Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[Xue Sheng]

I'm fairly certain that's the second time in the last three pages in which you, Xue Sheng, have bid me adeiu ... I keep hoping.

I will put this response before you ... in your reference to Franklin, in the last post, I will gladly accept it in the spirit offered. It does seem that times, you prefer to attack the messenger, rather than the message; as you did in calling me a 'party line Democrat' ... which earlier in your thoughts you referred to as a zealot or fanatic.

I take offense at such words, so offered. You may be ignorant of your language choices. They are ad hominem attacks.

Rather than discussing the erosion of the 4th Amendment, which you seem to be casually casting aside because it is neither a death or a tax, you turn your thoughts to a personal attack.

So, if you are presenting evidence to support your position, and I have cast it aside, I am wrong ... and should reconsider. But, if you are presenting evidence to further your attacks on my person or character, I will call to disallow it.

And if you can not discern between the two types of arguments, I will patiently wait for you to catch up.

So which is it .... am I a 'Fanatic' ... or are you pissing on the Constitution?

Actually I have a rather good grasp of the language so nuff said there.


As to evidence, if you had actually read anything I wrote you would have understood that I am not trying to say that the Republicans are better than the democrats they are actually the same. And to present evidence to you that would besmirch (I done do know that thar is a big word I done did hear up yonder somewhere), I hopes I used it correctly) the character of your precious democrats would be a waste of time, You are a party line democrat, of that I have no doubt.


As to my responses, you respond to me I respond to you. You set the rules of the discussion and then when they threaten your beliefs and you also change them if it is to your advantage.


As for your dramatics "the pissing on the Constitution" comment, it just proves my point.


So tell me have any of these things you are talking about in regards to the 4th amendment happened to you?

 

[michaeledward]

So tell me have any of these things you are talking about in regards to the 4th amendment happened to you?

Are you arguing that the 4th Amendment only means what it says if there is a personal violation?

And ... we don't know, do we. Isn't that the point?

We do know the government is monitoring phone calls and phone records and banking transactions of United States citizens without the oversight of the Warrant demanded in the 4th Amendment.

That really seems quite simple.

And the Republican Congress (the majority in both houses are Republican, and the hold the chair and majority in all committee's (except the Ethics Committee)), is abdicating their oversight responsibilities by not demanding the Judicial branch of Government hold the Executive in check.

Republican President
Republican Congress
Republican Supreme Court

Warrantless Wiretaps
Warrantless monitoring of banking information

But, you argue the 4th Amendment only counts if I personally am suffer infringment.

Kinda negates the whole idea of the Bill of Rights, doesn't it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Are you arguing that the 4th Amendment only means what it says if there is a personal violation?

And ... we don't know, do we. Isn't that the point?

We do know the government is monitoring phone calls and phone records and banking transactions of United States citizens without the oversight of the Warrant demanded in the 4th Amendment.

That really seems quite simple.

And the Republican Congress (the majority in both houses are Republican, and the hold the chair and majority in all committee's (except the Ethics Committee)), is abdicating their oversight responsibilities by not demanding the Judicial branch of Government hold the Executive in check.

Republican President
Republican Congress
Republican Supreme Court

Warrantless Wiretaps
Warrantless monitoring of banking information

But, you argue the 4th Amendment only counts if I personally am suffer infringment.

Kinda negates the whole idea of the Bill of Rights, doesn't it.

You know, I have always had a rule that I have apparently forgotten here. Never ever argue politics, It is pointless.

Point of reference, I never said what political party I belong to did I? Have I ever taken a party line on any of this? All I am saying is the Democrats are not any better than Republicans. I am saying they are the same.

And since your question was originally are there any republicans left, I would have to say from some of the posts and what you are saying about DC the answer is yes there are, quite a lot actually.

I don't trust either party, and I could do research and very likely produce evidence to prove both were crooks but to what end? Would it make you change your position? Doubtful.

