Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Just that countries and people should be careful in returning gifts..
Especially those that are already unpopular atm..
The Diplomatic thing to do would be to give Aid to those countries, that just so happens to be the same amount :P
I am confused as to how this adds or subtracts from what i said (assuming it is aimed at me).... if it is not aimed at me please ignore this :unsure:
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Rat wants you to go to a bidding bizarre and stand in line, apparently. :P
No, i gave you a reference to stop your confusion over the Haliburton reference supplied by Clocker.
However, when a company is being investigated for stealing $billions from the Taxpayer, then it is inappropriate to keep hiring them with tax dollars.
Thanks RF but I'm certain that j2 got the reference at once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I've always preferred that guilt be assigned over "actual" impropriety, myself...leave the job of determining same to a genuine investigatory effort, rather than a bunch of silly, know-nothing citizens panting over incomplete and sensationalistic media reportage.
Apparently, avoiding the "appearance of impropriety", long a cornerstone of ethical standards, is just a sop demanded by "silly, know-nothings", eh?
Boy, that makes things a lot more expedient.
Ya know, if we could dispense with that silly Constitution that would speed things up too.
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
No, i gave you a reference to stop your confusion over the Haliburton reference supplied by Clocker.
However, when a company is being investigated for stealing $billions from the Taxpayer, then it is inappropriate to keep hiring them with tax dollars.
Thanks RF but I'm certain that j2 got the reference at once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I've always preferred that guilt be assigned over "actual" impropriety, myself...leave the job of determining same to a genuine investigatory effort, rather than a bunch of silly, know-nothing citizens panting over incomplete and sensationalistic media reportage.
Apparently, avoiding the "appearance of impropriety", long a cornerstone of ethical standards, is just a sop demanded by "silly, know-nothings", eh?
Boy, that makes things a lot more expedient.
Ya know, if we could dispense with that silly Constitution that would speed things up too.
The cynical side of me says the Republican contingent has finally decided to play the game as Democrats have played it for years:
"What you think you see is an illusion, and if what you think you see actually is happening, you are misinformed as to it's character, relevance, or importance.
Trust us."
In reality, the problem is only one of perception, as it is still formed by the media and liberalism in general.
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
In reality, the problem is only one of perception, as it is still formed by the media and liberalism in general.
I see.
So, investigations by the SEC, Justice Dept. and the Pentagon are merely liberal perceptions fueled by the media.
I had no idea we were so supernaturally adept.
Instead of voting against Bush why didn't we think to just levitate him?
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
In reality, the problem is only one of perception, as it is still formed by the media and liberalism in general.
I see.
So, investigations by the SEC, Justice Dept.
and the Pentagon are merely liberal perceptions fueled by the media.
Just so-the previous administration had the advantage of an Executive whose Oval-Office whoring overwhelmed and obscured the tremendous variety of corrupt activities occurring coincidentally.
We see remnant activity to this day, anent the machinations of one Samuel (Sandy) Berger, aided, however insufficiently, by his sicks and underwear.
I had no idea we were so supernaturally adept.
Instead of voting against Bush why didn't we think to just
levitate him?
Levitate him rather than vote for him?
I'm not sure of the political effect of it, but as parlor tricks go, levitation ranks among the best, and doing it for an audience could produce significant revenue.
In these cash-strapped times, I'm sure he could be persuaded; I say, go for it!
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill maher
Just because we have an obligation to rebuild New Orleans doesn't mean we have to put it back in the same place. For $200 billion, we could put the French Quarter on the moon. Why don't we put it someplace it can stay out of harm and do some good? After all, New Orleans is the Big Easy, and a lot of America is uptight. Which is why I say we put New Orleans in Kansas.
What do you say, Kansas? Put down your hoes and come meet some. Welcome New Orleans to the land that fun forgot. An infusion of color and gayness in the dry Kansas plain. Why, it'll be as if they shot "The Wizard of Oz" on location. You're going to love it! New Orleans is one of the great towns. It's my kind of town, an outpost of free living and sophistication in a sea of - well, now, sea.
You can't tell me that the giant swath of red America that Kansas sits in the middle of wouldn't benefit from thousands of insane Creoles who understand that hangovers only happen to people foolish enough to stop drinking. I read this week that the strippers have gone back to work in New Orleans. They don't even have clothes, and already they're taking them off. Kansas could use some of that spirit.
It could use some jazz, some blues...some blacks. The people of New Orleans are the most tolerant of all Americans. I mean, for Christ's sake, they put up with Anne Rice! And as an extra bonus, they're French, and that'll really piss off Bush. When the French land right in the middle of Bob Dole's Viagra farm.
So, don't think of it as a million-and-a-half black people moving in next door. Think of it as the "March of the Penguins." Only, you know, with a million-and-a-half black people.
Yes, I see a shining city on a plain. New Orleans, Kansas. Where people are learning. They're learning that a gay pride parade isn't something to fear; it's something to laugh at. So what do you say, Kansas? They need a home. You need to get the stick out of your ass. It's a win-win! Come on, Kansas, show some curiosity, show some compassion. But most of all, show us your tits!!
