sv3n

I don't believe the Dems have anything against supporting the troops..........they're fighting to get them home safe. I do believe they have a problem with the leaders that are trying to keep the troops there for profit though. Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. So who is really not looking out for our troops? Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". ...and you're in violation of your face!

This bill was also approved by a lot of republicans..........what was it, they were only 15 votes short of overturning the veto? So stating that the dems passed a bill that they knew bush would veto is pretty inane because obviously it got approved in the first place. What a stupid argument........"they did it so they could grandstand".............give me a break, these people are in positions where they can get on TV anytime they want, all they need to do is hold a press conference. And whatever Limbaugh said, it was enough to piss off a large part of the population and military personnel...........that's his own fault. As far as congress....they need to shape up and grow some backbone. They give into the president and then get their stuff vetoed. Not much leadership going on there. ...and you're in violation of your face!

you know the obvious one..............it's the devil's work. here's something that probably also shocked the masses a little, to the point where some just haven't caught on yet........http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html ...and you're in violation of your face!

Too right. I also like how the Dems were all in favor of appointing Petraus when they thought he'd be their lapdog and push to bring the troops back...then change to 'BetrayUs' when he didn't do that.... Yeah, it's just too bad that even Petraus' own boss says his report was BS, that at least 3 other generals disagree with him, and that we just had that article from 12 different commaners in Iraq who also disagree with him................but Petraus must be right. That's why the british announced they were pulling troops out the moment blair left office. Maybe the dems were thinking that Petraus was going to give a non-bias report, but they figured out that wasn't the case when it was discovered that the white house was writing the Petraus report and that Petraus was just going to present it, but then at the last second they changed the story on that and claimed that Petraus wrote the report. ...and you're in violation of your face!

How will any children LOSE healthcare? Is SCHIP funding being cut? GB wants to INCREASE funding by 5G$/year, which is about half of what the bill called for. Not a bad compromise. 50/50. Did you even listen to the clip.............."in california the president's veto will cause the legislation to draw up emergency regulation to cut some 800,000 children off the rolls in california and create a waiting list..." It takes a big man to take healthcare away from 800,000 kids in california alone because his veto pen makes him feel significant and so his buddies can sell their products cheaper. Who's the asshat............the one taking healthcare away from kids who's parents can't afford it or the guy exercising his right to freedom of speech and trying to help those kids? No, I didn't pay any attention that buttmunch after what he said about the President. Even if he had acted professionally, he (or any politician) is not the way to gather information about the impact of a bill. Think "RTFM". Go to the source and read the bill. See what's really going on. Of course, Sven, we have gone over and over healthcare in another thread and we have nearly total disagreement about SHC. The point of this thread was to point out the disgusting behavior that Stark exhibited. I'm not agreeing with his behavior, but he's just speaking his mind...............and apparently also the mind of a part of the population. And it's his job to speak up for the population. Regardless of the content, before you post a video you should watch and listen to the whole thing though. If he's right and 800,000 kids are going to get dropped from the healthcare program, then it's a sad day in america. Regardless of if you consider this socialized healthcare or not..........it's not the kids fault where their parents are financially and they're going to suffer for it. Also financially speaking we're going to suffer more from this as well............this will mean sicker children because of the lack of preventative care and more emergency room visits that aren't going to get paid for. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Maybe you need to actually read what the bill said, instead of relying on the talking heads and liberal websites for your info. I submit that a family that is making 80k/year (the Dem's cutoff) is probably not in urgent need of socialized healthcare. Sounds like Cali is using the veto as an excuse to trim their socialized medical coverage that's already in place - I seem to recall reading something about it already going broke, but I may be mistaken - I'll see if I can find the website again. If the Dems were truly worried about kids needing insurance, they'd re-draft the bill to take care of those kids that are truly in need. What? They passed the bill.........who vetoed it? So who doesn't give a crap about the kids? Oh, there's the problem............you think this is a dictatorship where one guy get's to make policy and everybody should just do whatever that one guy says. ...and you're in violation of your face!

How will any children LOSE healthcare? Is SCHIP funding being cut? GB wants to INCREASE funding by 5G$/year, which is about half of what the bill called for. Not a bad compromise. 50/50. Did you even listen to the clip.............."in california the president's veto will cause the legislation to draw up emergency regulation to cut some 800,000 children off the rolls in california and create a waiting list..." It takes a big man to take healthcare away from 800,000 kids in california alone because his veto pen makes him feel significant and so his buddies can sell their products cheaper. Who's the asshat............the one taking healthcare away from kids who's parents can't afford it or the guy exercising his right to freedom of speech and trying to help those kids? ...and you're in violation of your face!

