More political correctness

jimonica

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
313
Re: More political correctness

Pointer94,<br />You need to go back and read my thread again. Like much of the tirades on the right they're based on falsehoods. I did not compare Bush to Hitler. The content of Hitler's name, was in a style of government being farther to the right than what we have today. This is something I really am interested in. Although I did say that I felt we are on way to a fascist government. By fascist, I mean the merger between the corporation and government, which might more describe Mussolini. <br />My question to you Pointer94, is when have we ever been farther to the right than what we are now? And my statement about Germany and Italy, was me simply trying to think of any time in history that a country has been farther right wing than we have now.<br />As far as Randi Rhodes I didn't hear that one. But I did hear about G. Gordon Liddy telling his audience to take a head shot because government agents wear bullet proof vests. <br />You want an example of hyper-boil? You say Cindy Sheehan supports terrorists and murderers? Give me a break, better yet give me a quote from Cindy Sheehan that can back up your acquisition.<br />You ask about Bush taking over means of production? He has. Remember Karen Ryan and the phony news clips? Remember Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallighar being paid to write favorable articles of the Bush administration?<br />I will however make this comparison between Hitler and Bush. Hitler was democratically elected (oh I forgot Bush wasn't democratically elected, at least Hitler was). And afterword started to chip away the rights afforded the German people until pretty soon he had a unchecked power. Bush has started the chipping away at our rights, sneak and peek, library records, phone tapping and locking up citizens without charging for a crime or allowing to see a lawyer.<br />Hows that for a few specifics?
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: More political correctness

jimonica,<br /><br />I directly quote you and you blow me off? :confused:
 

jimonica

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
313
Re: More political correctness

Quitcat,<br />Your grasping at straws. You need to read my last post.
 

jimonica

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
313
Re: More political correctness

Quitcat,<br />Sorry I replying to Pointer94 and sent it out before I saw your post.
 

jimonica

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
313
Re: More political correctness

Now that I got a few of all whipped up, I'm going to bed. I'll check in with you all in the morning.
 

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: More political correctness

alright! a big 'ol political free for all! I have got to get in on this action.<br /><br />But where to start...<br />Bush as a liberal Hitler? <br />Elementary school teachers running the country?<br />Republicans are liberal?<br /><br />American League wins the world series...what more proof do you need that America is going to H in a handbasket?<br /><br /> :rolleyes: Man is this fun or what? :p :p :p
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: More political correctness

jimonica,<br /><br />It is simple. I am not grasping at anything. I just want to know if you meant what you said. I'll completely reread all of those posts, but I can't get past the thin line you claim between the two.
 

rodbolt

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
20,066
Re: More political correctness

Quietcat. <br />I missed the comparision of bush to hitler. mostly there is none. Hitler was initially democratically elected and did great things for germany for the first years. after that the madness took over and he surrounded himself with like minded ones and no one could tell him the emporor had no clothes. he became a men evil rat bastird that actually went outside his borders. on that I can make a comparison. he belived his own propaganda and dismissed or executed anyone who thought otherwise. I dont Think our current president is mean nor evil just nisguided. I dont the he has the intelectual capacity to understand what he has triggered, I just hope the next administration can get us out of it. both china and Russia expect us to leave when the mission,whatever that is, is accomplished. I dont think either will stand still for permanant bases in their backyards. we did not, and could you blame them ?<br /> If you dont think China is not looking close your sadly mistaken. its one thing to take on a small place like Iraq and quite another to take on china in a military struggle. that war would be a lot different than the current one.
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: More political correctness

Rodbolt,<br /><br />He didn't compare Bush to Hitler. He compared the Republican Party to Hitler's Germany and was confused about the distinction between the two. Although I don't come close to believing the former the latter is ludicrous.<br /><br />BTW, I am not a Republican ;)
 

SCO

Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 19, 2001
Messages
1,463
Re: More political correctness

