Justice

The Congressional Amendment topic has been moot since it was suggested. That's what I was talking about. On the subject of Gay Marriage, I couldn't care less. It's literally a non-issue, since neither Bush or Kerry's stance matters with it being in the Court System. At this point, it's all on the SCOTUS, and frankly, I'll leave it to them. I only wish that it didn't have to come down to what could be a very clumsy but ultimately binding decision by the Court.

Oh yes, it was a complete coincidence that the Department of Justice was investigating torture while US soldiers were conducting torture. Those soldiers completely acted alone and without higher orders. Right. Um... proof? None? Oh, okay. Unless you actually have proof to back up the idea that the US Military was ordering these freaks to actually do this, then your argument is moot. You, obviously. No, you're a moron. The reason the Geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists and guerillas is because they aren't part of the standing army of a country. To enjoy the Geneva Convention, you have to be a marked and recognized soldier of a country that is signee of the Convention. If you aren't a soldier, you aren't a legal combatant in the first place and you aren't afforded protections under the treaty. If you are an illegal terrorist, you technically aren't fighting for a country, and thereby couldn't be under the protections anyway because even if you are a marked soldier, you'd have to be of a recognized signee. Double-whammy there, eh? You could argue that the Taliban fighters were POWs. But the Iraqis? Not a chance.

Thank, you Tyler. To anyone actually thought this would, well, amount to anything other than, well, nothing, I'll quote Rasheed Wallace after Game 2 against Indiana: "I told you! I told you! But you wouldn't fucking listen!"

Might need to re-check the info, as links between Al Qaeda and Iraq existed as far back as 1991. There is a reason why they never caused problems in Iraq. -=Mike Were they allies of the group that attacked us at the time of the attack? Not according to the 9/11 Commission, who completely dismissed the idea. Oh, wait, you're a conservative, I'm sure you've got some conspiracy theory about commission members attending liberal movies or something.... -Xias Because in the conservative world, Republicians really want to hurt their own party! Whether or not they were actually involved in 9/11 doesn't mean they weren't allied in one way or another, nimrod. Even if 9/11 didn't have any Iraqi involvement, that doesn't dim the fact that Iraq was big into helping terrorist groups and other dangerous extremists in the Middle East. Eh, wait, you're a yuppie. You don't actually know how the real world works, so what's the use in trying to explain anything to you. -Powerplay ... Damn, you are just so friggin' familiar...

Xias, do I know you? I could have sworn I've seen you around here before.

It'd probably be something like "The Best of Christian Rock". Or maybe that's even too cool for him. At any rate, I'd prefer the silence to that.

Bullshit. The Sarin gas shell, old chemical weapons rockets, plans for long range rocket programs and other support programs for the delivery and creation of these weapons sort of disproves you.

The full text of the memo actually names NYC as a target. And saying "but this is what Gore would do" is a total cop-out and a piss poor way of diverting blame for mistakes. Gore isn't President. Bush is. And there are memos like this every day mentioning numerous threats made by different groups. Once again, there wasn't nearly enough information to make any sort of useful action to stop it, and considering the memo was written in August, that doesn't give much time to take effective steps either. And it's not a cop out: 9/11 would have still happened under Gore. The attack was basically inevitabe; there was little that could be done because of the lack of cooperation between agencies for anyone to get any sort of clear plan. It wouldn't have been his fault, either; he would have been a victim of circumstances.

Paper: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside America." Bush: What is this bullshit about? I think I'll forget about it. Richard Clarke: Uh, sir... Bush: Not now, Zorro is on. Clarke: Yeah, okay, guess I'll leave my papers on the desk. Americans: *blissfully unaware* Bin-Laden: Me turn planes into boom booms. Americans: Well, at least they caught us unaware. Clarke: Actually, it was pretty friggin' obvious. Americans: WHAT? Congressional Investigators: Uh, yeah. He's right. Oops. Bush: Hey, check this out! I got a plan for a scenario that we have absolutely no hunches could ever happen! Be prepared, but in case you aren't, we've moved the terror scale from "steady as she goes" to "En Garde!" Americans: Shouldn't you be paying attention to real issues or something? Bush: If I start, you'll expect me to keep it up. I'm going to go talk about the threatening dangers of gay marriage now. Bye. MikeSC: Brilliance! Because, of course, the Gore Administration reaction would have been like this: Paper: "Bin Laden is determined to attack inside the US." Gore: Hey, what's this? *Gore touches paper and goes "Deadzone" Christopher Walken-style* Gore: There will be an attack... on September 11th in New York City... involving planes... crashing into the Twin Towers! *Lets go of paper and goes back to normal* Gore: Glad I have my psychic powers. Now I can save the day! *Flys off to capture Bin Laden* "Inside America" is a very specific place, eh? Oh wait, no it isn't. Bin Laden was the only person "determined to attack in the US", right? Oh wait, a whole fucking lot of people are determined to attack inside the US. Our intelligence community was sharing information and giving us a clear picture of this, right? Oh wait, our intelligence community was withholding info from each other and couldn't give us any clear pictures on if this threat was truly credible or not. But, hey, Bush knew. Because he did. But hey, I'll leave you and NoCal to your "BUSHKNEWLOL911" circlejerk.