I read a lot of posters on that video saying things like "actually this guy sounds pretty accurate."..................."He is right."..................."outrageous? this guy is dead right!"..................."He's only voicing what most Americans feel." Let's see............10 million children without healthcare..............California alone 800,000+ children will lose healthcare thanks to the veto..............................that's pretty sick to turn kids away from healthcare. It's in the public and the future's best interests to have those children healthy and we'll spend way less money in the long run. The wonderful fact is that the increase in coverage was going to be paid for by a cigarette tax...........so once again the president just did some of his buddies a business favor rather than doing something positive for the population. But as he said............the veto pen makes him important. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Everybody deserves a fair trial, regardless of who they are. It might seem like a dream to some people, but that's the way it's supposed to be. If we knew he was not going to get a fair trial, then it was our responsibility to make sure that he did get one. And since we set the government up, it's not like we're shy about telling these people how things should be done. How many times will you ignore the question - how was his trial not fair? You have this retarded notion that the only fair result would have been a not guilty verdict. That's not what due process means. In the vast majority of criminal cases, the end result a conviction. here's some reading material........ http://www.ictj.org/en/news/coverage/article/1040.html http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=723 http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10092901.html http://www.nowpublic.com/saddam_hussien_trial_an_american_supported_mockery_0 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732807/posts http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5257 And it goes on and on.........if he was found guilty then so be it. But that finding should be found through a fair trial, not some sort of Jerry Springer publicity act passed off as a trial with the verdict given out at the beginning. ...and you're in violation of your face!

-and its a dam good thing he did! what a tool This might clear some stuff up for people that don't know the story behind that: What's the real story behind Al Gore Inventing the Internet? Bush runs commercials mocking Al Gore saying the he claims to have invented the Internet. Bush claims Gore is a liar and that he can't be trusted. Here's the story behind the story and you determine who is lying and who is telling the truth. The following is a terrific article written by Mountain Democrat columnist David Jacobsen. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Issue is Trust Let's say the Associated Press or Time Magazine wants to consider me for a job. I'd have to whisk together a resume that might include the following: "My column appears regularly on the award-winning editorial page of the Mountain Democrat." Of course, I had nothing to do with winning the award, earned by Editor Michael Raffety. He did, though, let me park on his illustrious page. So nobody could fault me for basking in his reflected glory. Unless, of course, I were running for president. Exhibit A is Al Gore. People eager to lie about him continue to portray him as a liar. First lie, that he claims to have "invented" the Internet. Second lie, that he claims to have "discovered" the pollution of Love Canal. Third lie, that he falsely claims to be the model for Oliver Barrett IV, hero of Love Story. Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that he could patent the science, though that's how the quotation has been manipulated. Hence the disingenuous substitution of "inventing" for the actual language. For a heady while we hoped that the Bush campaign would prove their man to be the champion of honesty and integrity that he pretends to be, especially for those looking for a squeaky clean new White House. A couple of weeks ago the campaign rejected a shoddy commercial showing Gore saying that Clinton never told a lie. Problem was that the clip showed an interview from 1994, long before Clinton ever heard of Monica Lewinsky. To his credit, Bush scrapped the commercial before it aired. But as I write, his campaign is unloading a new commercial, featuring a sneer at the fragment from the Internet claim, again implying that Gore had nothing to do with the Internet's creation. At least they got the words right; it would be dangerous to doctor the tape. But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator." The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today." Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?" The Love Canal canard distorts a story Gore told to a high school class in Concord, New Hampshire. In answer to a question about how students could get involved in politics, Gore described a letter he'd received from a girl in West Tennessee while he was a congressman. Based on the girl's complaint about a poisoned well, he organized an investigation, which in turn led to other pollution sites, culminating in the expose of Love Canal. Referring to the well in Toone, Tennessee, Gore said, "That was the one you didn't hear of--but that was the one that started it all." The media was quick to misquote the line as "I was the one that started it all." Seemingly dissatisfied with Gore's style, the Republican National Committee improved the line thus: "I was the one who started it all." When the Concord Monitor and the Boston Globe exposed what had really been said in that high school class, the New York Times, the Washington Post and U.S. News offered grudging corrections of their reportorial errors. Some of the media's stars had rare fun with the idea that Al Gore was the kernel for Ryan O'Neal's most famous role; but no one seemed interested in finding out whether Gore was telling the truth or not. CNBC's Chris Matthews chortled. "It reminds me of Snoopy thinking he's the Red Baron." But in this case Snoopy really is the Red Baron. Erich Segal, author of Love Story, corroborated that Gore and his Harvard roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, were indeed the models for the story's main character. Given that Gore was telling the truth, what's the issue? We have an odd bit of trivia of no relevance to the election--except to those liars who want to portray Gore as a liar. All of these malicious whoppers have been exposed for over a year and have received pusillanimous apologies, often mean-spirited and grudging, from the so-called "liberal" press that promoted them. But like a corrupting disease the lies simply refuse to go away. Unless Bush gets out of the tank with the media bottom feeders, he's not going to make it, especially in an election revolving around honesty and integrity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, it would appear that Bush is the one lying and can't be trusted. If it wasn't for Al Gore, you might not be reading this web page right now. It would appear that Bush is the one lying about what Gore said. In his ad saying that "The Issue is Trust", it appears Gore wins on the trust issue. But the fact is, Bush is still ahead on education. There are more high school students in Texas who can read and speak better than the governor than in any other state! Texas is #1! ...and you're in violation of your face!