Jimonica,<br />Hitler had thugs. He was a thug from the beginning, not a nice guy gone bad. He was taking out the opposition physically. Thats how he rose to power. HE He, this is funny, the left , in an attempt to say Bush is as bad as Hitler is minimizing Hitlers negatives. The man built gas chambers, killed millions, wanted to rule the world. Bush aint doin that. Hes trying to cure a cancer that has spread to our womb of a world. Bush won the election, and if he didn't , then Gore would be Pres. The only part of the rigged election that didn't work was that the Florida equivalent of the 9th ward didn't come through for Gore. Too afraid they'd be arrested on priors if they showed up at the polls I suppose. <br /><br />"My question to you Pointer94, is when have we ever been farther to the right than what we are now?" Answer, can safely say all the dem presidents to Johnson were farther right than GW. Yes the Dems are losing out, but the whole spectrum has shifted way way left. You left rads dont know just how far out you are.
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: More political correctness

Originally posted by jimonica:<br /> (oh I forgot Bush wasn't democratically elected, at least Hitler was)
OK, just a little nugget that needs to be exposed. Are you saying that our process is not democratic or are you saying that the 2000 vote was not democratic? Again, I am not grasping, I am exposing. Do you believe there was an impropriety in that election? Please tell me what it was. Do you believe that the Supreme Court of the US is corrupt? Do you believe that the subsequent independent vote counts that proved that Florida would have been for Bush no matter how many recounts were allowed or disallowed were incorrect?<br /><br />I have asked you straight questions. Now explain why this wasn't democratic. What you don't know about me is that I really don't have an agenda despite what many may read into my posts. I just won't stand for lies or implied lies. I also won't stand for flip comparisons that are either serious or not serious depending on how you are challenged. I again apologize for my tone, but either you believe what you have written or you don't. Which is it?
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: More political correctness

