Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

Lemming wrote:There is a great irony that the US Neo Cons and similar extremists in the West actually share many of the same values as their nemesis, the extreme Islamists (although they wouldn’t see it that way!).

Right you are. If they were to stand back and take a totally unbiased view of the situation, they might just scare themselves shitless.

Lemming wrote:There is also a popular perception that Reagan and Bush are just figureheads without the intellectual capacity to lead the world’s most powerful country. This is quite scary for those of us in the rest of the world. It also suggests that there are some powerful un-elected people wielding power from behind the throne.

This has been the contention of many conspiracy theorists here and it seems to have some validity when you look at who the real powers are on the national political scene such as lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.

there are absolutely people 'pulling the strings' of most politicans. IMO opinion the whole system right now is corrupt and failing. How to fix it? i have no idea.....but it is clearly messed up and there is no two ways that the corporations and their lobbyist weild SIGNIFICANT power over the system overall.

I just know I'm happier today than yesterday, and GWB's conciliatory press conference Wednesday was the best television programming since the last seasons of "Weeds" and "The Sopranos" ended.

mazdog wrote:there are absolutely people 'pulling the strings' of most politicans. IMO opinion the whole system right now is corrupt and failing. How to fix it? i have no idea.....but it is clearly messed up and there is no two ways that the corporations and their lobbyist weild SIGNIFICANT power over the system overall.

Put a woman in charge........ seriously they're so much less likely to be "Advised"

DrGonzo wrote:Put a woman in charge........ seriously they're so much less likely to be "Advised"

Soooo funny and sooo true.

The problem isn't just the system, its any system. Any system that is subject to greed can be corrupted. All systems are subject to greed. Ergo, all systems can be corrupted. ;D However, once they make it illegal for lobbyists to donate over $2000 to one candidate (or outlaw lobbyists altogether) things will get a little better. A line item veto would also be good. And an abolition of a President's ability to be elected to a second term (instead being elected for one term of 6 years) would be keen. Do these, then we can see what else needs doing.

DrGonzo wrote:Put a woman in charge........ seriously they're so much less likely to be "Advised"

Hillary?

The Budget Office was including anything they felt was remotely associated with the AIDS epidemic, such as some cancer research programs and funding for the Just Say No and sexual abstinance programs, and calling it AIDS research funding. This is a common practice of both parties and has lead to misinformation and disinformation for the sole purpose of pushing their political agendas.

Point taken, I will look at this a little closer.

I'm not a partisan, I'm just looking for facts. I'm not sure you can find ANYTHING on the 'net that is not somehow influenced, be it Murdock's empire, Ted Turner's empire, or an assortment of figures from (insert activist group name here).

It's not easy :-)

However, 8 million to 2.3 billion is not chump change, and no matter how it was accounted for, I don't think anyone can dispute that research was ramped up greatly in the 80s.

bb420, can you supply a link or other information that outlines how the money was actually spent? The information I presented (yes it was from National Review but that does not make the information incorrect by default) outlined the budget earmarks, you say it wasn't spent properly, and I would be very interested in seeing how the money was actually spent. If you could provide that, I would appreciate it greatly.

If it was misspent, surely someone has researched it.

thanks

"Just the facts, ma'am".
-Sergeant Joe Friday

Lafe wrote:I'm not a partisan, I'm just looking for facts. I'm not sure you can find ANYTHING on the 'net that is not somehow influenced, be it Murdock's empire, Ted Turner's empire, or an assortment of figures from (insert activist group name here).

Point well taken. I tend to not trust any media source. I prefer to go to the agencies directly involved in the issues, which is why I suggested NIH and CDC. If you can make any sense of it at all (and not being an accountant I can make little sense of it) the GAO (General Accountability Office- www.gao.gov ) has all of the figures. The way others do their accounting of what was spent DIRECTLY on any issue is often very misleading, tending to be biased towards their viewpoint. I could send you to some sites that have attempted to show exactly where the figures are coming from, however, they are just as biased in the other direction.

I really didn't mean to imply that you were being partisan, I just wanted to point out that where you are getting your information from may be.

Over here it was referred to as “Victorian values” – a kind of prudish, intolerant and generally hypocritical, morality.

It's much the same here. Lately, the Republicans have worn this mentality on their collective sleeves. You know you have a problem as a "moral" political party when the guy whose name is all over "kiddie porn on the internet" legistation gets caught sending suggestive messages to male teen pages in the House of Representatives, and sets up a rendezvous for homosexual sex the day after a page turns 18 years old.

That, is a problem when you're "supposed" to be the moral voice of the nation. Of course that's a load of shit, but many people buy into it.

There is a great irony that the US Neo Cons and similar extremists in the West actually share many of the same values as their nemesis, the extreme Islamists (although they wouldn’t see it that way!).

Yes, and I too find that very ironic. When journalists covering the Sunday picnic at the First Baptist Church get taken into the back room by the church elders and are beheaded with video available on the internet, we can safely say they have merged :-) But yes, they are both very intolerant of other religious views at a fundamental level. Hopefully the snake-handlers at the church around the corner won't be flying airliners full of civilians into buildings.

There is also a popular perception that Reagan and Bush are just figureheads without the intellectual capacity to lead the world’s most powerful country.

