ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2006

Melbourne Rod Laver Arena - 13th april 2006
© Thanks Gypsy!!
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAŃOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [ GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Become Republican (nsc) Return to archive Page: 1 2 3 4 5
7th April 2006 10:49 PM
sirmoonie SS, I disagree. There are many quality leaders in U.S. government. IMO, more Republican than Democrat (until recently), but still many quality ones. And its understandable that they all have to cater to certain constituents - what you need to look at is how they guide those necessary constituents to the right results.

There are principled leaders out there, and they need to be spotted and encouraged, whether you agree with them or not. Orrin Hatch is one. Even though he is a Mormon, and I disagree with him on several things, I know he's got principles and won't toss them aside for short term gain. Spend some time contrasting him with absolutely useless people like George Walker Bush III and Joe Lieberman and you will see what I mean.

And don't get me started on how principled John McCain is - the un-American attempts by the Bush-geeks and the media to paint that man as a "moderate" (whatever the fuck that is) are pathetic. He should have been nominated in 2000, and lets hope the Republican party hasn't been so overrun with un-American Bush-geeks that he won't be in 2008.
7th April 2006 10:51 PM
Sir Stonesalot Reagan and Thatcher were both cunts and I hate them.
7th April 2006 10:51 PM
lotsajizz yup


7th April 2006 11:02 PM
Sir Stonesalot OK moonie, you got me painting with a broad brush.

I'm sure there are a few good eggs in the basket. But not enough to make a decent omlette. You know what I'm sayin'?

7th April 2006 11:07 PM
Riffhard
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Reagan and Thatcher were both cunts and I hate them.




LOL! Well that may very well be,but it does not change history. I'll tell ya who I think is a cunt is Ted Kennedy,but even he said this about Reagan to a Yale audience in 1989,"Whether we agree with him or not,Ronald Reagan was a very effective president. He stood for a set of ideas....he meant them,and he wrote most of them not only into public law but into the national consciousness."


The same could never be said of Clinton. Ever.


Riffy
7th April 2006 11:12 PM
Sir Stonesalot Clinton is a dick, and Teddy is a twat. I don't like either one of them.
8th April 2006 11:19 AM
sirmoonie
quote:
jb wrote:
MCaain must have been promised something "big" after he caved in and remained silent on the vicious Swift Baot ads..I lost all respect for him after that..he is just another power hungry politician who abandoned his values for GOP suppoert in 08..


Josh, aren't you elated by the recent news regarding Judas?! It really is a complete vindication for your tribe. Frankly, I may convert to Judasism. We would be Jew-soul brothers! Baruch atah adonai elohenu and stuff like that.
8th April 2006 02:32 PM
rasputin56
quote:
Riffhard wrote:



LOL! Well that may very well be,but it does not change history. I'll tell ya who I think is a cunt is Ted Kennedy,but even he said this about Reagan to a Yale audience in 1989,"Whether we agree with him or not,Ronald Reagan was a very effective president. He stood for a set of ideas....he meant them,and he wrote most of them not only into public law but into the national consciousness."


The same could never be said of Clinton. Ever.


Riffy



That's bullshit. Everytime anyone of you gets a blowjob they should all get down on their knees thanking him for bringing it into the national consciousness.

Oh and it was the inherent failure of the USSR's economic system which had been teetering on collapse years before Reagan was even considered a candidate that brought down the Iron Curtain. The Gip was a big spending, B-actor, cowboy wannabe who was in the right place at the right time. No more, no less.
8th April 2006 03:51 PM
telecaster
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:


That's bullshit. Everytime anyone of you gets a blowjob they should all get down on their knees thanking him for bringing it into the national consciousness.

Oh and it was the inherent failure of the USSR's economic system which had been teetering on collapse years before Reagan was even considered a candidate that brought down the Iron Curtain. The Gip was a big spending, B-actor, cowboy wannabe who was in the right place at the right time. No more, no less.



Yeah, it just all happened

Moron

Gorby himself said it was Reagan and SDI brought down the Soviet Union

But Raspy knows better than Gorbechov I guess

Clinton?

What did that empty suit ever do besides sign into law
7 of the 10 items in the Republican "Contract With America?"

Hey Raspy did you see Bush's approval is at 36%?

Did you also see the Dems are at 29%

Oops!
8th April 2006 04:00 PM
Sir Stonesalot 36%

29%

Does this not tell you people anything?
8th April 2006 04:39 PM
telecaster
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
36%

29%

Does this not tell you people anything?



Yes

It tells us Bush is 7 points more popular than the Dems
8th April 2006 04:58 PM
Sir Stonesalot >It tells us Bush is 7 points more popular than the Dems<

Well whoopee fuckin' ding dong!

It would tell any reasonable person that NEITHER party has anything close to even minimal approval by the public.

Yet neither party seems to give a shit.

Typical.


8th April 2006 08:10 PM
telecaster
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>It tells us Bush is 7 points more popular than the Dems<

Well whoopee fuckin' ding dong!

It would tell any reasonable person that NEITHER party has anything close to even minimal approval by the public.

Yet neither party seems to give a shit.

Typical.