Neat, <br /><br />Answer no questions and simply ask more. Neat trick. You provide nothing. As for your accusation that I said you compared Hitler to Bush, not there. You invoked Hitler in a tired attempt to interject emotion inherent to a mass murderer within the political spectrum. I took your parallel and smacked it around for the rediculous attempt to invoke the hate for Bush that those have for Hitler. I cannot find a parallel between the two. Not even close. But why did you avoid my Hillary attempting to take over the health care industry question? Like a socialist. Doesn't that scare you? You know like Stalin?<br /><br />You want to talk Cindy, lets.<br /><br />Cindy Sheehan supporting her good friend and "sister"<br /><br /> At the rally Cindy said: "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war OF terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush". <br /><br />"America has been killing people, like my sister (Lynne Stewart) over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction." <br /><br />"We have no Constitution (in the United States). We're the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog **** in Washington! <br />Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but WE are waging NUCLEAR WAR in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. <br />It will be contaminated for practically eternity now." <br /><br />Backdrop on HER SISTER:<br /><br /> Cindy Sheehan's friend, <br />convicted terrorist supporter Lynne Stewart.<br />Lynne Stewart has been convicted of providing material support to "Islamic Group", an Egypt based terrorist organization with close links to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network. She faces the sentencing of 30 years in federal prison and has lost her right to practice law. <br />Ms. Stewart, who proclaims herself to be a "Radical Activist Attorney" was the defense lawyer of Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, convicted mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993. <br /><br />Her defense of Rahman was that his "fatwah" to blow up the World Trade Center was merely part of the Sheih's religious duties as a Muslim cleric. <br />She never denied he did it! She referred to Sheik Rahman as "a fighter for national liberation on behalf of a people oppressed by the dictatorship of American imperialism."<br /><br /><br />Cindy calls terrorists FREEDOM FIGHTERS:<br /><br />Here's an except from a Cindy Sheehan interview. <br /><br />Mark Knoller: You know that the President says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don't you believe that? <br /><br />Cindy Sheehan: "No, because it's not true. Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Iraq was not a terrorist state. <br /><br />But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open. Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in. And they have created more terrorism by going into an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country.<br /><br />Cindy's mouth runith over:<br /><br />Cindy says: "9/11 wasn't an act of war, it was simply a crime, it should have been handled like a crime, instead we simply went to Afganistan and murdered thousands of Afgan citizens". <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Name one person who had their library records accessed. ONE - JUST ONE.<br /><br />Name just one reputable group who did a recount in the Florida election that didn't conclude Bush won. PLEASE.....Ok scratch one Hitler comparison.<br /><br />Bush chipping away at our rights, How is this specific?<br /><br />Phone tapping? Who? What was illegal? How is this specific?<br /><br />Sneak and Peek - again who? What is illegal? How is this specific? Sneak and Peek still has to be approved by a judge as far as I know.<br /><br />What happened the last time we went to war? How many japaneese citizens were placed in internment camps. But that was a democratic pres, so let pretend that didn't exist.<br /><br /><br />
You ask about Bush taking over means of production? He has. Remember Karen Ryan and the phony news clips? Remember Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallighar being paid to write favorable articles of the Bush administration?<br />
You got me there. Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher are THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. No arguement there. I give. <br /><br />For giggles: <br /> Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff says Bush's statements are 100% true and that he was operating on the same intelligence that Bill Clinton had concerning Iraq. <br /><br />Those pesky facts from the Washington Post:<br />Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered<br />Post-Invasion Cache Could Have Been For Use in Weapons<br /><br />By Ellen Knickmeyer<br />Washington Post Foreign Service<br />Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A18<br /><br />BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.<br /><br />Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Materials found in a warehouse in Mosul could yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, according to a U.S. military spokesman. He said the lab was relatively new, dating from some time after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. (Photos By Department Of Defense) <br /> <br /> <br /><br />News From Iraq<br />Grand Jury Hears Summary of Case On CIA Leak Probe<br />The New Sunni Jihad: 'A Time for Politics'<br />Kerry Urges U.S. to Start Withdrawal From Iraq<br />In a Reclaimed Village, Kurds' Future Unclear <br />Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been "coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.<br /><br />Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.<br /><br />Open mouth insert foot, then change your mind:<br /><br />Who said : "Saddam Hussein was attempting to develop nuclear weapons."? <br /><br />Who stated unequivocally that; “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.” and that most elements of Iraqis chemical and biological weapons programs “are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.” ? <br /><br />Who said : "These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.”? <br /><br />Who Stated : “Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland.” ? <br /><br />No, it wasn't George Bush. <br /><br />For the record, these are ALL pre war JOHN KERRY quotes!<br /><br /><br />Will you answer any of my questions?
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: More political correctness

Let me help you.<br /><br />Question:<br />Please point to the right wing talking points that identifies Bush as a liberal.<br /><br />Question:<br />Corporate controlled media spending 24/7 bashing bush but really is on his side. A little help here, how does that forward the Hitler-like policies (yet unidentified) of W and who is Gerbals?<br /><br />Question:<br />Bush is ready to take over the means of production like Hitler? You can't be serious with that previous post.........<br /><br />Question:<br /> Can you point to one favorable article or story written about W in the past two weeks? For each one you find I will find 25 that are negative.<br /><br />Question:<br />Please point the difference between Hillary taking over the medical industry by fiat and socialism? Would that be considered extreme?<br /><br />Bonus Question:<br />As Hillary wasn't elected and her "secret closed" meetings were illegal, did this scare you? And what illegal meetings has GW had?<br /><br />Question:<br /> All the countries, news outlets and members of congress agreed to go to war based on the information that was supplied to them by the Bush administration! Where did you get this? GW's controlled media?<br /><br />Question:<br />Name one person who had their library records accessed. ONE - JUST ONE.<br /><br />Question:<br />Name just one reputable group who did a recount in the Florida election that didn't conclude Bush won.
 