It's never been proven that Saddam never had WMDs "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Come on, SJ, come back to reality! We need to protect our textiles! Textiles, I tell you! Well, back to watching the stocks...

Ah, okay. You came off the wrong way. Allow me to appologize, then. On #3: I believe that there are definitely some problems with Iraq, and things could have gone off better. I'd be dumb to say everything went off perfectly. But I feel that there are certain parts (Particularly the casualty count and guerilla fighting) that has been drastically blown out of proportion. Certain things (like this new information on the attempts to get Uranium from Niger by Iraq) have lacked coverage, and there are positive things that should be getting coverage that aren't (The rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure for one). I think both sides can say that the media has done a half-hearted effort in trying to exam Iraq from any side, pro-war or anti-war, and what results is nothing getting told and everyone bitching. #4: I completely agree with you, I just suppose I don't see it as being very revelant in the argument at hand. I suppose I focused much more on Kerry's view and Bush's view arugment more than the actual article because that's where the discussion went, so no harm, no foul. Overall, I took offense more towards the first 3 points, and the last 3 I didn't see relevant to the argument since most of it has been in comparison of Kerry and Bush. By the by, I do know why they've been thrown out, and frankly I'm not really concerned with the issue since I really have no control over it and it won't affect me in either way. I just hope, though, that people don't start using the courts as a way to bypass voters when it comes down to controversial issues. I'm not sure it's Judicial Activism, I'm just hoping it doesn't encourage it. And wow, it's nice to meet someone who doesn't come off as completely smarmy all the time. I'm a lot less combative when people are, well, a bit more civil and a bit less flame-warish.

Even though no one even suggested getting angry with them, right Mike? Believe me, Bush has given the left more than enough ammo without looking for more. You know, you do seem to hint that this is could be a political move of sorts, so don't act so surprised that Mike jumped in like he did. But I'll say this again: there isn't a point to moving elections forwards or backwards, and I don't think Americans will want to extend this election any more than possible. Everyone hates election years.

The only way it could be more secured is if we moved it up and surprised the terrorists. Considering that's impossible, I really don't see a reason to try and move it back; the only way to really thwart any threat would be to move things forwards.

So wait, I just want clarafication here: These records have been destroyed since 1996-1997, right? Not recently or anything, correct? If it were recently, yeah, this would smell of all sorts of bullshit from Bush but... I guess since he probably wasn't the biggest forerunner for President (This is right after Dole got crushed, so I doubt they were grooming him for it that long ago), isn't there the possiblity that this did accidentally happen? I also wonder how many other documents were destroy: Was this just limited to him, or just Texas, or much of the National Guard service? I would like some more info because the dates do kinda 'not line up' for a big conservative conspiracy.

You do realize that John Kerry's position on gay marriage is more SIMILAR to that of George W. Bush than it is different, don't you? Kerry does not support a constitutional amendment. Kerry supports Civil unions, which Bush does not. So what was your point? Cheney supports Civil Unions, and I've never heard Bush speak out against Civil Unions. If Cheney really has as much power as you guys make him out to, what makes you think that Bush would ban Civil Unions as well? The fact is that the Constitutional Amendment is a useless and futile gesture, and in the end, both men support the same realistic solution. If you can see this, then you are too naive to help.

So? Ancedotal evidence means jack shit. What if I were to say it's doing well where I am, then is it recovering or what? Clinton firstly thrived on the internet bubble, secondly brought us to where we are now because the decline began during his administration, and thirdly it really isn't much since Reagan's era outshines his as well. Let's face it, people: After 8 years of prosperity, we will always have 4 years of shit. That's how our economy works. We get fat over 8 years, then we work out out and flush out the useless shit so we run the 4 minute-mile again.

