Bush Said His Nominees Won’t Change Their Minds In 20 Years
Bush Said His Nominees Won’t Change Their Minds In 20 Years
Documents released yesterday revealed that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in 1985 that he personally believed the Constitution did not protect a woman’s right to an abortion:
Conservatives are arguing that what Alito thought 20 years ago doesn’t matter. But President Bush explicitly said that one of his considerations in nominating a Supreme Court justice is finding someone whose views would not change over a 20-year timeframe. From Bush’s 10/4/05 press conference:
Thirdly, I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today. … And that’s important to me. It was important to me when I picked Chief Justice Roberts; it’s important for me in picking Harriet Miers.
One can only assume that it was also important to him when he selected Judge Alito.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Is there any question at this point that Alito would not oppose Roe v. Wade?
November 15th, 2005 at 10:15 am“Alito is against race based preferences like affirmative action – like most of America is. That is a good thing.â€
-
-Northeast Dilemma
November 15th, 2005 at 10:16 am“Bush can appoint Condi to VP and try to “heal†the country. The first female and black VP – major achievementâ€
-Northeast Dilemma
November 15th, 2005 at 10:17 am“Had [Joe Wilson] not tried to exploit his wife’s position to attack the Admin, [Valerie Plame] would have never been outed.â€
-Northeast Dilemma
November 15th, 2005 at 10:18 amGREAT NEWS BELOW!
President’s approval ratings keep sinking (2:02)
November 15th, 2005 at 10:22 amNED you need to take more pills, your stupidity is showing once again.
It is NEVER OK to disclose a CIA operative, PERIOD. It’s like saying, well officer I only had 2 beers so I am fine to drive why are you arresting me?
This is an insane point of view you have.
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, GROW UP!
November 15th, 2005 at 10:24 amAlito will be confirmed – if you have a problem with that, try winning elections instead of lying.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:25 am#7,
Instead of stealing elections, why not have your republican friends win the honest way, through a vote that has a paper trail?
November 15th, 2005 at 10:27 am“he will pack the Court with judges that think like me!”
-Northeast Dilemma
November 15th, 2005 at 10:28 amATV – perfect. DeNeD before he posts the same drivel. A dose of ole NeD served up as an appetizer. Because of his lack of random self thought, his constant jargon has been marginalized. He is kind of silly though. I think I remember him saying Bush was the best president ever. Bush doesn’t even believe that. Goofball lemming.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:31 amNo one knows how a judge is going to vote on a case.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:32 amDems will win in 2006 and 2008.
Do you have a crystal ball that you know that Alito will be confirmed.
Lying about what NeD?
November 15th, 2005 at 10:35 am#8 — Instead of whining about the other side stealing elections (which is comepletely false BTW), why don’t you concentrate on actually having a message that appeals to the American people? Then maybe you can appoint the kind of judges you want.
Alito will be confirmed.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:35 amNED won’t even try to explain the inconsistancies of his remarks. He’s a true Neocon.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:38 amAlito’s sweaty countenance will be plastered all over our average tv’s with images of 10 year old girls being illegally stripped searched.
good luck implant
November 15th, 2005 at 10:42 am#12 P&P,
November 15th, 2005 at 10:43 amI tried that yesterday – no answer. No idea what these left wing lies are, but knows that they exist. Must be psychic or psychotic – you choose.
I can’t believe that anyone really thinks the document excerpt you show could be legimate. It was obviously done with a monospaced font that looks remarkedly like “Courier”.
As we all learned in the fall of 2004 well before 1985 all documents from the 1970s on were done in proportional font with superscripts, automatic centering and kerning on magic typewriters. A document supposedly from 1985 in a monospaced font would have to be an obvious forgery.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:46 amAndy – I wish the GOP was stealing elections than I wouldn’t have to worry about falling poll numbers. Unfortunately, your left-wing propoganda is not reality.
PP – f*ck you.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:46 am#16 — probably the two biggest lies on this website (and others) that get repeated over and over are:
November 15th, 2005 at 10:50 am1. Bush lied to get us into the war, and
2. The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were stolen.
“I wish the GOP was stealing elections”
Northeast Dilemma
November 15th, 2005 at 10:52 am#17-
November 15th, 2005 at 10:54 amOr in a mono-spaced font (as are most legal documents are done to this day).
“Bush lied to get us into the war”
-cynicon implant
November 15th, 2005 at 10:55 am#13 see the link below which has some strong evidence that in fact there was tampering with the voting machines.
http://www.yuricareport.com/VotingProblems/GAORptConfirmsElectionFindings.html
November 15th, 2005 at 10:55 am“The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were stolen.”
-cynicon implant
November 15th, 2005 at 10:56 amNeD knows most people DO NOT think like him. The difference with us and the NeDs of the world is simple. We don’t care what others think, if right is right, that is what we must do. We live to do what is right for all people and value every citizen equally. Folks like NeD MUST be in the majority or they will crumble. They are scared of being outsiders because that is what they think of themselves.
NeD, you dost protest too much.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:02 amNice and Christian of you, NeD. I would expect no more from you.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:02 amUhhhh, No. 2. What preference got Shrub into college? Is that preference also good?
November 15th, 2005 at 11:09 amDevisive, nasty, ungodly, hateful trolls. Me me me is all they whine about. The judges “we” want, the judges “you” want. Nice and devisive for our nation in turmoil and at war.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:10 amNo. 4. It’s everyone’s right to attack the administration. This is America.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:10 amJudd,
Quoting Bush’s statement regarding his judgment on whether a person will change his or her views in twenty years or not isn’t worth commenting on, considering the source. But I just did.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:12 amPP – it is nice and Christian of you to root for our enemies to prove some point about WMD that both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for. The sad thing is – you may succeed and we could lose the war in Iraq. The left will blame Bush, but I blame people like you who have an ideological agenda that mirrors the French – weakness. You’re moral relativism is sick and disgusting and one day it will bite you in the ass.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:16 amThe only people still defending Bush are the Bible liars. Fair minded Republicans have jumped ship. Bush is over. Just accept it. Find another leader – it’s time.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:16 amTo trolls, the fact that Clarence Thomas shirked his patriotic duty and then survived ONLY with the aid of affirmative action is irrelevant because that was then and this is now. Conversely, they mention Clinton ALL OF THE TIME but you won’t hear that was then and this now from them. They change their rules as they see fit and those don’t apply to them unless they will be beneficial.
They are easy, simple and loaded with contradictions. Either they see it and are evil or they don’t and are stupid. Tough breaks for them coming because their worst case scenario is coming to fruition – they are the minority. They know that Bush would not be elected today or if anyone had any forsight at all. He was elected because he USED GOD. He will pay in history.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:17 amNED,
Bushco started the Iraq pullout a long time ago. They had a narrow window. They could not pull it off. PNAC requested of congress troop increases at the turn of the year and they couldn’t get anyone to enlist.
Fact is, people don’t believe the lie that our safety depends on the democratization of Muslims. Not anymore. In fact, it causes inflation because it’s a bad investment. Bush gambled that nation building would end terror. He was wrong. He knows it. It’s over.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:24 amPP – how dare you. Bush was elected because you people pissed on God. You don’t debate issues anymore – it’s the non-believers vrs. believers to you. What you’re to sheltered and ignorant to know is there is alot of people who are not that religious that are afraid of liberal’s ideological, anti-American agenda. The sheer fact you are fighting to keep military off campuses shows how out of step you are.
To trash Bush as the divider is simply disingenous. The left’s hatred for religion gave him all he needed to crush you at the polls. AND we will continue to do so until you stop your bigotry.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:24 amAh, NED,
Since when is it anti-American to oppose imperialism and the curtailment of our civil liberties?
November 15th, 2005 at 11:29 amsupport the troops
my god is better than your god
we’re the good guys
we care about iraqi women civil rights
we won because our god is an awesome god he reigns…
When you hear these comments comin’ it’s too late. It’s over. I want my money back from Iraq.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:31 amDilemma
…and there are a lot of people who are religous who are frightened of corruption, lies, imperialism, government abuse, govt. ineptitude…
You think you, as a neocon, have cornered the market on morality. YOU HAVVEN’T!