rodbolt

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
20,066
Re: More political correctness

freedom fighters"<br /> man that term goes back to the days our CIA created the taliban and trained the groups that later became al-queda. yes sadly we spent millions on training "freddom Fighters" both in the middle east and some in quantico and other parts of the US. problem with training known radical groups in subversion,terror,gurilla tactics as well as some other is sooner or later you lose control of the group and cannot retract the knowledge. there is a terrorist training camp right here in north carolina and another at ft benning GA. look up school of the americas.<br />GW and cheney hollered for over a year that NUKES and other chemical and bio weapons existred. some pesticides in a warehouse aint quite chemical weapons of mass destruction.the ongoing investigation of the wilson plame thing is a good indicator. wilson came back from a mission he says cheney sent him on with bad news, the yellow cake thing was bogus. he wrote an article about it after his intel was ignored and thats when they outed plame and discredited wilson. come to find out wilson was right all along. seems yet another lie by an all powerful cabel. did Bush know about it? most likly not, but he should still start fireing folks. Reagan finally had to. did Bush know there were no WMD's in Iraq? if he did not he should resign, if he did he lied and still should resign. I voted for bush in 00 but for mickey mouse in 04 as neither candidate on the ballot was qualified.<br /> I just hope we can hold on until 08 and the next administration can correct the mistakes and lack of planning of the current one. whoever it may be.<br /> the fact we are in Iraq is moot. we are there. but we seem to have no clear mission anymore other than to start building permanant bases in the area.<br /> the only FACT that cannot be gotten around is we handed Russia its veitnam and watched how their war machine worked while training radicals how to fight the fight they are using on us today. seems the old saying of you reap what you sow is true.
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: More political correctness

