly communicate with each other? This type of system works in a dictatorship, where coercion by violent means breaks through all language barriers, but it does not work very well with a democracy.

Now, correct me if i am wrong because i don't live there, but from my understanding-- the french speaking part of canada has an almost disdain for english. This feeling is brought upon by their neccesity for the english speaking canada to recognize their language as equal. This tension between languages is not the best inviroment for free exchange of ideas. This is why a single common language is almost a neccessity for democracy. Like Kharhazz
pointed out, this point is shown by the attempts/thoughts of succession from English speaking Canada.

'lood
reg

Ever since FDR came in with his new deal, and his attempts to gain more control over the country, the President has in fact gained more control.

Whether you believe it is more control than the other branches is I guess a personal opinion.

But, if the president was equal when things started, and now he has more power, than where does that leave him in relation to the other branches?

'lood
reg

------------------
Caels Onae'Rae
AIM : Lord Caels

Emails:
caels_onaerae@hotmail.com
caels@gsplayers.com reg

"Who's comin' with me?" - Tom Cruise, Jerry Maguire reg