November 15th, 2005 at 11:34 am” What you’re to sheltered and ignorant to know is there is alot of people who are not that religious that are afraid of liberal’s ideological, anti-American agenda. The sheer fact you are fighting to keep military off campuses shows how out of step you are.
To trash Bush as the divider is simply disingenous. The left’s hatred for religion gave him all he needed to crush you at the polls. AND we will continue to do so until you stop your bigotry. ”
Doesn’t this just make you want to puke? When will you stop your bigotry against gay people? Or, is that ok cause it’s in the “bible”?
November 15th, 2005 at 11:37 amNED,
Bush was elected because “we” pissed on your/his “god?” And you question OUR sanity?
Look, being a pacifist is not a sign of weakness. It’s a sign of compassion. It’s a sign of intelligence. Understanding that there are always ways to solve problems without violence is simply the evolution of the human mind. Those like you, at least what I know of you, are simply not in touch with yourself outside of only those things that give you the most pleasure, the most satisfaction, with the least amount of effort.
It’s far more difficult in the SHORT term to be free, and embrace the liberties of all people then it is to divide people and control them. However, history shows us, that in the LONG run the people will not be stripped of their liberties, and will not be controlled. Your president relies on his short term gains, and, like you, goes after all the “low hanging fruit” he can. But time will ground away all his wrong doings, and show that he and his are lower forms of humans; people who only care about their pocket books, and the pocket books of their friends, instead of the greater good for man. Today, we need the exact opposite of who Bush is. The longer we go with him and his in office, the more damage we have to correct later.
“Only those who slavishly worship success can think effectiveness is admirable, without regard to what is affected.” -Bertrand Russell
November 15th, 2005 at 11:44 amYou know what else is in the Bible? I’ve actually read it.
OK to have slaves; women shouldn’t talk; OK to sell slaves; OK NOT to give money to poor – instead, buy yourself expensive oils; women should obey husband.
Leviticus? Please! Let’s pick and choose our passages today, so we can tell people what to do with their sexual organs.
Here’s and idea: You worry about your organ, and I’ll worry about mine.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:47 am“Thirdly, I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change”
That’s the delusion most men live with. EVERYONE changes, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but absolutely no one is the same person they were 20 years ago, or will be in 20 years.
GWB really does think we’re retarded, doesn’t he?
November 15th, 2005 at 11:48 am#42 – “Here’s and idea: You worry about your organ, and I’ll worry about mine.”
God, that’s funny, FedUp!
November 15th, 2005 at 11:50 amThanks, Zookeeper.
November 15th, 2005 at 12:01 pmBush does not have one single guiding principle but “look out for #1″.
We will be paying for years.
November 15th, 2005 at 12:03 pmElvis, wrong, but interesting.
November 15th, 2005 at 12:20 pmElvis
Exactly!
November 15th, 2005 at 12:50 pmEveryone heard NED say it, he wishes republicans were stealing elections. This is it folks, the reasons republicans DO steal elections, because they’re self righteous immoral pricks who prefer to ’steal’ rather than win fairly.
I would not prefer that democrats steal elections, this is immoral. But here we are, with republicans who not only prefer to steal the election but who’ve been INDICTED because they stole the election. Two Ohioans have already been arrested, surely more will be after this 2005 election caper!
REPUBLICANS ARE LIAR, THEIVES AND TERRORISTS WHO CREATED ALQUEDA!
November 15th, 2005 at 12:52 pmOkay NED,
If I’m wrong, then tell me how and where I’m wrong?
Anyone can say “wrong,” and walk away. Can you say “wrong” and prove me wrong?
November 15th, 2005 at 12:59 pmRyan – having flashbacks about getting beat up on the playground again???
I love that Ohio soundly defeated George Soros’ proposals.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:00 pmI can’t believe that anyone really thinks the document excerpt you show could be legimate. It was obviously done with a monospaced font that looks remarkedly like “Courierâ€.
Comment by Tom the Barbarian — November 15, 2005 @ 10:46 am
Err….. Don’t look now Tom, but Alito is NOT questioning the legitimacy of the document –instead, he is trying to explain his statement by saying: “I was an advocate seeking a job, it was a political job and that was 1985. I’m now a judge, I’ve been on the circuit court for 15 years and it’s very different. I’m not an advocate, I don’t give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law.”
So, the document’s authenticity is not in question.
Also, notice how Alito says things are *very different* –in other words, he has changed.
Alito downplays 1985 abortion statement:
November 15th, 2005 at 1:01 pmhttp://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13166998.htm
Dilemma
Feeling guilty about same sex attraction? Come on, you’ll get use to it…
Why don’t you try to argue constructively? Anyone can be a jerk.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:04 pmNED,
I’ve already corrected you this and many of your other lies. I’ve never been beaten up in my life – but you clearly have. It’s they only way to explain your pathetic psychosis.
Who did it NED? Who beat you up? Was there ’sex’ involved? You’re clearly messed up, so the only way that happens is through abuse…
November 15th, 2005 at 1:08 pmIt is not us that will be paying for this for years to come. It is our children and grandchildren that will be paying for this. Who knows what Old Bushie will do in the next three years. Dems need to take over congress in 2006. Heaven help us all. He needs to be impeached before 2008.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:08 pmNED,
You know your republicans stole that election in ohio last week. The numbers don’t add up. You know what numbers are, right? You’re a whacko rightwinger who believes on fairy tales, but you don’t believe in math – that’s right, I almost forgot…
ISSUE 1 ($2 Billion State Bond initiative)
PRE-POLLING: 53% Yes, 27% No, 20% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 54% Yes, 45% No
ISSUE 2 (Allow easier absentee balloting)
PRE-POLLING: 59% Yes, 33% No, 9% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 36% Yes, 63% No
ISSUE 3 (Revise campaign contribution limits)
PRE-POLLING: 61% Yes, 25% No, 14% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 33% Yes, 66% No
ISSUE 4 (Ind. Comm. to draw Congressional Districts)
PRE-POLLING: 31% Yes, 45% No, 25% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 30% Yes, 69% No
ISSUE 5 (Ind. Board instead of Sec. of State to oversee elections)
PRE-POLLING: 41% Yes, 43% No, 16% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 29% Yes, 70% No
Now, you tell us…What could possibly explain such unheard of differences between the Dispatch’s poll and the final results?
Now, we’ll tell you…This was the year that Ohio, under the encouragement and mandates of Blackwell, rolled out new Electronic Touch-Screen Voting Machines in 44 of its 88 counties…41 of them employing the same Diebold Touch-Screen Machines that California’s Republican Sec. of State decertified in this state when 20% of them failed this summer in the largest test of its kind ever held.
Those would be the very same Electronic Voting Machines which a recent GAO Report (still unmentioned by a single wire-service or mainstream American newspaper) confirmed to be easily hackable.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:10 pmThe discrepency between poll numbers and outcome are a GUARANTEE that Blackwell once again stole an election that’s sole purpose was to clean up the dirty machines.
Republican crooks in ohio are petty thieves, immoral and evil thugs. And they’re UNAMERICAN – just like NED!
November 15th, 2005 at 1:11 pmEveryone notice how issue 1 which didn’t freak out the republican fraud and thief establishment polled identically to the final results. But how all of the reform measures actually voted the OPPOSITE of the approval, or in some cases with 100% independent voter towards them? That’s not only statistically impossible, by international voting standards that our own state department uses, it’s ELECTION FRAUD! And UNDENIABLE, except by dictators and crooks like NED.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:13 pmStatistically impossible? That’s a pretty strong statement to make. Improbable or surprising, maybe … impossible, well, clearly not. Are you also saying that it’s election fraud when pre-poll numbers don’t match outcomes … I’m confused. Doesn’t that highly depend on who does the original polling? Not everything is a conspiracy … do you not believe that a conservative measure or candidate could win on their own merits?