You're a smart person, it's been a great conversation and gladly not an argument. I agree with your above statement........ I'm sure he has lots of motives..........he's trying to play political monopoly right now trying to get the world behind his cause. He's a very smart man. And yes, he does appear to be genuinely concerned about the environment.........and for being concerned and choosing to educate people he was Awarded the Peace Prize. As far as his personal conduct..........I don't know anything about that. He was awarded the Peace Prize for educating people and not for the "green" design of his house or for the world's lowest electrical bill. He put the time in to come up with a presentation and then turned that presentation into a movie to educate the planet about something that could greatly change life on this planet if it's not yielded to. He put in the work, that's what he's getting paid for. He's educating people, that's what he got the prize for. ...and you're in violation of your face!

In a trial the outcome is decided at the end....not before it starts. If we are trying to spread justice and democracy our actions did not help spread that..........if Saddam could not get a fair trial in Iraq, which seems to have been the case, then he should have been on trial elsewhere. Maybe infront of the UN. When a known murderer goes on trial, the end result is hardly suprising. Was there a violation of due process in his trial? Tell me, in what court would he not have been found guilty? The only difference would be in the penalty. If you really believe that it's important to stick to the principles of democracy and justice, you let the local people decide on local crimes. If, on the other hand, you think you know better than the Iraqi people, then you declare them incapable of judgement and insist on setting the court system for them. Everybody deserves a fair trial, regardless of who they are. It might seem like a dream to some people, but that's the way it's supposed to be. If we knew he was not going to get a fair trial, then it was our responsibility to make sure that he did get one. And since we set the government up, it's not like we're shy about telling these people how things should be done. ...and you're in violation of your face!

In a trial the outcome is decided at the end....not before it starts. If we are trying to spread justice and democracy our actions did not help spread that..........if Saddam could not get a fair trial in Iraq, which seems to have been the case, then he should have been on trial elsewhere. Maybe infront of the UN. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Proof? Talk to all the black voters that were turned down at the booths. Last I heard it was around 90,000 people that were turned away and the list was 15% accurate.........that's about 76,500 voters that were turned away. If bush won by about 550 votes.......that seems like a reason for a recount, which is required by the state of florida. But it was stopped by the supreme court.........the paperwork to the supreme court to stop the recount was filed by who, Katherin Harris.........the person in charge of the elections in florida.........her other job, chairman of the George W. Bush for President Campaign. Anybody see a conflict of interest or questionable outcome here? Also, there was an inquiry into the election process in florida.........these were the results: the link to the report: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm Also in Florida 49,442 African-American voters registered Republican and 792,168 African-American voters registered Democratic. Do a little math and you can easily see that if all the votes were actually counted that Gore won and the votes should've been recounted til they got it right or they should have fixed the problems and started the voting process all over again. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Not a bad argument, here's a few things that I have a problem with........ A. where's the sources..........the link leads nowhere. "he was supposedly worth about $1 million..."............that's great and all, but where's the evidence that this statement is true.........like his tax return from 2000. The other factor in that would also be, did he only have a million in his personal savings account or did that include all his other investments? Anybody can make allegations, but let's stick to facts. B. private jet maintenance, private jet pilot, private jet fuel, room and board fees, misc travel expenses, security detail, facility rental, etc..............there's a lot of expenses to list that would go into such a production. Does he make some money off of it........I'm sure he does, but who afterall made the show that he performs. It's his work, without him it wouldn't have got made. So, he is getting paid for his service. Put the real question is where does that money go.................does he donate all or a part of it?.........how much of it does he take home? C. I'm not sure what you know about non-profit organizations, but you can't just take money out of a business account of a non-profit organization. So he's donating the money to a non-profit organization which is a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis...................it doesn't matter if he's one of the founders or a chairman the money goes to the organization. He's not the guy that writes the checks, he's just a chairman. If he really wanted the money he would've just deposited it into his account and said thanks. Also, considering that he's been "crusading" for this cause for decades it doesn't really surprise me that you would find his name associated with most if not all the organizations that deal with global warming........specifically one that deals with educating people about it. In conclusion, I don't think anybody's been......like I said if he was only after the money he would've simply deposited the check in his account. ...and you're in violation of your face!