Great stuff

Clinton never won a majority

Bush did

TELE!
8th April 2006 08:27 PM
rasputin56
quote:
telecaster wrote:


Great stuff

Clinton never won a majority

Bush did

TELE!



As I said before, Rove should be sending you and your ilk fruit baskets every week for the rest of your lives.

BTW, I love all these "facts" being bandied about. Last poll I saw had 49-33 Democratic advantage. Sorry to let facts get in the way of your, ahem, argument. Just so you know, merely saying something doesn't mean it's true. And if you really want to have some fun at the same point in their administrations, Clinton's approval ratings were in the mid-60's, and that was WITH the blowjob. No wonder ol' W.'s planning on nuking Iran now. He used scare tactics to steal 04 and now he needs a nuke to survive his second term. Pathetic. Worst.President.Ever.
8th April 2006 08:31 PM
glencar Scare tactics to win 2004? Kerry was scary doofus. That was a big scare tactic all on its own.
[Edited by glencar]
8th April 2006 08:50 PM
rasputin56
quote:
glencar wrote:
Scare tactics to win 2004? Kerry was scary doofus. That was a big scare tactic all on its own.
[Edited by glencar]



Funny how we don't have many of those terra alerts anymore, isn't it?

8th April 2006 08:57 PM
glencar It's even nicer that we don't have any of those "terra attacks" either! Wake up!
8th April 2006 09:14 PM
rasputin56
quote:
glencar wrote:
It's even nicer that we don't have any of those "terra attacks" either! Wake up!



You're funny! These morons can't even get water to people in LA after a hurricane and you seriously think they've prevented anything? Too funny.
8th April 2006 09:15 PM
glencar All's I knows is what I reads in ze papers...
8th April 2006 09:19 PM
rasputin56 You believe everything the librul media tells you?
8th April 2006 11:35 PM
gustavobala i have a doubt...why the democratcs symbol is a elefant and a republicans is a donkey?
9th April 2006 12:44 AM
pdog All these percentages and polls, half of the country doesn't vote! Americans don't give a fuck, we've lost hope anything will ever get better. People are resigned to the fact, that the best days are behind us.
Some of the best political debate takes place on anonymous websites... Sincere American patriots in Govt., serving the interests US citizens are so few you can count them are your hands!
When sirmoonie tauts Orin Hatch as the best The Republican party has, think about it... I'm shaken to the core!
I agree with him 100% McCain, he had my vote, the man is everything American, and was destroyed by a propagandist. His entire life spent serving his country. They did it to one of their own. Shit, dislike Kerry's politics, but the war thing during the election, it was disgusting.
Same with this talk of "classified" vs. "declassified". I don't care if it was legal or not, it was a scumbag, unmoralistic move. The CIA! Their anonymous for a reason. Coincidence her husband was challenging the intelligence for going to war. Debating and disagreeing on issues is fine, and we can get heated ect.. But character assasination, of great Americans for self serving purposes.
People can claim to pray all they want, some folks eat the shit up.
I don't want leaders who make decisions and then go pray that they were right, I want leaders who pray for the strength to make the right decision.
If you think you know it all, you have lost the abilty to think on your feet!
Love ya'll...
9th April 2006 01:23 AM
sirmoonie Its "touts" and I didn't say that Orrin Hatch was the bestest the Republican party had to offer. Ask the Bush-geeks at www.maxlugar.com who the bestest is, I've given up divining that stuff. Ask them to post a link or reference in support too. They are kind of lacksidaisical on that sometimes. Being Bush geeks and all.

www.bushgeek.com
9th April 2006 01:37 AM
pdog Just coat tailing the integrity thing Moonie! And why so many Americans don't care anymore.
9th April 2006 09:33 AM
Sir Stonesalot Well Pdog, You are probably right when you say that more than half of America doesn't give a shit anymore. And they don't give a shit anymore because there is no one to vote for! Bush Jr or Gore? Bush Jr or Kerry? It's like, Hey America, pick either a kick in the knee, or a kick in the other knee....either way you are gonna end up with a bad knee. And looking at the horizon, I don't see anyone who looks like a good choice. So why SHOULD we give a shit?

You know, I almost didn't vote in the last election. Either choice was a bad road for America to hoe. I didn't want the spectre of voting for either one of those dinks on my conscience. I ended up voting, but it was almost as if I was doing it against my will. I had always felt sorta, I dunno, satisfied?, as I left the polls. I haven't felt that way for quite a while now. It doesn't take long to start feeling cynical and jaded, you know?

What would really send a signal to the two parties, is for all disaffected voters out there, to write in Bugs Bunny in the next election. Perhaps when we have a cartoon character as President, the political parties in the country will wake up and realize that they are not representing a vast majority of the population anymore.

Look, our Constitution states that our government is to be of, by, and for the people. It does NOT say that it is of, by, and for liberals and conservatives. I know that for the last 10-12 years or so, I haven't felt like I was being properly represented by my government....at ANY level. And it seems that there are an awful lot of people who feel like I do. Enough people that I can safely say that a significant portion of our population are not being represented properly by the two major political parties.