November 15th, 2005 at 1:27 pmNED, I didn’t realize you were a Stalinist. I guess you’re in favor of strip-searching ten-year-old girls. That’s what Alioto wants, with or without a warrant. I don’t think conservatives realize that this is no Scalia. Scalia would not have approved strip searching ten-year-old girls without a warrant because, like him or not, he at least makes a weak effort at being consistent in his views of limited government.
Alito is result-oriented, former U.S. Attorney/Federalist Society hack with half a brain. Lock up your daughters, set your trap guns, and say goodbye to your privacy, because they’re coming through the front door with the permission of the Supreme Court of the United States.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:28 pmOne of the problems in dealing with absolutes – as Bush is wont’ to do – is that those words can come back to haunt you.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:41 pmThe lying R’s can shrug this off as old and irrelevant, but when they do, they contradict Bush himself, who says people don’t change their minds. We all know he doesn’t change his mind. He forms an opinion based on God-knows-what and never changes his mind. He is stubborn, belligerent and dangerous.
Alito is going to be a problem, and rightly so. He has the appearance of mild-mannered, but he is a determined idealogue — a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Uhm … he wasn’t saying he “was in favor of strip searching ten year old girls” … that’s not his role. Judge Alito made it clear that he was not pleased by the fact that searches of this nature may be necessary. But, as in so many other instances, the problem doesn’t arise from gratuitous malice on the part of police officers, it arises from the tactics of drug dealers … he basically state that, given that, the search did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. Here’s the actual quote …
“I share the majority’s visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe’s young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face. Because the warrant in this case authorized the searches that are challenged – and because a reasonable officer, in any event, certainly could have thought that the warrant conferred such authority – I would reverse.”
… so be pragmatic Pragmatist … but tell the whole truth.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:43 pm#61: I hear you; saying he was in favor of strip searching 10-year-olds is a rhetorical device. But here’s the problem:
“Because the warrant in this case authorized the searches that are challenged – and because a reasonable officer, in any event, certainly could have thought that the warrant conferred such authority – I would reverse.”
1. There was no search warrant for people; it was a warrant to search the premises, and in the course of searching the premises the police may frisk and do other protective searches, but may NOT (as the majority held!) strip search those in the house. Are you prepared if you and your family are in the wrong place at the wrong time to let the cops strip search your child? Would that be ok with you under ANY circumstances? I think not.
2. “[A] reasonable officer certainly could have thought”? Now there’s a slippery slope if I’ve ever heard one. Do you really think it’s reasonable to think that a search warrant for a house entitles you to strip the guy’s daughter? Do you have daughters? Do you have children? Do you seriously believe cops – who, after all, are just people – are above taking retaliatory (and violent) action against suspected drug dealers, like humiliating their families? Do you really trust the police to limit their newfound discretion to that situation?
For Alito to come to that decision, he has to believe that it’s ok for society to leave it up to your average cop to decide ON THE SPOT whether to strip your children naked and stick a flashlight into their body cavities. If it is really such a great fear that the drugs are hidden on the girl, then they should hold her and go back to the magistrate and get another goddamn warrant. Those things are rubber stamps anyway; why is it too much to ask that they at least gesture vaguely towards the 4th Amendment? Or did they not go back to the magistrate because the knew the request would be denied?
The system is so stacked against the individual and for the state now that I just do not understand how anyone that’s not already a result-oriented U.S. attorney would want give the cops even more leeway.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:13 pm“I wish the GOP was stealing electionsâ€
Northeast Dilemma
November 15th, 2005 at 2:27 pmGiacamo,
A fascist can always find an excuse to violate civil liberties and put the innocent in harms way, you clearly demostrate this trait.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:41 pmElvis (#41): “being a pacifist is not a sign of weakness. It’s a sign of compassion. It’s a sign of intelligence. Understanding that there are always ways to solve problems without violence is simply the evolution of the human mind.”
The arrogance if this statement captures perfectly the liberal mindset. Allow me to paraphrase: “We are smarter and more highly evolved that you cro-magnon conservatives”.
Why is it that liberals ensist that their positions are always the more enlightened and intelligent ones? — that conservative motives are more base (greed, etc.) and simplistic?
My guess is that when their ideas and policies are shown to be ineffective (education) or even damaging (welfare) they are reduced to posturing and attacking the character of the other side — because their own position is shallow and mostly wrong.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:46 pmcyniconImplant
We are smarter than you, and in this case you’re mentally disturbed. You focus on ‘beliefs’ and ‘values’, all the while violating them daily as the hypocrite you are. You ignore facts, science and reason and focus on idiot anecdotal preconceptions. You are seen as retarded because you ARE retarded.
From a Q&A with Stephen J. Ducat a psychologist who’s studied the republican whacko
Question: Then peace is a threat to anxious masculinity?
Stephen J. Ducat: It’s a threat because of its link to the feminine. In fact, I have a chapter on the 19th Century, when there was enormous debate about whether the U.S. should embark on the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars. In a number of editorial cartoons, peace itself was personified as female.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:51 pmAs for your ‘anecdotal mythology’ Silicone Boob head.
education in america before public schools
Percentage of ‘white’ children (remember blacks were not allowed to attend school) who were enrolled in schools: 35%
percentage of children in schools today: ~100%
Now how about your smear on poverty.
Percentage of americans in poverty before any social programs went into affect (early 20th century): 40%
Percentage of americans in poverty when Clinton left office: 11%
Not only are your lies easily debunked, but so’s your whacko belief system. Face it nutjob, we’re elite because we READ AND KNOW THINGS, you’re a self made retard. You could ‘probably’ improve, but based on your attitudes and general retardedness, I don’t have much ‘faith’ it will happen.
November 15th, 2005 at 2:56 pmC’mon Ryan … that’s BS. Did you read what Alito said (I quoted it). Pragmatist makes, at least, a lucid and efficient rebuttal. I’m begining to think that you may be an incredibly bright 14 year old, what with fine writing skills coupled with Ad Hominem arguments.
Pragmatist …
November 15th, 2005 at 3:03 pm1) No, I wouldn’t want my daughter strip searched … my concern is somehwat lessened by the fact that I’m neither a drug dealer nor drug runner.
2) Cops are indeed people (and thus fallable) but we as a society do indeed allow them to make tough decisions “ON THE SPOT” … this of course includes the use of deadly force (which, by the way, is a much more influential decision than the one to initiate strip searches). Police officers have explicit trust from society … or else, they can’t carry out their jobs. The fact that bad cops exist shouldn’t change this.
3) This strip search was carried out in a professional manner by a female officer … uncomfortable and somewhat disturbing for the girl to be sure, but not out of the question given the circumstances.
4) I totally disagree with you that the system is stacked against the individual (the majority in this particular case sided with the girl) … no one (when I say no one, I mean the courts) has accused the police officers of malicious intent, no one ascribed alterior motives to the search … they wished to act in the publics best interest which, in this case, was to remove another drug pusher of the streets. My daughter is much more likely to be offered drugs by one of these scumbags than to ever be strip searched by the police. Where is the outrage that the jerk dad was dealing drugs with his daughter nearby … your concern, while well intentioned, is, in my opinion, misdirected here.
Alito, Nah uh… Nada… No Way…
Say it ain’t so Sam. Eh, this is never gonna work (IMO). He’s got some explainin’ to do, uh huh. -Editor
November 15th, 2005 at 3:03 pmGiacomo,
You’re a fool.
Benjamin Franklin:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
He had you and your fellow fascist retards in mind I’m sure.
November 15th, 2005 at 3:07 pmAgain … thanks for making my point, Ryan.
I can do that too …
Benjamin Frankiln
November 15th, 2005 at 3:23 pmTim (or Ryan) was so learned, that he could name a horse in nine Languages.
So ignorant, that he bought a cow to ride on.
Giacomo, don’t worry about Ryan. He calls anyone who disagrees with him a retard.
Probably stems from some deep insecurity he has when arguing with obviously highly intelligent people. But he’s not bad for someone with an 8th grade eduation…
November 15th, 2005 at 3:39 pmGiacamo,
So you smear Franklin when exposed as an idiot. Nice. Truly a ‘republican’ and ‘unamerican’ act. You’re definitely Osama’s boy.