Rodbolt,<br /><br />A proven liar in Wilson is your source. A far left liberal that claims Cheney approved his investigation. Lets not be miopic.<br /><br />This is long but on point:<br /><br />The UN, Al-Tuwaitha, and Nukes <br />By Douglas Hanson<br />The American Thinker, July 20, 2004<br /><br />The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was very upset last week that the US had shipped about 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and other radioactive material out of Iraq for disposition in the US. One would think that the IAEA would have appreciated our work in assisting them in the implementation of the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in this particularly volatile region of the world. But one would be wrong.<br /><br />The actions, or more appropriately, the inactions of the IAEA regarding Iraq since the end of Gulf War I, betray the agency’s true agenda. Rather than inspect, report, and implement restrictions in accordance with the provisions in the treaty, the agency has in effect become an enabler of rogue nations who are attempting, or who have already succeeded in developing or acquiring special nuclear material and equipment. In other words, the IAEA is simply a reflection of its parent organization, which routinely delays and obfuscates the efforts of the US and the UK in controlling banned substances and delivery systems.<br /><br />Time after time, the agency has either intentionally or naively bought into the lies and deceptions contrived by nations of the Axis of Evil during IAEA visits and inspections. In most cases, the IAEA avoids confrontation like the plague in order to maintain access to the facilities. If they are booted out, as was the case with North Korea, their impotence is on display for all to see. In other cases, the agency joins in the deception, thereby allowing these rogue states to level the nuclear playing field with the West and Russia. Their reaction to the shipment of nuclear material out of Saddam’s nuclear research center at Al-Tuwaitha is a perfect example of this tactic.<br /><br />The nuclear research center of Al-Tuwaitha is a 23,000 acre site located about 20 kilometers south-southeast of Baghdad. Most reports of the transfer of the low-enriched uranium out of the country correctly refer to the source location of the uranium as at Tuwaitha Site C. But there is much more material stored at this huge site, and there are more facilities at Tuwaitha that have contributed significantly to the overall capabilities of the research center. These key facilities are, of course, generally ignored in major press reports.<br /><br />Site C is a relatively small site as compared to the rest of the reservation, but the amount of material stored there is not insignificant. In addition to the nearly two tons of low-enriched uranium secured by the US, Site C was home to an additional 500 tons of yellowcake uranium,* This is a conservative estimate as initially reported by Coalition personnel from the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). Ironically, this initial figure is backed up by, of all organizations, Greenpeace.<br /><br />Yellowcake is uranium ore that has been milled to produce a pure form of the substance known as Uranium Oxide. Further processes, such as conversion and enrichment, are required to make the yellowcake suitable for use as nuclear fuel in a reactor or for use in a nuclear weapon. Interestingly, a quantity of depleted uranium was also found at Tuwaitha. This implies that some enrichment processes occurred on-site, as depleted uranium is the natural byproduct of the enrichment process.<br /><br />In addition to the yellowcake, approximately 300 tons of radioisotopes for industrial and medical uses were stored at primarily Site B. These materials, numbering over 1000 radioactive items retrieved from the site, included Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60. Both are extremely radioactive substances that are ideal for use in Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD), or “dirty bombs.”<br /><br />There are also three key facilities on the Al-Tuwaitha reservation that are rarely mentioned in media accounts of the transfer. First, there is the French reactor at Site B, better known as Osirak, which was destroyed by the Israelis in 1981 in Operation Opera. The second facility is the Russian built reactor at Site A, destroyed by the US in Gulf War I in 1991. The third facility is a fuel fabrication plant at Site D, also destroyed in 1991. All three facilities have never been rebuilt. All spent fuel or fresh fuel was sent back to the country of origin after Gulf War I.<br /><br />Now, the IAEA complains that the Department of Energy (DOE) shipped the radioactive materials to the US without UN permission. The agency’s rationale is that there was<br /><br />some concern about the legality of the U.S. transfer because the nuclear material belonged to Iraq and was under the control and supervision of the IAEA.<br /><br />The material at Tuwaitha is also characterized as being “under IAEA seal and control.” The article states that only two tons of yellowcake remained at Al-Tuwaitha after Gulf War I. This is simply incorrect, according to my own sources. Either the AP, the IAEA, or both, are misrepresenting the facts.<br /><br />All of this begs the question: why did the IAEA allow Iraq to retain such massive amounts of nuclear material, when its three nuclear facilities had been destroyed over 12 years ago, and have never been repaired? In fact, the Russian reactor is so hot, it would take years to clean up the facility; it’s a total write off. Iraq had no legitimate reason to have possessed the yellowcake.<br /><br />And speaking of the storage and accountability of the radioactive material, who maintained those seals, anyway? Let’s see the paperwork.<br /><br />And why didn’t the UN ship the yellowcake and the low-enriched uranium out of the country 12 years ago? Wouldn’t the UN be interested in denying Saddam the nuclear raw materials, in case he decided to conduct enrichment by calutron at facilities such as Tarmiya and al-Fajar?<br /><br />It appears the IAEA is not really interested in non-proliferation at all; otherwise this material would have long ago been safeguarded in another country. Thankfully, this overdue evacuation of a dangerous stockpile has finally been started by the DOE, even if much more remains to be done.<br /><br />Department of Energy officials estimated that the two tons of low-enriched uranium shipped to the US, given further refinement, is enough to produce one nuclear bomb. The number of bombs that could be made from the over 500 tons of yellowcake is frightening, and, had the coalition not attacked Iraq, Saddam’s nuclear bomb stockpile may have become reality. The IAEA would have us believe that the massive amount of yellowcake on-site and the depleted uranium find were just due to the Iraqis pursuing enrichment techniques in order to provide fuel for two destroyed reactors. This is what the UN views as nuclear research for “peaceful purposes.” Simply put, Saddam had retained a nuclear weapons regeneration capability in the same way he did for biological and chemical weapons production.<br /><br />The IAEA chief, Mohamed El-Baradei is distraught at the secretive nature of the US transfer of nuclear materials out of Iraq. He also continues to opine about the US confronting Tehran about its 18 year effort to conceal its nuclear weapon activities. Most analysts say the mullahs will produce a bomb in short order. El-Baradei said that he didn’t want to take the Iran issue before the UN Security Council because<br /><br />You are running the risk that the Security Council might not act and therefore the situation would exacerbate. And you run the risk that Iran might opt out of the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and you have another North Korea.<br /><br />In other words, the chief of the UN nuclear watchdog agency doesn’t want to notify the member nations of the UN Security Council of the Iranian breach of treaty provisions, because the council might then institute economic sanctions, and then Iran might opt out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and then expel UN inspectors, and then some big US city is blown to smithereens -- well, you get the idea.<br /><br />The UN and its so-called nuclear watchdog agency have proven again that they are not about preventing the proliferation of WMD, but in reality, unwittingly or intentionally, assist rogue nations’ nuclear weapons programs. Their track record over the last decade includes abject failure in North Korea, allowing a sadistic dictator to keep nuclear materials to fuel non-operational reactors, and now they are afraid to truthfully report the critical situation in Iran to the Security Council<br /><br />Douglas Hanson was the Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Science and Technology for the Coalition Provisional Authority during the Summer of 2003. As then, the Iraqi-controlled ministry today has oversight of Al-Tuwaitha and its 3000 scientists and engineers of the now-disbanded Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission.
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: More political correctness