Except the economy is doing well and Iraq is much better off now than it was a year ago. But if living in denial makes you happy, feel free. -=Mike All these things are true, as is the fact that our economic recovery was one of the slowest in history(1), job growth isn't keeping up with population growth,(2) and the war in Iraq was nearly fumbled due to a combination of bad intelligence, and poor planning.(3) As for gay marriage itself-If Hitler can't turn gays straight, and ex-gay groups deny bisexuality exists (as well as the fact that medical community has warned against the idea that homosexuality is simply a matter of "choice"(4) , then this debate is nothing more than a cynical manipulation of the public's trust for political gain. Especially once you know the players behind the scenes. Political activist groups like the Paul Cameron's FRI and the FTC rely on false statistics and a misrepresentation of legitimate research when making their case. ((5)) The leaders of the Christian Coalition (6), tell their loyal viewers, and the world, America is evil. Point in case 1: That article is over 6 months old and doesn't at all account for the huge influx of jobs as of late and outsourcing starting to go down. With 2: Lets look at a wider graphic view of this nice little statistic. Or hell, look at the actual percentage change: It's about a two percent drop. Looking at the chart, these drops regularly occur about once or twice a decade, plus you are ignoring that this was starting with Clinton (You can say he peaked and I'll agree: The percentage was steadily decreasing at the end of his administration, which caused this peak. Therefore this started under HIS watch). On 3: Arguments can be made both ways, but this war has also had overcovered to the point of which its being made into a far greater 'disaster' than it truly is. Does 4 even have a point, or are you just trying to come off as better or smarter by citing your footnotes? 5 and 6 are just presenting easy, slow moving targets that don't have any real relevance in the entire topic besides citing more articles. Not really, because none of these reasons are relevant in any way to any of the recent court decisions. And lets end it with obligatory ambiguous shot at the other side, while completely ignoring the current argument: Kerry's stance has very little difference from Bush's stance when stood next to each other. Since there is nothing the President can do to stop the Court system (Without choosing not to enforce the ruling, which is PR suicide nowadays), this is literally a non-issue. One side obviously doesn't know what the subject matter is.

Well it still is somewhat of an issue because Bush is calling for a constitutional ammendment. That idea pisses off a lot of people, both liberals and conservatives. Oh come on, here. First off, most people don't care because they realize it will never get passed. It's an act, and they know it. Both sides are looking for a moral victory on the issue, and they'll get it. That's all this; acting like you are fighting for something that you have no chance of deciding, and the public IS smart enough to realize this much. Secondly, at the end of the day nothing will change at all because of this stuff. Kerry doesn't want gay marriage, Bush doesn't want gay marriage. Zsasz's comment applies just as much to Kerry as to Bush because they both don't want full gay marriage. Maybe I see this as a complete non-issue. All this constitutional amendment stuff is being done because all this is being done through the court system, where no one has any power and there is no middle ground: Either there is no gay marriage, or there is. The SCOTUS is gonna have a hell of a time with this one...

Why am I getting beat up by former JLers? Seriously, WC, you bitter or something about J&R or something?

And this basically becomes a non-issue because NEITHER candidate supports full Gay Marriage. Both I believe support some sort of civil union or state recognition (At least, I know Cheney does in the Bush camp), but neither supports gay marriage in the slightest. So this basically means shit when it all comes down to it.

Wow. Watch me be unsurprised as a guy who went through purely legitmate channels and has no investigative experience is proven in the wrong vs. CIA and International intelligence. Anyone else want to comment?

OMG! Bush didn't go to the convention of elitists that hasn't done shit for their race other than benefiting from its suffering and voting base! What a monster! Maybe if the NAACP actually helped the black community, I'd support them. As is, though, they are too concerned with a white guy possibly making an insult that might or might not be a reference to race.

Maybe I'm not seeing the dirty politics here. This happens all the time; a bill almost gets passed, but the majority party stalls, rallies its troops, and shoots it down. To say that this is some sort of "Overarching Conservative Conspiracy" is moronic because this is what Congress is designed to do. And love the Cocaine stuff, I really do. Of course, had we been talking about a simple man off the street who hasn't done Coke in 30 years, you'd be reprimanding yourselves for your own treatment towards what happened. Forgive and forget, remember?

Eh, Cheney has the valuable "Get out of VP Free" card with his health, remember?