And SiliconeBoob,
Intelligent? Hehe, like bush, you think too highly of yourself in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. You’re definitely a republican!
November 15th, 2005 at 3:43 pmAnd if all it takes is an 8th grade education to embarrass and defeat the arguments a republican, that explains the failures of katrina, iraq and every other republican diasaster.
No wonder you guys are so inept, you’re truly the short bus retarded of american politics! hehehe, fascism = retardation!
November 15th, 2005 at 3:44 pmRyan,
November 15th, 2005 at 3:45 pmNo smearing of BenFran … I was quoting him. Re-read what I said in that light (it’s not a continuous sentence, I forgot the colon)
facism does equal retardation … I guess we can agree on something
November 15th, 2005 at 3:46 pmGiacomo
Fascism = Republicanism
Thanks for confirming you’re a retard.
November 15th, 2005 at 3:56 pmGiacomo,
So you quote an irrelevant statement to demonstrate what? Your ‘franklin quote’ shows a man of humor, your choice of that quote demostrates your a man of idiocy.
November 15th, 2005 at 3:57 pmGiacomo,
Look it up sometime, rightwing = corporatism = fascism = republicanism
You are a fascist you ignorant nitwit!
November 15th, 2005 at 4:00 pmRyan
1) That’s not what you wrote and thus all I commented on … write what you mean to say if you don’t wish it to be picked apart.
2) I was making the point that referencing a quote of a historical figure with a mutally agreed upon significance and greatness is a stupid way of making an argument … as such arguments can be worked in any way the quoter wants to work them. “Ben Frankiln agrees with me” is speculative and unconvincing.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:05 pmFYI Giacomo, you forgot a few facts related to your opinion.
1) Most little girls (including your little bundle of nitwit if she’s like you) is most likely to get her ‘drugs’ from her fellow suburban friends.
2) What you’re really saying is you don’t might a poor black girl getting searched, but you’d be opposed to your daughter getting searched despite the fact that drugs are often as prevalent or MORE prevalent in suburbs.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_04.htm
All you’ve done is demostrate your complete ignorance, bigotry and stupidity, and further shown why republicans are the party of fascism and irresponsible lies!
November 15th, 2005 at 4:08 pmGiacomo,
You didn’t pick it apart, you posted a ridiculous and retarded strawman statement. You wouldn’t know ‘picking apart an argument’ if it came on a bone.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:09 pmDo you know what corporatism means?
Def: The organization of LIBERAL democracies in such a way that the state is the dominant force in society and the activities of all interests in society are subordinate to that force
Oh, and republicanism also means other than what you think
Def: The view that a republic is the best form of government
Again, in your haste to be churlish, I don’t believe you’re writing what you actually mean to say … it’s kind of funny though.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:10 pm1) Where do my little girls friends get those drugs … certainly they don’t grow them … likely a dealer which brings us back to my original point. I will ammend by saying that my daughter is likely to feel the effects of scumbag drug dealers than be strip searched by police if that makes you happy.
2) I didn’t know the little girl was black … I actually imagined her looking somewhat like my own daughter … even so, the prevalence of drugs in suburbs has no bearing on my argument. I don’t deal drugs, hence my daughter is less likely to be stripped. Location is irrelevant (at least it is to me) if the police are trying to act in the public’s interest.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:15 pmOh and I guess you’re right … I didn’t pick apart your argument. I merely ignored what I knew you meant but failed to write correctly … I stand corrected.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:17 pmGiacomo,
Hehe, that’s the best you got. Wow, you are retarded. That isn’t the definition for fascism or corporatism, unless you’re a retarded free republican idiot who’s never done their research.
Go to wikipedia and educate yourself. You clearly are foolish.
Most narrowly defined, fascism is the ideology of Mussolini’s fascist state in Italy. More broadly, a fascist regime is one that
* exalts the state above the individual (whose worth is measured only by one’s loyalty and contribution to the State)
* identifies the state with the nation (nationalism)
* centralizes authority – political, economic, and moral – in the state
* stresses loyalty to the executive ruler of the state
* engages in economic intervention through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State, such as industry and union “corporations” (”industrial boards”, cartels) run by the State.
That IS clearly the value of the republican party.
FOOL!
November 15th, 2005 at 4:19 pmGiacomo,
We both know you’re wrong. Most students get their drugs from ‘friends’, and not the drug dealer on the street – or didn’t you know that? Of course you didn’t, you’re a fool…
Laura bush was the drug dealer for her circle of friends, your ‘imagery’ is both incoherent and inconsistent with the facts.
You are a fool, and a dishonest crackpot.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:21 pmThe state and corporate government are intertwined as we’ve seen from Enron, Halliburton, NewsCorp, Exxon and any number of other industrial ties. Republicans represent american fascism, pure and simple. Your inability to admit this is more of an exercise in your personal delusion than a factual statement.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:23 pmGiacomo,
And your an ignorant fool
At Southern Methodist University in 1968, the future Laura Bush was known as “a go-to girl for dime bags of marijuana,” Kelley writes.
“She not only smoked dope,” claims Robert Nash, described by Kelley as an Austin public relations man who was a “friend of many” of Laura’s classmates. “But she sold dope.”
Early in their marriage, Kelley writes, Bush and Laura would fly down to the island of Tortola in the British Virgin Islands and “enjoy heavy pot-smoking parties.”
November 15th, 2005 at 4:24 pm“Oh and I guess you’re right … I didn’t pick apart your argument. I merely ignored what I knew you meant but failed to write correctly … I stand corrected.
Comment by Giacomo”
Fascists always smear instead of facing the fact that they don’t HAVE a valid argument. To strip search a little girl is not only an offense to american values, but to justify it is foolish, hateful and irresponsible! You are a FOOL, and an IDIOT!
Franklin was right, at least about you!
Benjamin Franklin:
November 15th, 2005 at 4:29 pmThey who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
The definitions I got were from basic Google searches and I’ll admit that there may be more than one definition … point to you
but
My little girls hypothetical drug pushing friends have a source … the drug dealer. I agree that friends pass friends drugs, but that doesn’t change my point at all. And Bushes daughters have even less bearing on the argument … what a huge leap.
My point is 1) my daughter is likely to feel the effects of scumbag drug dealers (because they are the orignal source of the drugs) than be strip searched by police and 2) the police must be allowed to use approprate judgment.
Howsabout you argue my points instead of bringing race, then the Bush family into the fray.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:34 pmYou already quoted that once … didn’t we already cover the fact that quotes are meaningless as they can be manipulated by the quoter … never mind. You don’t seem to be debating me but are just trying to overwhelm with rhetoric. I at least read what you wrote and try to rebut YOUR argument on its merits and not some all encompassing argument that you seem to be out to destroy.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:38 pmFranklin was right, at least about you!
Benjamin Franklin:
November 15th, 2005 at 4:44 pmThey who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Giacomo,
And you once again show your stupidity. Most drug deals do NOT go down on the street. As we’ve seen before, the full force attack on ’street dealers’ has not only not seen a drop in illegal drug sales, but an INCREASE.
So your ‘plan’ is to make yourself feel better, while abusing a child, and yet having NO positive effect on the outcome. You’re a sicko pervert!
November 15th, 2005 at 4:46 pmSingle largest drug problem in the US? METH
Meth is a rural and a suburban problem, and it has basically NO street dealers. What do you intend to do to solve this, strip search all of the kids leaving walmart?
You’re an idiot!
November 15th, 2005 at 4:47 pmAre you saying that 10 to 14 year olds are cooking up meth … or is that the exception. I find it hard to believe that you think drug use is caused by each individual having 100% of their own raw materials for said drug and developing it on their own. Of course meth has major dealers, just like all the other drugs do … simple logic tells one that. And, again, that’s not the point. The point is my own daughter is more likely … oh never mind, you’re not actually reading what I write or you’d not say half the stuff you’ve been writing.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:52 pmGiacomo,
You’re being intellectually dishonest again you retarded dope. Where’d you learn to debate, kindergarten?
Your point isn’t even related to the topic. The fact is that I was arguing children shouldn’t be searched, and you say children are cooking meth.
You’re an idiot!