I can't imagine why I would think teachers lean towards the liberal. 98.8% of their unions national contributions go to democrats.<br /> <br /><br /><br />PAC Data<br /><br />The National Education Association has changed its PAC name to "The NEA Fund for Children and Public Education." References to NEA-PAC below remain due to the timeframe to which they refer.<br /><br />In 1972, the NEA established the National Education Association Political Action Committee (NEA-PAC) as a separate fund to support its endorsed candidates for national office. NEA-PAC generated $4,896,927 in 1995-1996 and spent $5,031,657 during the 1996 election cycle.<br /><br />The breakdown in political contributions by NEA-PAC and AFT-COPE for the 2000 and 1998 election cycles are as follow:<br /><br /><br />AFT Political Contributions to candidates as of 12/13/00 (for 2000 election cycle) <br /> Dollar Amount <br /> Percent of Total <br /> <br />Democrat <br /> 1,471,580 <br /> 98.80 <br /> <br />Republican <br /> 16,900 <br /> 1.13 <br /> <br />Other <br /> 1,000 <br /> .07 <br /> <br />Total <br /> 1,489,480 <br /> 100<br /><br />JUST THE FACTS<br /><br />Columns Teacher unions get active<br />Jun 23, 2004<br />by Linda Chavez <br /><br /> School's out, but the nation's teacher unions will be working overtime this summer to help elect John Kerry president. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) will host John Kerry at their convention next month, and the National Education Association (NEA) has launched a new ad campaign in several battleground states to attack President Bush's education record. The ads claim the president's No Child Left Behind Act "forces teachers to drill students for standardized tests," which, it contends, "hurts kids today and limits them in the future." <br /> <br />Teacher union members will be the biggest single contingent of delegates to the Democratic Convention in Boston later in July, just as they were in 2000, when more than 350 NEA members and 152 AFT members were Democratic delegates. In addition, teacher unions will donate millions to elect Democrats at all levels of government. Indeed, the NEA and AFT are two of the top 13 all-time donors to the Democratic Party since 1978, giving nearly $12.4 million to Democrats as of June 2003, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
 

jimonica

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
313
Re: More political correctness