The Constitution you hold so dear, and you should... I know I do, means exactly the same to the democrats as it does to the republicans. Do you honestly think, once in power they will reverse all this? It gives them the power they want, oh of course they will talk a good game, point some fingers and 4 or 8 year later someone (not you) will be posting 'Is anyone still a Democrat"

I have said this a few times here as you have pointed that out, but you can be assured, unless I am attacked, I am done here.

Have a nice day
Thank you drive through.

 

[michaeledward]

I don't trust either party, and I could do research and very likely produce evidence to prove both were crooks but to what end? Would it make you change your position? Doubtful.

Drawing conclusions without evidence.

I have said this a few times here as you have pointed that out, but you can be assured, unless I am attacked, I am done here.

Sadly a party line political person whether that is Democrat or Republican is a Zealot or a Fanatic. And there is no talking to or auguring with a fanatic.

And I do believe sir you are a party line Democrat, so discussion with you on any political topic that does not praise the Democratic Party is a waste of time.

Xue Sheng, I post these two quotes to show you what an 'attack' looks like.

By using your definition of a 'party line political person' as a Zealot or Fanatic, and then defining me as a 'party line Democrat', you are accusing me of being a fanatic. And it today's language, the connotation of that word, and clear implication of your quotes, is an attack.

Those are your words, sir. I take them as unkind.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Drawing conclusions without evidence.








Xue Sheng, I post these two quotes to show you what an 'attack' looks like.

By using your definition of a 'party line political person' as a Zealot or Fanatic, and then defining me as a 'party line Democrat', you are accusing me of being a fanatic. And it today's language, the connotation of that word, and clear implication of your quotes, is an attack.

Those are your words, sir. I take them as unkind.

Believe me that was not an attack.

Fanatic - A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Zealot - a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so. b. A fanatically committed person.

I tend to go with dictionary definitions, not social constructs, it is much easier

Inferring I am an idiot could be considered an attack too although it was in response to what I had said, therefore you will justify it as self-defense. But in reality mud slinging is mud slinging no matter when it is said. So please do not try and take the high road now, it's to late.

But at least you succeeded at drawing me back in so you can make more sarcastic remarks like "Still waiting". And you think those are kind I suppose?

And please do not confuse lack of interest with surrender.

By the way, you never said you were not a party line democrat did you. Now how far off post have you taken this now? And I was off talking about Washington.

And you are still missing my point.

Dude, I'm done

 

[michaeledward]

And you are still missing my point.

Well, my point is, and has been, to describe and decry the acts of the power structure in Washington... At the moment, that is all Republican.

And, from what I read, your point is to describe .... well .... me.

I'm just some knucklehead with a computer.

I talk about Washington DC and the actions of the Bush Administration, and the lack of actions by the Republican Congress (apologies to the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania).

And, you talk about ... well .... me.

And, as for your dictionary definition, I am pressing for people to use their 'reason' to look at the actions in the Government. Can't quite see how pressing people to think about what is going on concerning the Bill of Rights fits into 'unreasoning enthusiasm'.

Using reason ... somebody explain to me how surrending the Bill of Rights to protect us from terrorism is a winning proposition. The arguement from the President is 'They Hate Us Because of Our Freedom' ... so he is taking them away.

And you talk about ... well .... me.

 

[Don Roley]

Well, my point is, and has been, to describe and decry the acts of the power structure in Washington... At the moment, that is all Republican.

Well if you were just decrying the abuse of power by politicians, then there would be a lot of agreement. But your championing of the democratic party is what causes the problems. You really can't show anything that the republicans are doing that the democrats aren't guilty of as well. And in cases like the second ammendment, the democrats are a lot worse. Add to that the fact that this administration does not seem to be abusing the powers for personal gain but the last one had a string of scandals of abuses of power and you kind of see the problem.

There are quite a few people here that go libertarian and the like because they don't like either the dems nor the republicans. But you only want to attack the republicans and give the many abuses of powere by the dems a free pass if you can.

At the moment, yes the republicans are in power. I see no reason to believe that there will be any improvement should the dems take back power- in fact it will probably be worse. That is the point that many people have been making.

 

[pstarr]

Very true....