And neither party really cares about that. And they won't care about that as long as their coffers are full, and their candidates keep getting elected. They have no incentive to change the way things are done. And they will, in fact, try to block any sort of change from happening.

So can you really blame people for deciding to simply not participate anymore? I don't, because it is something that I struggle with every time I read a newspaper or watch the news.
9th April 2006 10:25 AM
Zambero quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
telecaster wrote:


Great stuff

Clinton never won a majority

Bush did

TELE!

---------------------


2004: Thanks for securing that non-verifiable "majority", Diebold!

2000: Thanks for halting that problematic Florida recount Ms. Harris!

Yup, those Republicunts are quite a piece of work!
9th April 2006 10:35 AM
sirmoonie Does anyone have any evidence that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was operating, or involved in operating, U.S. seaports PRIOR to that recent demented George Walker Bush III decision regarding the UAE?

I can't find any evidence of this, and he refuses to back up his assertion. He may be lying, but more than likely he's just quoting someone else who's lying or exaggerating. Anyway, I'm curious, so if you have the info, please post it. Thanks in advance.
9th April 2006 01:05 PM
Ten Thousand Motels Bush’s Bogus Theory of Absolute Power
by James Bovard, April 7, 2006

The Bush administration has a theory to explain why the Founding Fathers secretly intended for the president to have boundless power. Even though the new “unitary executive theory” is nowhere in the Constitution, White House officials continually invoke it to justify scorning federal law. The fact that the administration is getting away with this charade symbolizes how docile much of the American media and political opposition have become.

Earlier this year, members of Congress anguished publicly over how many of the original USA PATRIOT Act surveillance powers should be renewed. A bipartisan agreement was finally reached, giving the White House almost everything it wanted. As part of the deal to renew the Patriot Act, Bush administration officials agreed to provide Congress more details on how the new powers were being used.

However, Bush reneged in a “signing statement” quietly released after a heavily hyped White House signing ceremony on March 9. He decreed that he was entitled to withhold any information that would “impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.” He announced that he would interpret any provision in the law obliging notifying Congress “in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information.”

In other words, any provision of the law that requires disclosure is presumptively null and void. The crux of the “unitary executive” is that all power rests in the president, and that “checks and balances” are an archaic relic. This is the same “principle” the Bush administration invoked to deny Congress everything from Iraqi war plans to the records of the Cheney Energy Task Force. Bush has invoked the “unitary executive” doctrine almost a hundred times since taking office, according to a study by Miami University professor Christopher Kelley.

One of the starkest statements of this theory came in the confidential August 2002 Justice Department/White House memo justifying torture. That memo revealed, “In light of the president’s complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president’s ultimate authority in these areas.” And even if Congress did try to explicitly restrain executive power, any such law would be unconstitutional because of the inherent power vested in the presidency, according to the memo. When he was White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales spoke of a “commander-in-chief override” to justify scorning the Anti-Torture Act.

The Bush administration’s sense of entitlement is obvious from the ongoing controversy over warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps of Americans. Such wiretaps are clearly prohibited by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Yet Bush declared that he is entitled to order such wiretaps because of the inherent authority of the presidency.

The administration’s attitude toward both the law and Congress was stark in the responses recently delivered to congressional questions on the scope and nature of the NSA warrantless wiretap program.

The basic answer to almost all the questions was, “None of your business.” Again and again, the White House declared that “decisions about what communications to intercept are made by professional intelligence officers.” Apparently, the job titles of the NSA officials automatically negate the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for a warrant before the feds can intrude.

The Bush administration has claimed that the wiretaps are “legal” because of the president’s duty to protect America. Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee asked, “What is the limiting principle of the president’s claimed inherent authority as commander in chief?”

The administration replied, “In light of the strictly limited nature of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, we do not think it a useful or a practical exercise to engage in speculation about the limits of the president’s authority as commander in chief.” There is no reason to accept that the program is strictly limited — because Bush in 2004 publicly declared that no wiretaps could be done without a court order. The administration has done nothing since then to signal greater respect for the truth. And Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s written responses to Senate Judiciary Committee questions hinted that there may be other surveillance programs not yet revealed to the public.

The Bush White House also asserted that the September 2001 “Authorization to Use Military Force” resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 entitled Bush to tap Americans’ phones. But if the authorization actually entitled the president to do whatever he thinks necessary on the home front, then Americans have been living under martial law for the last four and a half years.

At this point, Americans can only guess which laws Bush feels obliged to obey. According to Newsweek, Steven Bradbury, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, recently informed the Senate Intelligence Committee that Bush could order killings of suspected terrorists within the United States.

Americans cannot expect to have good presidents if presidents are permitted to make themselves czars. The “unitary executive” theory is simply another in a long series of intellectual cons crafted to trample freedom. The sooner that it is tarred and feathered and ridden out of Washington on a rail, the safer Americans’ remaining rights will be.

James Bovard is the author of the recently published Attention Deficit Democracy and eight other books and serves as policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

9th April 2006 01:22 PM
lotsajizz we need a revolution



9th April 2006 01:49 PM
Sir Stonesalot I don't know about a revolution...but I'd sure like to have an administration that doesn't regularly use the Constitution as toilet paper.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)