Quietcat,<br />I don't know why you are having such a hard time grasping the fact that the point I made was that no time in our country's history has a political party veered so far to the right. And on an international scale the only regimes that I can think of that was farther to right on the political spectrum was Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Nobody is comparing the massacre of Jews to what Bush is doing today. <br />I suspect that your outrage is somewhat of a defense mechanism because I've got you and Pointer94 boxed into a corner on this issue. <br />And to finish my point on this, todays Republican party is far to the right and the Democrats are firmly in the middle.<br /><br />Pointer94,<br />I think it needs to pointed out that this thread started with the subject of political correctness and flower children, which I kind of got a kick out of. <br />I think I pretty much won the debate on the flower children running the country, maybe it was a joke, it was just too easy to debunk.<br />Then you came along on your next two post and brought up 17 different subjects. Basically painting liberals as extreme wackos.<br />So rather than respond to all seventeen of your charges, I thought it would be much easier to just point out to you who the real extremist are.<br />Hence, my crude example of a yardstick to gauge where we stand politically. <br />I believe I've proven my point pretty good, since none of you conservatives on this board has been able to show me when at any time in our history we have ever been farther to right than we are today. And if we go back to the yard stick the Democrats are in the middle and the only political regimes farther to right of todays Republican party was Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy.<br />Apparently you can't debunk my opinion on this, that is why as of last count you've brought up 25 different subjects. A little hint Pointer94 if you want to change subjects, start a new post.<br />Having said that I will respond to a couple of your charges. Cindy Sheehan lost a son in a war based on lies. She has every right to be pissed off and I'll give her a pass if she says a few inflammatory things. I still don't see where she supports the terrorist. I think the Republicans are reaching just a little bit by beating up on this grieving woman. <br />Now on this article by Douglas Hanson of The American Thinker, it was completely misleading. The low grade uranium could only be used to make a "dirty bomb". And we knew they had this material since the first Gulf War. In 1992, after the first Gulf War, all highly enriched uranium, which could be used to make nuclear weapons, was shipped from Iraq to Russia.<br />Reading this article you supplied us with, one would think that Iraq was on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb.<br />Among the low-grade uranium was radioactive items used for medical, agricultural and industrial purposes. <br />Below I'll supply 2 web sites to view an unbiased report on this issue.<br /> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm <br />newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/7221342.shtml Pointer94, I'll be glad to debate you on any issue of your choosing, but this shot gun approach of just attacking and throwing out every accusation under the sun just to cover up the fact that you may have been stumped does not fly with me. <br />Start a new post one subject at time and we can have some fun.
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: More political correctness

jimonnica,<br /><br />I am not defensive. I am offended. I just want you to answer my questions. Do you believe what you said? Quoting once more "might have an argument that Hitler's Germany . . . where (sic) to the right of today's Republican party".<br /><br />What is P'ing me O is the word "might". It is very easy for some to throw out useless quotes to support their position. I want to know if you truly believe that there is only a slight move from the current Republican Party to Hitler's Germany. If you don't mean that, retract it, and tell me what you mean. You need to consider the literal interpretation of your words or I will dismiss ALL of them. Defend them if you must, but those words offend me as an American and they should offend all Americans. I have said this now four different times in four different ways. Not sure why I am confusing you? You keep saying that you are trying to support that this is the farthest right we have ever been. I don't agree, and your supporting statement makes me want to puke!!
 

SCO

Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 19, 2001
Messages
1,463
Re: More political correctness

The definitions of far right Jimonica. You say the Bush repubs are all the way to the right on your scale. What is the far right part? Capitalism? invading Iraq? FDR certainly invaded Germany though they didn't attack us. There were plenty of anti war people around at that time. Charles Lindburg comes to mind. There will always be people that have your view, and this is nothing new or invented by the "rad right" stance of the Bush administration. All presidents believe in capitalism though many tar and feather business simultaneously. Is capitalism a problem or the bedrock of our economy, national health, might, and the historical reason that we have become powerful. Was the gulf war legit? THis one is a continuation of the gulf war since Saddam didnt comply with the terms of surrender. Bush went to Iraq because he thought that would knock a leg from under the growing islamic threat. I think he has been successfull at that. I suppose the difference in my perspective and yours is our respective perceptions of how big of a threat it is that we face, and how we can address the problem. It will take a wmd in one or more of our major cities to get people like you on board. It can and will happen unless we can stop them...they are engineers, are funded, motivated, and their movement grew unabated till 911. Bush is trying to stop them on our behalf. It's his duty as President. I'm behind him as are many of my brothers and sisters, and our views are the legitimite electoral mandate for him. Lest you cite a poll that says a percentage is against the war now, that's why we have a representative government.
 

alden135

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,770
Re: More political correctness

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br /> CJY,<br /><br /> He is spending like a sailor,
I'm offended by that remark. ;)
 
Top