November 15th, 2005 at 5:05 pmAnd Giacomo, it’s really tiring to educate you on every single point we discuss, you really are quite illiterate aren’t you?
Meth is easily made in a kitchen. Most meth dealers are small time folks who cook up their own personal batches. The idea of a ‘major meth dealer’ is largely an oxymoron – just like you.
November 15th, 2005 at 5:20 pmNobody’s reading what you write, Giac. Nobody here really cares what the fringe zealots think. You being here proves we are more fun, more interesting and more intelligent than the people you “hang” with. You being here with us instead of with your wife/daughter is very enlightening to us. It says a lot about the kind of person/father you are.
Thanks trolls, for always proving to us why we are who we are.
November 15th, 2005 at 5:28 pmGiacomo, Ryan,
I am going to chime in…
Giacomo, you said “My little girls hypothetical drug pushing friends have a source …the drug dealer.”
I don’t know exactly what your image of a drug dealer is –if you think that it is someone down the street, trying to sell his stuff to people out there, you would be wrong.
Here are some statistics:
“In 2003, 29% of all students in grades 9 through 12 reported someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property.”
“On school property”, that is to say by friends, classmates, schoolmates, etc.
Also, 85.8 % of high school seniors reported they could obtain Marijuana fairly easily or very easily in 2004, while 55.4% reported they could obtain Amphetamines.
“In 1999, 37% of students ages 12 through 18 reported that marijuana, cocaine, crack, or upper/downers were available at school.”
“Similar rates of drug availability were reported by:
* white students (39.5%) and black students (33.6%)
* students residing in suburban areas (39.5%), urban areas (33.7%), and rural areas (34.3%)”
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm#Availability
Here is another article that talks about the prevalence and exposure of teens to illegal drugs in high school: http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001536/52/
My point is: Teenagers are very likely to be exposed to illegal drugs while in school. Perhaps as much on school grounds as on the street. (Makes sense, from a marketing perspective: Peddlers take the product where the market is).
Giacomo, you also said: “my concern is somehwat lessened by the fact that I’m neither a drug dealer nor drug runner.” Given the statistics above, I wouldn’t be so confident.
In short, allowing police body searches on minors is to open a Pandora’s box –given the fact that so much drug dealing is done on school grounds. It won’t be just the kids of the drug dealers who would be searched as you imply. If the police decided to raid middle & high schools, they could easily argue that they need to conduct strip searches “ON THE SPOT” (tough decision, right?) on random minors –again, given the statistics.
I don’t know that I would so confidently dismiss the risk of my high school kids being strip searched.
November 15th, 2005 at 5:29 pmYou are right, Ryan. I’m in TN and the meth flows like water. The dealers actually have the kids cook because it is very dangerous and the kids won’t get much jail time. They get the kids hooked and make them buy the shit to make it with. Meth is in grade schools here in the RED south. That what a bunch of repubs have done here. Look at Gore’s, Jr. and Sr., record here and all will see who cares about our kids.
These trolls watch an episode of Law and Order or a Fox “News” hour and think they have learned something. Go back to TV and raise your kids on videos and take them to Wal-Mart for their candy. Shoo trolls, you have shopping to do.
November 15th, 2005 at 5:31 pmGregor, like I said, Giac watches some crime shit on TV and now knows something. Wonder what fairy town he is in?
November 15th, 2005 at 5:33 pmGregor, P&P,
You both remind me of why I’m proud to be a progressive! And you GeoMetro reminds me of why republican ideas go nowhere fast…
November 15th, 2005 at 5:35 pmRyan: take your tranquilizer, jesus!
Giacomo: re your concern more about the drug dealer than the police, there are already many many laws on the books, including the death penalty in some cases, protecting you from drug dealers, as well as thousands of policemen, the military, district attorneys and U.S. attorneys, more and more hangin’ judges, and mandatory sentencing laws. Between your daughter and the police are . . . uh . . . the Bill of Rights . . . er, what’s left of it . . . and uh . . .the ACLU.
November 15th, 2005 at 6:27 pmPragmatist,
I’m perfectly calm, but I don’t tolerate whackos. If you don’t like my style, or you think I’m angry, that’s your projection and your deal, not mine. I’m perfectly calm, thank you very much :)
November 15th, 2005 at 6:48 pmMy main question/points are these (and thanks to Pragmatist and Gregor Samsa for civil responses)
1) I don’t think the police, as a rule, seek to overstep their bounds and impinge upon human rights (I don’t believe they were doing in this case) … given that, I feel more a sense of worry about the drugs/dealers/friends with drugs etc. than I do with the police strip seacrhes as they may pertain to me and mine. In this case, I believe Alito is arguing that given that 1) the drug dealers are the problem and 2) the police did not act in malice and 3) drug dealers ofetn hide drugs on their children … the police did not act in a way that trampled the girls and moms civil rights. Do I think that Alito wants strip searches … his own opinion states otherwise. He does believe that the police need to be given the benefit of this doubt, especially given the points that I previously made … that’s it. I agree with this point. In trying to fight an “enemy” that has no rules to govern them, the police often have to “go” to a place they wish they didn’t (ie. strip search a kid). This phenomenon is not brought on by the police, but those that attempt to escape penalty by hiding behind their children … my point is, where is the outrageous indignation at this turd who had his kid in a place where drugs were present?
If the liberal/left/whatever can be characterized by the level of discourse that I’ve receieved on this site (Ryan and Progressive and Proud) then that’s truly sad … I prefer to believe that most left leaning people are like Pragmatist (and Gregor Samsa) … articulate and thoughtful, but in disagreement with my conclusions. The fact that Ryan can’t seem to understand that his responses make him appear unlearned and reactionary is beyond me. In fact, I can almost predict that one or two posts down, I’ll be branded a facist or idiot. I told Ryan the other day that I read and post on this site precisely to find others who may not believe the same as I, but are at least respectful and honest in a debate/disagreement … I don’t wish to troll, just have intelligent discourse.
November 15th, 2005 at 6:56 pmWhether a group acts in malice or not isn’t the point. Surely most of the nazi secret police felt they weren’t acting in malice.
“3) drug dealers ofetn hide drugs on their children …”
And HOW do you know this? What statistic can you cite? And even if it’s true, does that mean you believe that criminals are often related to other criminals, so does this mean that the police should just have a right to search people’s houses because of this? Your argument is both unfounded and irrationally retarded.
Your attitudes towards searching a little girl, and your completely lack of understanding of civil liberties gives you the title of ‘fascist’ and ‘idiot’. It’s an accurate description.
You don’t want to discuss ideas, you’re here to spread propaganda – that’s obvious by what you state.
As for P&P and myself, we’ve done this for a while, we have seen lots of folks come and ‘pretend’ to want a discourse, and you always degrade into partisan hacks. Call us jaded, call us experienced, but the fact is we no longer have patience for whackos like you.
You aren’t educated on the topics. You come with misinformation, disinformation and propaganda. And you project that bullcrap as though it were true.
Grow up. If you don’t like being criticized when you act like an idiot, well that’s too bad. STOP ACTING LIKE AN IDIOT, and I’ll stop treating you like one.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:02 pmGiacomo demostrates that Franklin was right about republicans.
Benjamin Franklin:
November 15th, 2005 at 7:03 pmThey who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Again with the Ben Franklin … in 7 or so paragraphs you make 1 point and 12 or so attacks Ad Hominem. And I’m the one with misinformation … how do I know that drug dealers hide drugs on their children, beacuse the police have stated as such … and beacuse they wished to search said little girl. Do you think they searched her for giggles?
Yes, it is germaine whether or not the police acted in malice as we are not in Nazi germany (and do not have gustapo for police) … we assume our officers are above board until they’re proven to not be. A strip search for giggles would definitely be an egregious civil rights violation …the police have probable cause … they search. Because it’s uncomfortable or you don’t understand it does not automatically make it wrong.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:11 pmGiacomo demostrates that Franklin was right about republicans.