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Well if you were just decrying the abuse of power by politicians, then there would be a lot of agreement. But your championing of the democratic party is what causes the problems. You really can't show anything that the republicans are doing that the democrats aren't guilty of as well. And in cases like the second ammendment, the democrats are a lot worse. Add to that the fact that this administration does not seem to be abusing the powers for personal gain but the last one had a string of scandals of abuses of power and you kind of see the problem.

There are quite a few people here that go libertarian and the like because they don't like either the dems nor the republicans. But you only want to attack the republicans and give the many abuses of powere by the dems a free pass if you can.

At the moment, yes the republicans are in power. I see no reason to believe that there will be any improvement should the dems take back power- in fact it will probably be worse. That is the point that many people have been making.

While I agree with the gist of your post (I'm one of those quasi-Libertarian Independents), my main problem with the CURRENT Republican Party leadership is that they are the opposite of Conservative. The deficits and expansions of Federal power under Republican Administrations over the past 26 years dwarf those of Democratic Administration (granted, the Democrats would have loved to have run huge deficits - but the THEN fiscally conservative Republican Congress always prevented it). I consider the current Republican Party leadership to be completely fraudulent. True, I don't see the Democrats as saviors either...

 

[heretic888]

While I agree with the gist of your post (I'm one of those quasi-Libertarian Independents), my main problem with the CURRENT Republican Party leadership is that they are the opposite of Conservative. The deficits and expansions of Federal power under Republican Administrations over the past 26 years dwarf those of Democratic Administration (granted, the Democrats would have loved to have run huge deficits - but the THEN fiscally conservative Republican Congress always prevented it). I consider the current Republican Party leadership to be completely fraudulent. True, I don't see the Democrats as saviors either...

Yup, it's the aptly named Neo-Conservative.

They combine the worst of conservativism with the worst of liberalism, while possessing none of their positive qualities. Truly, mind-boggingly frightening.

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well, my point is, and has been, to describe and decry the acts of the power structure in Washington... At the moment, that is all Republican.

And, from what I read, your point is to describe .... well .... me.

I'm just some knucklehead with a computer.

I talk about Washington DC and the actions of the Bush Administration, and the lack of actions by the Republican Congress (apologies to the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania).

And, you talk about ... well .... me.

And, as for your dictionary definition, I am pressing for people to use their 'reason' to look at the actions in the Government. Can't quite see how pressing people to think about what is going on concerning the Bill of Rights fits into 'unreasoning enthusiasm'.

Using reason ... somebody explain to me how surrending the Bill of Rights to protect us from terrorism is a winning proposition. The arguement from the President is 'They Hate Us Because of Our Freedom' ... so he is taking them away.

And you talk about ... well .... me.

The Bill of rights never even entered into it. You are bashing Republicans because they are... well... Republican.

But this is pointless.

I went back through a bunch of posts and I do not think we have agreed on one thing since being on MT. However this is no excuse for being rude, so

My apologies

Bye

 

[michaeledward]

Well if you were just decrying the abuse of power by politicians, then there would be a lot of agreement. But your championing of the democratic party is what causes the problems. You really can't show anything that the republicans are doing that the democrats aren't guilty of as well. And in cases like the second ammendment, the democrats are a lot worse. Add to that the fact that this administration does not seem to be abusing the powers for personal gain but the last one had a string of scandals of abuses of power and you kind of see the problem.

I do not believe I have 'championed' anything about the Democratic Party on this thread. I believe my posts have been strictly about the abuse of power and the degredation of the Bill of Rights. Currently, that is taking place in the Republican Majority.

It seems rather unfair to blame me for the Democratic minority.

And, you really aren't arguing that stripping the Bill of Rights is acceptable if there is no appearance of 'personal gain'. (And, you don't seem to be paying attention to the House Leaders' recent transactions).

There are quite a few people here that go libertarian and the like because they don't like either the dems nor the republicans. But you only want to attack the republicans and give the many abuses of powere by the dems a free pass if you can.