What trial system in the Middle East would you rather be tried under instead of that of the US? Taliban? Regardless of who conducted the trial, everybody including us new the outcome before we even handed him over for the trial......which is what I believe was part of Kallend's original point. We new he was going to hang and made sure he was going to be there for it. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/...s/school_shooting_70 Doesn't this back up my earlier post? This could have been settled with fists instead of guns. The kid needed a way to respond to getting punched in the face, which is understandable. He just took the wrong path. I have very little remorse for school bullies who get shot nowadays. It seems they should have figured out that this is a possible consequence considering all of these incidents, and often the target of their bullying gives them a warning like "I am going to shoot you in the head." Is it an appropriate respnse to bullying? Of course not. But you might want to think twice before you punch the mentally distressed goth kid. Yep......and here's more backup for you. -link to the article.....http://news.aol.com/story/_a/school-gunman-had-access-despite-threats/n20071011182409990008 While I don't agree with the kid's choice, it does seem like he felt he had no other choice...........teachers did nothing to stop the harrassment, he was getting harrassed on a daily basis, and he thought there was no way out. I would chalk this one up as a complete failure of the parents and the school to make sure this type of harrassment wasn't going on. Seems like a very harsh lesson on the Golden Rule. ...and you're in violation of your face!

There's one flaw in your "man looking to make money off of Global Warming because he's out of a job" theory.............he didn't lose the 2000 election and then adopt global warming for something to make money off of................the fact is that he started campaigning for the Global Warming cause when he was in college. So unless he saw a psychic that told him "in 30 years you're going to get swindled out of an election you need to do something else after that for money"...........unless you can prove that case, then there's no grounds for your theory. I'm not saying that he may not have made some money off of this to pay for his tours and such, but just the simple fact the he donated the $1.5 million that he got awarded for the peace prize to Global Warming research shows that his primary concern is not the money. ...and you're in violation of your face!

It's a lot cheaper to import grain than it is to maintain a massive war making potential along with the nuclear deterrent. The US has no trouble importing oil. But are we self-reliant with that oil or are we depending on someone else? And could others cut us off from the oil? I know we have reserves, but how long would they last? ...and you're in violation of your face!

If it's helping catch terrorists then they should be doing it anyway. ...and you're in violation of your face!

none of us will be alive at that point. Well, we could easily not be the most powerful, but will still have enough heft to avoid being someone else's Iraq. The cold war was won not by arms, but by an economic recession. We're due for another depression, we're low on oil, and we're dependant on the rest of the world. Things can change very quickly. Like you said, I also don't think we'll be someone's Iraq...........but you never know. And like I said, people are gonna remember our previous actions and base their decisions regarding helping or working with us on those previous actions. ...and you're in violation of your face!

How about answering the question? One more kallend one liner. Atta boy! and he is right. Where the hell do you start His bs is now legendary and he did not do himself any favores with sicko. did you see the undercover video from down in cuba. I await your next one liner No, I think Kallend is right on....................the O.P. specifically asked for direct instances where he was wrong and everybody so far has gone off on their own analysis of how wrong they think his movies are. As per your sicko reply................elaborate a little and give some real answers. ...and you're in violation of your face!

The UN says that climate change is a threat to peace (here's the article....http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/climate.php), so by stopping it you're promoting world peace.............if you're one of the major voices that has been doing that for decades does that qualify you for a peace prize? Of course, since you're promoting peace for the planet through environmental awareness. The rest of the world is on the GW wagon.........we're one of the only major countries not on it. And if GW turns out to be real, as a lot of scientists believe, getting the world to stop destroying itself is something that's worthy of a peace prize. Afterall, without a planet there's no life. PS - being a beacon or symbol for freedom and democracy would also be a worthy cause (also this is for the Peace Prize, not the democracy and freedom prize).......but let's say 3/4 of the country doesn't want to do something and the administration still does it, is that a great example of democracy? ...and you're in violation of your face!

I couldn't agree with you more. If our actions are illegal they need to be stopped. We need to make things right and follow our own and international laws..........and think about the rest of the world as well as us. ...and you're in violation of your face!

The question that I origninally asked......."is this legal?" asks if this is the way things are supposed to be according to the laws that we agreed to follow, not how things are. ...and you're in violation of your face!