Benjamin Franklin:
November 15th, 2005 at 7:14 pmThey who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
“how do I know that drug dealers hide drugs on their children, beacuse the police have stated as such … ”
Cite the statistics that bear this out. You’re printing heresay, not evidence. I don’t see evidence, I see opinion stated as fact.
That’s called PROPAGANDA – fascist boy!
November 15th, 2005 at 7:15 pmSTRIP SEARCHING A CHILD BECAUSE OF WHO THEY’RE RELATED TO IS WRONG.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:15 pmAnd you didn’t answer my question. If this is true, then why don’t we search peoples houses without warrants based on who they’re related to?
November 15th, 2005 at 7:16 pmThe fact that you can’t stand my disagreeing with you without labeling me a Nazi or Facist is puzzling. I think you’re out of your mind for trying to hamstring police officers who are out there trying to act in your best interests, but does that make you a Communist? No, it makes you frustratingly biased and annoyingly stubborn but not a Communist. You happen to be an American … one with opinions that are misguided ;-).
November 15th, 2005 at 7:16 pmBecause one needs probable cause … when you bust into a house and the drug dealer has nowhere to stash the drugs, they have, in the past, stashed them on the one person the police wouldn’t think to look or would have trouble looking – the kids. No one’s advocating for random house bashing … look at THIS case only … that’s what we’re discussing.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:18 pmYour values are fascism, the label fits. Sorry you don’t like the truth, but it’s the truth.
And for further demonstrating your idiocy, here comes the commie nonsense.
1) Communism is an ‘economic’, not a ‘political’ system.
2) Every ‘communist’ government has been totalitarian, which is ironically RIGHT WING, with lots of heavy police.
Your ignorance just keeps on coming doesn’t it?
My opinions aren’t misguided, they’re educated – something you clearly don’t understand.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:19 pmWho sad ‘random’, we’re talking profiling relatives, that’s what you did with the daughter.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:20 pmDude you are so making my point … and communism can be an economic or political system … one that’s based on the sharing of all work and property by the whole community … which does tend to be more of a “left” leaning ideology than a right one.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:23 pmGiacomo,
Bullcrap. Communism is an ECONOMIC, not a political system. You’re an idiot!
November 15th, 2005 at 7:24 pmIt doesn’t matter that she was a relative … she was in the house and the police have encountered others who have hid drugs on the kids. This isn’t so much of a reach Ryan … I know you can understand that. Anyhow, I got more work to do … it’s been fun (sort of).
November 15th, 2005 at 7:25 pmFor instance, one could have a full democracy, with a communist economic system. Or one could have a rightwing totalitarian government, with a communist economic system. One can also switch like china has from a left wing to a rightwing economic system, while retaining rightwing political control.
I have a degree in economics you nitwit. You don’t have a CLUE what you’re talking about.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:26 pmWikipedia – Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production. As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society.
It’s both Ryan … later.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:27 pmYour degree in Economics is all fine in good … all I have is my MBA (sorry, you degree dropped first)
November 15th, 2005 at 7:28 pmA major force in world politics since the early 20th century, modern communism is generally associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, according to which the capitalist profit-based system of private ownership is replaced by a communist society in which the means of production are communally owned.
Communism as it is known in the 20th century is effectively entirely economic in nature.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:31 pmOh and that’s from wikipedia as well, you should read the caveats of the definition. Communism as a ‘political system’ has NEVER been implemented, and therefore is not the vernacular of the common term. They should have taught you how to do your research in MBA school – hmm, must have been a night school.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:32 pmGiacomo,
“I don’t think the police, as a rule, seek to overstep their bounds and impinge upon human rights (I don’t believe they were doing in this case)”
The police don’t seek, that’s true –they just do. In most of the globe, the police routinely curtail and violate people’s human rights. Why you would want to adopt their tactics is beyond me.
“drug dealers ofetn hide drugs on their children”
This has the ring of an urban legend. Do you have any statistics to back up that assertion?
“In trying to fight an “enemy†that has no rules to govern them, the police often have to “go†to a place they wish they didn’t”
This is the same excuse given to torture prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, etc.
“This phenomenon is not brought on by the police, but those that attempt to escape penalty by hiding behind their children”
This was the same excuse used to raze Fallujah. Except “evildoers†were hiding behind innocent civilians.
“where is the outrageous indignation at this turd who had his kid in a place where drugs were present?”
I hope those parents rot in hell… if there is one. But do their choices and actions justify yours? Or the police’s?
“I prefer to believe that most left leaning people are like Pragmatist (and Gregor Samsa) … articulate and thoughtful, but in disagreement with my conclusions.”
Thanks for the compliment –I disagree with most of your posts and will keep challenging them.
See, Giacomo, the main issue with your opinions is that you seem to think that run-ins with the police only happen to *them*. That drug addiction cannot happen in your family, only in *their* family (whoever *they* are, and whatever way *they* look like).
You seem to think that if you stay in the straight and narrow path, you will be spared all the ugliness in life –that is not true. Most people, at some point in life, will have some interaction with the police. If you allow the police to conduct random strip searches on people because the police have a suspicion or because the person is related to some “evildoer” and may or may not be involved… well… you are eroding the rule of law. It is especially egregious in the case of minors, in my opinion.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:41 pmYou’re reaching Ryan, it is clearly an economic and politcal system as economic and social policy are always entertwined … here’s the main point. I won’t stoop to calling you a communist (a left leaning idealogy) … we got way off on a tangent. Now I go work … enjoy your evening.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:42 pmShoot … Gregor, I’ll respond later man … when I have time to read what you wrote in detail.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:43 pmGiacomo,
We’ll that would make your stance retarded. Not only am I a successful capitalist, but I’ve never said the rights of private property should abolished – which is a REQUIREMENT of communism. You however are clearly a fascist, and your values match fascism to a tee.
So you can lie about my political positions, just like you lie about everything else, but it won’t make your statements true, and it won’t stop you from being a fascist moron!
November 15th, 2005 at 7:46 pmAnd FYI Giacomo, they STRIP SEARCHED THE LITTLE GIRL WITHOUT A WARRANT.
You are a fascist you sick pervert!
November 15th, 2005 at 7:47 pmI won’t stoop to calling you a communist (a left leaning idealogy) … we got way off on a tangent. Now I go work … enjoy your evening.
Comment by Giacomo — November 15, 2005 @ 7:42 pm
Why is calling someone a communist that bad an insult? Why is calling someone a communist an insult AT ALL?
November 15th, 2005 at 7:49 pmNot the point people … I won’t resort to name calling … period. I will discuss on the arguments merits as I’m able … period.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:54 pmGiacomo,
Name calling is based on an unfair accusation. I merely use descriptive adjectives. Be insulted all you want, it doesn’t change their accuracy.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:57 pmAnd Giacomo,
If I called for the downfall of the republic, or taking away private property you’d have a right to call me a communist. I don’t support either principle.
A police state that does search and seizures in the fashion you defend IS FASCISM – pure and simple. As is the intertwining of corporate and government interests, the fervent nationalism, and the effort by republicans to purge all non-republican party personnel and policies out the window. You have a fascist government, and you’re defending fascist policies. That makes you a fascist.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:00 pm“I find it hard to believe that you think drug use is caused by each individual having 100% of their own raw materials for said drug and developing it on their own. Of course meth has major dealers, just like all the other drugs doâ€
Comment by Giacomo — November 15, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
“The processing required to make methamphetamine from precursor substances is easier and more accessible than ever.
An investment of a few hundred dollars in over-the-counter medications and chemicals can produce thousands of dollars worth of methamphetamine. “
http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/Meth/MethProd.htm
Indiana Drug Threat Assessment Update
“Local independent Caucasian males are the primary producers of methamphetamine in the state.”
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs1/1011/meth.htm
Illinois Drug Threat Assessment Update
“Local independent Caucasian males are the primary producers of methamphetamine in the state.”
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs1/1010/meth.htm
Commonly known as “crystal,†“speed,†“meth,†or “Tinaâ€, it is a white or off-white, odorless, bitter-tasting crystalline powder that easily dissolves in water.