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill maher
Just because we have an obligation to rebuild New Orleans doesn't mean we have to put it back in the same place. For $200 billion, we could put the French Quarter on the moon. Why don't we put it someplace it can stay out of harm and do some good? After all, New Orleans is the Big Easy, and a lot of America is uptight. Which is why I say we put New Orleans in Kansas.
What do you say, Kansas? Put down your hoes and come meet some. Welcome New Orleans to the land that fun forgot. An infusion of color and gayness in the dry Kansas plain. Why, it'll be as if they shot "The Wizard of Oz" on location. You're going to love it! New Orleans is one of the great towns. It's my kind of town, an outpost of free living and sophistication in a sea of - well, now, sea.
You can't tell me that the giant swath of red America that Kansas sits in the middle of wouldn't benefit from thousands of insane Creoles who understand that hangovers only happen to people foolish enough to stop drinking. I read this week that the strippers have gone back to work in New Orleans. They don't even have clothes, and already they're taking them off. Kansas could use some of that spirit.
It could use some jazz, some blues...some blacks. The people of New Orleans are the most tolerant of all Americans. I mean, for Christ's sake, they put up with Anne Rice! And as an extra bonus, they're French, and that'll really piss off Bush. When the French land right in the middle of Bob Dole's Viagra farm.
So, don't think of it as a million-and-a-half black people moving in next door. Think of it as the "March of the Penguins." Only, you know, with a million-and-a-half black people.
Yes, I see a shining city on a plain. New Orleans, Kansas. Where people are learning. They're learning that a gay pride parade isn't something to fear; it's something to laugh at. So what do you say, Kansas? They need a home. You need to get the stick out of your ass. It's a win-win! Come on, Kansas, show some curiosity, show some compassion. But most of all, show us your tits!!
Would this be the same Bill Maher who thought the 'right to privacy' was given to us in the Constitution? :lol:
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
Would this be the same Bill Maher who thought the 'right to privacy' was given to us in the Constitution? :lol:
Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"?
9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I guess you are laughing at U.S. Court Justice John Roberts 'cause he feels the Constitution covers it too. :dry:
(also look up Amendments 3-5 when you get done laughing)
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I just find your position with regard to your fellow citizens strange. If a couple owned their house in New Orleans and had no mortgage on it, then you are willing to rebuild it for them, then rent it to them or have them pay for it. Whereas I suspect that others may see it as a national disaster, which you should all sort out together. By putting people back in the position they were before it happened. Not better off, just back where they were before it happened.
Your position is surprisingly lacking in compassion for your fellow citizens.
Hey, I'm all for pulling together to help out my countrymen that are in a jam, make no mistake, but what the Louisiana Legislature is asking for is absurd. That are asking the US federal govt to give them (without even batting an eye) $250 billion on top of the 100's of millions that the govt and private organizations such as the United Way and The Red Cross have done already. They want the federal govt to float the entire bill.
I'm sorry, that those people have been hit so hard, but I don't want my rates and taxes increased so that NO can get a new Superdome ffs. I don't want to pay the $25,000,000 that they're asking for to fund sugarcane research either for example. The LA Legislature is simply being unreasonable. Just like the looters that stole 6 televisions when they only had 2 bedrooms to put them in were going overboard, so is this LA legislature.
I can see where this going already, and I saw it when it happened years ago when the govt paid all the families of 9/11 something like $2.5 million each. They set precedence. If we give LA the money they're asking for, then guess what's going to happen when the next big tornado hits Kansas, or the next fire rips through Arizona.....
Re: Bush has gone totally daft...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
Would this be the same Bill Maher who thought the 'right to privacy' was given to us in the Constitution? :lol:
Why, 'cause the Constitution doesn't say the word "privacy"?
9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I guess you are laughing at U.S. Court Justice John Roberts 'cause he feels the Constitution covers it too. :dry:
(also look up Amendments 3-5 when you get done laughing)
No, actually, I am laughing at Bill Maher. :)
Maher Admits Naivete, Thought “Right
to Privacy” in Constitution
The controversy last week over Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about the slippery slope of the Supreme Court finding a right to any kind of consensual sex based on a “right to privacy” in the penumbra of the Constitution, has had one benefit: A well-known liberal commentator on political issues has conceded his naivete about which rights are in the Constitution.
On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, Maher admitted: “This has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.”
Maher's admission of his naivete came after columnist/author Ann Coulter observed on the April 25 program: “I think what he said was completely defensible and I think it's an important point, which is, you know, the Constitution describes a limited form of government and then there's a Bill of Rights with very few rights. And I think that Americans should start to recognize there are a lot of good things that aren't constitutional rights.”
Maher then conceded: “You know what, this has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution.”
You wonder how many journalists share Maher's basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution, a lack of knowledge which may explain much of the bad reporting on the matter.
A right to “privacy” was first broached by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision overturning a state ban on birth control and solidified in the majority's Roe v Wade discovery of a privacy right in the “penumbra” of the Constitution in order to find rationale for overturning state bans on abortion. But it isn't in the Constitution.