This argument goes to time frame, Don Roley. I have only ever been a member of MartialTalk while the Republicans control the reigns of power. You are not the first, nor will you be the last to ascribe to me actions that I did, or did not take, under the prior Administraion, with absolutely zero evidence. You don't know, you can't know. Because our interaction didn't take place during that time frame.

And, you make similar statements of certainty about some theoretical future where Democrats are in control of the reigns of power. You are assuming what I will do or say.

Please show me where I have given a Democrat a 'free pass'. But please, also, include the power or control that Democrat has to affect our lives through governing.

At the moment, yes the republicans are in power. I see no reason to believe that there will be any improvement should the dems take back power- in fact it will probably be worse. That is the point that many people have been making.

The abuses that are taking place now, need to stop now, before we destroy the country we all think we live in.

It seems the argument that, "well, if we change, it will be just as bad, so we don't want to change", is really quite immature. As a grown up in society, we must accept the responsibility of being a grown up. And this argument is like a child running to his room and sucking his thumb, waiting for the world to change around him.

If one is a Republican, and one does not accept the abuses I've enumerated throughout this thread, then what is being done about it? What actions should one take to change your Republican Party? Silence means consent.

I am a member of the Democratic Party. But for those you choose to think of me as acquiecing to the Democratic Party Line ... I point out, again, I voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 Presidential election. I voted and campaigned for Dennis Kucinich in the 2004 Presidential election. Those votes, alone, should be representative of my efforts to change the Democratic Party from within.

So, what are you doing about my 4th Amendment rights?

 

[michaeledward]

The Bill of rights never even entered into it. You are bashing Republicans because they are... well... Republican.
Bye

Wow ...

This whole thread.... at least from my point of view, and I started the thread ... has been about how the Bush Administration is trampling on the Bill of Rights. And how the Republican Majority Congress has let him do so, without any 'Equal Branch of Government' oversite demanded in Article I.

The first sentence of the thread talks about the NSA Warrantless Wiretapping ...

But, yes, I did mention some other abuses ... I probably would let Speaker Hastert make his $2,000,000.00 profit by adding a line to the Transportation bill ... if he was protecting the Constitution.

The Current Administration has exerted pressure on the Media to withhold stories. If not a direct violation of the right to a free press, it is certainly against the spirit of the First Amendment.

The Current Administration detained without charge or council United States Citizens right up to where the Supreme Court was going to rule against them. I think that's a 6th Amendment violation.

So, the Bill of Rights is all over this thread.


Special note of thanks to Ray ... early on in this thread, we almost had a discussion going. I just re-read it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Wow ...

This whole thread.... at least from my point of view, and I started the thread ... has been about how the Bush Administration is trampling on the Bill of Rights. And how the Republican Majority Congress has let him do so, without any 'Equal Branch of Government' oversite demanded in Article I.

The first sentence of the thread talks about the NSA Warrantless Wiretapping ...

But, yes, I did mention some other abuses ... I probably would let Speaker Hastert make his $2,000,000.00 profit by adding a line to the Transportation bill ... if he was protecting the Constitution.

The Current Administration has exerted pressure on the Media to withhold stories. If not a direct violation of the right to a free press, it is certainly against the spirit of the First Amendment.

The Current Administration detained without charge or council United States Citizens right up to where the Supreme Court was going to rule against them. I think that's a 6th Amendment violation.

So, the Bill of Rights is all over this thread.


Special note of thanks to Ray ... early on in this thread, we almost had a discussion going. I just re-read it.

Believe what you will and allow me to reiterate

I went back through a bunch of posts (not just this one) and I do not think we have agreed on one thing since being on MT.

So..this is pointless... (dui niu tan qin)

My apologies

Bye

 

[michaeledward]

"What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," Mr. Cheney said, in impromptu remarks at a fund-raising luncheon for a Republican Congressional candidate in Chicago. "That offends me."

Mr. Vice President .... Isn't it the responsibility of the News Media to report news? Is there anything about this topic that is not newsworth?

An informed citizenry is necessary for a properly functioning Republic. And a Free Press is necessary for an informed citizenry. This is why the founders gave us the First Amendment.

Are you saying you are offended by the First Amendment to the Constitution?