New York State Office of Alcoholism and substance Abuse Services
November 15th, 2005 at 8:17 pm“Methamphetamine is called the “trailer-park drug†because it can be prepared easily and cheaply and, therefore, has an extremely high profit margin. For example, with an investment of $500 and some basic knowledge of chemistry, one can produce a pound of pure, uncut methamphetamine worth $20,000 – $30, 000 on the street. Highly mobile, clandestine laboratories, called “box labs,†have sprouted up in remote areas all across the country to produce this drug.â€
http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/AdMed/drugs/fyimeth.htm
Oops! Forgot to include the link:
November 15th, 2005 at 8:19 pm“Commonly known as “crystal,†“speed,†“meth,†or “Tinaâ€, it is a white or off-white, odorless, bitter-tasting crystalline powder that easily dissolves in water.(…)
The most common way to produce meth is a quick-cook process that requires only a few hours.”
http://www.sfaf.org/aboutaids/faq_meth.html
Gregor,
Thanks for demostrating the ignorance and idiocy of GeoMetro once again. He clearly demonstrates like the car, he’s going nowhere fast!
Why is it that republicans are consistently so ignorant and arrogant in the same breath? They’re such retarded aholes.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:20 pmYes it’s easy to produce with commonly found materials … it also has “an extremely high profit margin” … profit for whom I wonder … maybe the drug dealer/pusher which is what I was saying. Meth, while popular, is not the only drug in question as well, of course.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:01 pmBush raps China over freedom, vows to promote democracy in Asia
By Ron Hutcheson
Knight Ridder Newspapers
KYOTO, Japan – President Bush brought his freedom agenda to Asia on Wednesday, taking a swipe at China while extolling Japan as an example of freedom’s power.
Setting the tone for a four-nation swing through the region, Bush told Asian leaders that freedom is on the march and cannot be stopped in their part of the world. He bluntly told Chinese leaders that economic freedom in China would inevitably break their hold on power.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:21 pm“[Meth] also has “an extremely high profit margin†… profit for whom I wonder”
Comment by Giacomo — November 15, 2005 @ 10:01 pm
Well, for the guy(s) cooking it in their kitchen.
“Meth, while popular, is not the only drug in question as well, of course.”
Comment by Giacomo — November 15, 2005 @ 10:01 pm
Of course it is not the only one. That goes without saying.
However –and this is something nobody seems to be talking about- abuse is not limited to substances such as Meth. I have personally seen kids get high on: glue, paint thinner, paint, sprays, and other chemicals that can easily be obtained at any hardware store, supermarket, etc.
But that was not my point. I was trying to highlight how readily available meth is due to its fairly bare-bones manufacturing and distribution. Also, some of the chemicals I listed above probably wouldn’t raise a flag for a lot of adults.
Meth, marijuana, and other drugs are so easily available to middle and high school kids because they get them from their friends… at school. Thinking that drugs is a problem that only happens to the other kids in the neighbourhood and not yours, is a little too optimistic. And we have to consider that fact before granting search powers to the police.
See? It is a very self-centered, selfish proposition, really: It could happen to my kids –I don’t know that I want the police strip-searching them.
As I said before, thinking that bad things only happen to bad people is wrong –bad things are not punishment from some deity for our sinful actions. Getting caught in a legal tangle can happen to anyone. In general: I want the law to protect my family as well as myself from any abuse, by any authority.
If that protection granted to my loved ones also happens to be extended to some rotten elements, well, so be it. I’d rather have it that way. Specially considering that we have had some nutcases, in this very web site, advocating the use of torture on anyone who might, perhaps, maybe, potentially, could be involved with the “bad guys”.
How exactly are we to determine who are those “bad guys” is anybody’s guess. Maybe we will know they were the bad guys after the confess under the sheer pain of the torture.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:59 pmGiacomo,
So in otherwords you think the ‘drug in question’, which is generally associate with black people, deserves different responses. In otherwords, I was right about your bigotry.
Whacko republican fascist!
November 15th, 2005 at 11:25 pmGiacomo
In amarillo texas (a great example small city with a big meth problem), the DEA has discovered 200-300 meth factories. These are just the ones found. Your idea of the ‘big meth dealer’ is just as whacko as every other semi-illiterate anecdotal preconception you’ve posted. See the difference between you/us is that we actually check the ‘claims’.
As for the real point, searching someone without a search warrant is not only unconstitutional, it’s UNAMERICAN. Your justification of this action means you’re nothing more than another rightwing police state retard. WHACKO!
Franklin was thinking of the current republican values when he said!
Benjamin Franklin:
November 15th, 2005 at 11:42 pmThey who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Bush raps China over freedom, vows to promote democracy in Asia
Setting the tone for a four-nation swing through the region, Bush told Asian leaders that freedom is on the march and cannot be stopped in their part of the world. He bluntly told Chinese leaders that economic freedom in China would inevitably break their hold on power.
November 15th, 2005 at 11:43 pmGiacomo, I guess I don’t see why we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the “drug war.” Let’s get things in perspective here. Drugs fun, usually victimless, often bad. Once in a while a kid ODs or is killed in drug-related violence; more often, they’re killed in alcohol-related violence. But kids get asthma and die from air contaminants released by poorly regulated industries. They’re run over and crushed in car accidents. They die in southern Mississippi of malnutrition. They’re dismembered, burnt, and blown to bits in Iraq by munitions built with your tax dollars.
Where’s YOUR outrage?
November 16th, 2005 at 12:42 amWe were talking about this particular case … not tragedy in any and all arenas. I had argued that Alito’s statements were 1) not in support of strip searching little girls in the general sense and 2) the way he supported that opinion made sense given the circumstances of that particular case. That’s all.
I then went on to support why I believed Alito’s support made sense by saying we 1) shouldn’t be acting in deference to drug dealers (of any type of drug) and 2) that said drug dealers were likely to have a larger impact on society than police strip searches ever could.
I do not believe that strip searches should be enaged upon without a warrant (which in this case the police did have … they also stated that while not explicitly acknowledged in the warrant, they believed said warrant allowed them to search all the house occupants) nor am I for the roll back of ccivil liberties. In this case, I think the police exercised sound judgement based on probable cause and precedent … and that’s what Alito said as well.
Ryan makes this into a macrofocued concept when all I was arguing were the merits of this case. Trying to expand Alito’s judgement on this particular case into saying that “he supports stip searching little girls” was, in my opinion, an oversimplification and disengenuous. That’s all.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:37 amActually the police did NOT have a search warrant to search the family, only the man itself. So therefore GeoMetro, you’re slow off the bat again. I gave you the link for the case, go read up on it before you continue to show your idiocy and ignorance.
November 16th, 2005 at 6:35 pmGiacomo,
I don’t know what to tell you… I still think you are wrong.
Strip searching a ten year old child on the spot, in spite of the fact that there was no warrant for her, and only because she happened to be related, and she might have concealed drugs in her, and that might lead to the capture of a drug dealer… absolutely warranted the strip search of the child?
The response is too absolutist for a situation that had too many “ifs” for my taste.
November 17th, 2005 at 2:40 amIt is not “acting in deference” to the drug dealer by NOT strip searching an underage child. If the police fully suspected that the child had drugs on her, it would have been more appropriate to take her (or the whole family) into custody, and obtain the proper warrant. Also, to ask the child, away from the parents, if they had drugs hidden on them. There is a good chance that most children would comply (espescially to avoid the embarrassment of being stripped naked by strangers and fondled and prodded).
November 17th, 2005 at 11:11 amThe issue that most are upset about is not that this is an isoltad instance. Our law leans heavily on precedent: what was done before. To agree that the police can “on the spot” strip search a ten year old girl because they believe she may have drugs hidden on her is to agree that it is ok to do anytime an officer thinks that a child MIGHT have drugs on them. Precedent. So, say your child is out with friends. They are stopped by the police because one of them is suspected of dealing drugs. The other children (to include yours) may or may not even be aware of that. Precedent states that the dealer may have the others carrying drugs, and so they are all to be strip searched.
There are consequences for setting legal precedents, particularly ones that aim at circumventing safety (civil rights) procedures.