 

[Don Roley]

While I agree with the gist of your post (I'm one of those quasi-Libertarian Independents), my main problem with the CURRENT Republican Party leadership is that they are the opposite of Conservative. The deficits and expansions of Federal power under Republican Administrations over the past 26 years dwarf those of Democratic Administration (granted, the Democrats would have loved to have run huge deficits - but the THEN fiscally conservative Republican Congress always prevented it). I consider the current Republican Party leadership to be completely fraudulent. True, I don't see the Democrats as saviors either...

I have to disagree. This current administration has done a lot less harm to the constituion and expanded the power of goverment than the last one. And this one has yet to be caught in things like assembling confidential FBI files on their political enemies, using the FBI to try to send the white house travel office guys to jail so they could give the position to cronies of theirs and other abuses of power that Clinton was guilty of. The rules they use, like the banking one, have been possible for years and no one took a stand to change the rules.

I still think of individual politicians as individuals. There are democrats I would vote for and republicans I would not. But as a whole, I find the dems to be more dangerous. When the white house and congress was both controlled by them, they passed that little law that limited how many rounds you could have in a magazine. They used the second ammendment as toilet paper. Under the republican controlled goverment, this law was allowed to expire and was not renewed. In this respect, the republicans get my respect for being the ones that don't tell me what I can and can't do for my own good.

And of course, the new state of affairs after 9-11 should be mentioned for the draw on the budget and things like that. Actually, if you compare the last big fight for our lives, WWII, you have to say that the bending of the rules is mild by comparrison. We have a lot of things we need to debate, but no one seems willing to deal with new realities or say the simple truth that a lot of the old way of doing things don't work.

 

[Don Roley]

Mr. Vice President .... Isn't it the responsibility of the News Media to report news? Is there anything about this topic that is not newsworth?

An informed citizenry is necessary for a properly functioning Republic. And a Free Press is necessary for an informed citizenry. This is why the founders gave us the First Amendment.

Are you saying you are offended by the First Amendment to the Constitution?

People can be offended by papiratzi and still not be facists. Anyone is allowed to say they don't like what the press sometimes does. But there are folks that are offended by nazi rallies and yet fight for the scum bags right to march.

And the news does do things that could get Americans killed. This is a subject kind of close to home for me. I have a friend who just finished a tour in Afghanistan. I have heard many stories of how photographers have to be guarded to make sure they don't take photos that could allow the insurgents to have an edge. It is not enough to tell them that if they take a few photos with prominent mountains in the backgroud that a morter team could figure out where in the compoud the medical center is. They have caught folks trying to take photos that could give details like that.

Another friend of mine is a federal air marshal. He complain bitterly through e-mails about how national news orginizations have given away stuff on how they work and operate and a lot of it could help someone do a better job of launching a terror attack. I would think that reporting that there are not enough folks at certain times to cover all the routes- but to give the times and routes that there definatly not be FAMs is just too much IMO. I personally have seen an episode of an American news program run on Japanese TV where the reporters showed just how easy it was to sneak something on a plane. After watching that, I now know how to get a pistol on a plane- or at least have a better chance.

I would not say that they do not have the right to run those stories. But I do think I have the right to be offended by the abuse of the rights we have that endanger others.

 

[matt.m]

Nope, never was. I have voted democrat since I could. 1992 was the first year I could vote.

 

[michaeledward]

Found this today ...

"I am asking the Attorney General to begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times -- the reporters, the editors and the publisher," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous."

That would Congressional Representative Peter King.

Anyone want to send him a copy of the First Amendment.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I changed parties (Dem to Rep) in the early 90's.

I think it was when Democrats began to seem like snide, pompus, know-it-all *******s to me. That and the Dem platform seemingly began to center around every conceivable sub-set/splinter of society and their needs instead of standing for anything that I believed in. Not that standing up fpr RIGHTS is wrong, but always seeming to stand up for THIS SPECIAL GROUPS RIGHTS just began to push me away. Judging by the Dems' change of fortunes in the recent past I see that I wasnt alone.