The constitution states clearly that we are NOT to be exposed to any searches without a specific warrant that identifies the exact place OR PERSON to be searched, and precisely what it is they are searching for. In other words, it is NOT o.k. to search someone or thier posessions just because you “think” they are guilty of wrongdoing. Why? Well, ask a white supremecist, and she will tell you that all black people are criminal. Many people hold prejudiced views, and may not like how someone looks or dresses, and thus, based on superficial prejudice, may act in an inappropriate manner.
And you wish to offer a cover of “no malicious intent” to the police, but you do not wish to offer the same protection to a ten year old girl (that is, you say that the police should be given the benefit of the doubt as to being acting for the good of the community, as is their job. But you don’t want to offer a ten year old girl the protection of innocent until proven guilty, or the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches – and suspecting that the SUSPECTED dealer MIGHT have hidden drugs on the girl is NOT adequate… or do you argue that it is…).
And on the “malicious intent” – if you are typical of the right (I can’t tell yet), you have a big problem with gays. How do you know that that female officer was not gay? How can you categorically say that there was no malicious intent? Would that not be a nice job for a gay officer?
Alto believed that the police should be able to conduct strip searches where and when they deem it, INSTEAD of following our established and constitutional procedure of a clear and specific warrant (which are not THAT difficult to obtain, anyway – if you have PC). That is directly against our constitution. He does not want to clearly interpret it, he wants to change it. There is a difference.
And… were there drugs on the child?….
November 17th, 2005 at 11:31 amI asked that last question, because you seem to argue that the ends justify the means: that to catch a drug dealer criminal it is ok to search any children in the house. “The ends justifies the means” does not hold up under analysis, but it fails instantly when the means do not provide the ‘end’: that is, if the child had no drugs, then the suspicion was PROVEN to be unwarranted, and thus the ‘means’ failed. If this were the movies, then freely administered strip searches, and torture, etc., would be fine, because in the movies the bad guy is always identified, and it is always the bad guy who gets tortured, and then gives relevant info (etc.). The real world is not the cinema (I am not being vitriolic or sarcastic – I presume you are intelligent, and know this, but I am pointing it out as it may have been forgotten).
November 17th, 2005 at 11:36 amOn topic: Dick Durbin, Ted “the Swimmer”, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc. all held Pro-Life positions, (and then “evolved” into the Pro-”Choice”) – do you progs ever worry that they will switch back?? Maybe as they fear deah??
November 17th, 2005 at 3:26 pm#151
November 17th, 2005 at 3:51 pmAwwww… you misspelled “death”. I seem to recall you making an issue of a typo from me not long ago (happens… I’m not a trained typist). So, are you an idiot now because you can’t spell?
Your question is odd. I don’t think that most people, upon imminent death, would worry about a philisophical position. They might alter a religious view (usually to the one they were raised as – that is a comfort zone for most people), but not likely they would be caring about abortion issues (unless it is a woman who had one, or wished she had one).
But you are NOT on-topic. Who cares?
Alto, on the other hand, has been nominated and is trying to obtain a seat. His position is important. How he will decide is important. He is not a hypothetical. What do you think his views are? Are they different from his own writing (as he claimes)? Did Bush alter his qualifications?
mysticagent- the fact that Alito’s views are so important means we have over politicized the court. They don’t legislate…..(well, weren’t supposed to)
November 18th, 2005 at 7:54 amThis whole “don’t legislate” business is tired. What exactly do you mean, in a practical pragmatic sense? A judge makes a decision in a case brought before him. That decision is put down in the books. That decision becomes precedent for future decisions by future judges. When a judge makes a decision in a case he sets a legal precedent that will be used by any lawyer to come who may be able to attach his case to the past ruling. Thus, the rulings become a part of our law. That is one way that the court tries to maintain consistency (which is necessary for ‘justice’). Thus, all judges legislate by making ANY decision, by making ANY interpretation.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:18 amThe court is not over politicised any more than the entire nation (in other words, yeah, it has gotten too partisan). Bush “the Uniter” and his cadre have brought America to a state of partisanship that has never been seen before in America. People are at each others throats over political ideology that, most often, is not really understood by the people.
The detractors of Alito point to his rulings and his dissents, using them to outline the reasons that he MIGHT not be a good Supreme Court judge. His defenders respond, not by showing how he has been a good judge, but by claiming that his opposers are “flag burners who want the pledge of allegiance out of the schools.” That is a non-argument. The main concern is that he will be influenced by his religion more than common sense: that he will rule and interpret NOT from the intent and meaniong of the constitution, but to re-write the constitution in the image of his religious belief. Those who support such an action (and there are some) are those who want THEIR religion to be the law of the land, and everyone else must just live with it. THAT is the pinnacle of being “UNAMERICAN”.
And is it not the claim of the administration, the GOP, and all the rightwing supporters that they want to “take over the court”? That they want one view (not a variety) to rule – their view. They want a totalitarian religious state. Just the thing that the framers of the constitution feared and loathed, right next to big corporations ruling the country. The corporations have sunk their claws into our politics and our country very deeply, and now the final indignation and insult to our forefathers, they are trying to bring in a single religious viewpoint as the last control of the people.
mystic- Sometimes less is more……especially when writing…..
November 18th, 2005 at 3:29 pmThe printed excerpt only says that Alito is proud of his contributions in those cases where the government has argued agaist racial quotas and a constitutional right to abortion. He does not say that he specifically argued those points or agrees with them. Furthermore, one can be proud of a particularly elegantly constructed argument without wholly supporting its conclusion. Alito is a judge and will take Supreme Court precedent seriously. That means taking Roe v. Wade seriously.
Personally, I believe that as a policy decision it would be good to allow restricted, but legalized abortion. I also know that the Constitution does not protect a right to choose (have any of you read the Roe v. Wade decision? It is full of faulty arguments, invented rights, and unjustified interpretations of the Constitution). So it is possible to be sympathetic to the plight of women without pretending that the Constitution says something that it doesn’t.
Finally, I would like to point out that judges decide cases with specific fact patterns. Their holdings are only to be taken in context of the case presented and can only be applied to similar cases. A Supreme Court ruling can never have the same scope or power as a legislative act because it is necessarily limited to the circumstances that govern it. Much has been said about Alito’s judicial history without taking into account the specific context of his previous holdings. This is error, the fact is we do not know how Alito will rule on a potential case in the future. All we know is that he is a brilliant and distinguished scholar whose interpretation of the Constitution should be accorded some level of respect given his demonstrated command of the legal issues. That is good enough for me.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:29 pmvicious- Finally! Someone who wants to trust legislating to legislators….it’s weird….
November 21st, 2005 at 12:46 amOf course Alito will seek to limit and perhaps in America. I strongly support abortion on demand, at least for women at the age of consent who can pay for their own. (For those who cant, let all the feminists and those who see it as a civil right pay for it out of their pockets). As a matter of Constitional law however, the opinion in Roe is itself an “abortion”! It is simply indefensible as a legal precedent and is prime exmaple for the trouble that results when the Supreme Court creates or invents new laws rather than interpreting the TEXT of the Constitution. The battle over abortion is a politcal one, not a Constitutional one. Harry Blackmun and Potter Stewart’s guilt over potential back alley abortions are an insufficent basis for elevating a quintessential states rights issue to Constiutional dimensions. Roe is a “mistake” and should be “aborted” because its a troublesome “bastard”.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:45 pmOf course Alito will seek to limit and perhaps even overturn Roe as would every intellectually honets person in America. I strongly support abortion on demand, at least for women at the age of consent who can pay for their own. (For those who cant, let all the feminists and those who see it as a civil right pay for it out of their pockets). As a matter of Constitional law, however, the opinion in Roe is itself an “abortion”! It is simply indefensible as a legal precedent and is prime example of the trouble that results when the Supreme Court creates or invents new laws rather than interpreting the TEXT of the Constitution. The battle over abortion is a politcal one, not a Constitutional one. Harry Blackmun and Potter Stewart’s guilt over potential back alley abortions are an insufficent basis for elevating a quintessential states rights issue to Constiutional dimensions. Roe is a “mistake” and should be “aborted” because its a troublesome “bastard”.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:49 pm