I understand completely. I'm more concerned with their beholding to the Christian community. However, does anyone think Al Gore is a mental giant? He was put into Congress on the family name in Tennessee. His father loomed large in American politics, much like having the "Kennedy" name gets you seated in New England.

And Bush had a (barely) higher grade point average than John Kerry at Yale.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/ ... 0170.shtml

Of course that doesn't mean much but I find it an interesting side note. Either Gore or Kerry could easily have become POTUS. I find Gore no less frightening than Bush.

It's a very difficult job (POTUS), the most challenging occupation on the planet AFAIK. Finding the right person for the job is practically impossible given the electoral system, the way campaign finance works, and the way the lobbying system works.

I strongly believe the Baptists will continue their takeover of the Republican party. Some of the exit polls Tuesday indicated more Catholics voted Democratic than Republican. There was an interview yesterday or the day before on National Public Radio with the head of the Southern Baptist Convention and this gentleman's articulate and clearly stated goal is to wield enough political influence to make the Republican party what they want it to be, i.e. moral values and corresponding Republican sponsored legislation in lockstep with their own agenda.

Given the well-known goal of the Dems as a party to keep abortion legal in the United States, one would think that Catholics would NEVER vote Democratic, but that's what happened and it speaks volumes to the disgust of the American people with the current direction.

Being in Iraq is water under the bridge. The challenge now is to find a way out that gives them a chance to run their country by popular vote. I think most Americans want that, but I sure as hell don't know how to accomplish it. It appears no one else does, either.

Now that the Democrats are in power in Congress (on 20 January 2007), it's time to put up or shut up. We have heard NOTHING but criticism of the current administration for this unfortunate policy (well deserved IMO), and demands to get out of Iraq. Now they have to come up with a plan. That's the thing with the Democrats - for five years since 9/11 their ONLY policy has been "we're against the Republicans". We will see how this plays out, but at the end of the day when the big talk is over and the sabre rattling is finished, smart money says they will be as inept as the current crop of legislators.

Talk is cheap.

Lafe wrote:Now that the Democrats are in power in Congress (on 20 January 2007), it's time to put up or shut up. We have heard NOTHING but criticism of the current administration for this unfortunate policy (well deserved IMO), and demands to get out of Iraq.

For eight years all we heard was the same sort of rant from the Republicans. They have shown what their talk is worth.
One of the funniest things I have seen in the last year was news coverage of an anti-war anti-Bush rally where a protester behind the journalist was waving a placard that said "Will someone please give Bush a blowjob so he can be impeached."

The most disgusting aspect of the whole Iraq fiasco is what has happened to so many vets who have returned home to find a goverment unwilling to give them the support they desperately need and rightly deserve for their sacrifices. Take a look at the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America website to see exactly what trials they are facing. www.iava.org
This veterans day is a chance to recognize this fact and voice your opinion as to what should be done for these men and women who have given so much for this country.

wow and to think I was so happy when the dems took over congress and now the senate, that I wanted to share my joy of it with all of you, I didnt think any of you would want to talk politics in this forum. Now you have all posted some good thoughts on it that I could not possibly respond to all of them, but a few things I have to say. First of all, court jester, I felt the same way when BUSH was on the tv saying BUMFELD resigned. I was so happy. This was a good move although I have mixed feelings about Gates taking over. <and IM sure Rumsfeld was ASKED to resigned before the senate and congress asked for his removal>. At one point I thought Bush was going to cry. Second, some of you talk about a 3rd party. Well in theory that would be nice, but like one of you said, it just sucks votes away from one party so you may end up with the worst of 2 evils. <IMO thats how Bush got into office in the first place, besides cheating at the election in florida in 2000>. Third, one of you said to have a woman be president that they cant be advised. I think a woman could straighten out some things that men in power havent been able to do lately <no offense to the men>. But the last thing I would say is once again IMO, Clinton was the best thing that ever happened to the USA, and for humanitys sake, would someone please give Bush a blow job so we can impeach him!

A line item veto would also be good. And an abolition of a President's ability to be elected to a second term (instead being elected for one term of 6 years) would be keen.

Line item veto is critical to stopping some of these ridiculous bills. Congress will never give it to POTUS. Their ability to add pet projects to something meaningful POTUS has to sign really sucks IMO.

BTW POTUS is elected for four years, two terms max.

Congress put that in place after FDR, but would never approve term limits for themselves. I'm familiar with argument re: term limit in which you simply vote the bastards out, but the fact is an incumbent has a huge, huge advantage in the media. 12 years max, that's what I want. That is two terms for a U.S. Senator, or six terms for a U.S. representative.

Or change the term of a Senator to four years and make it 8 years max for any elected official. Two Senate terms, four House terms, and two White House terms.

I don't think the very wise men who set all this up intended for politics to be a job for life. It would be very interesting to know what Benjamin Franklin and that whole crew would think about what it has morphed into.

In Lafe's Perfect World, someone with an insane amount of money wishing to truly make things better here would put into place a mechanism for the residents of each state to get Constitutional amendment petitions and drives before the people on a regular basis. Our representative form of government is severly broken. The grass roots model truly represents the will of the people. Push it from the bottom up.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

cattales1960 wrote:wow and to think I was so happy when the dems took over congress and now the senate, that I wanted to share my joy of it with all of you, I didnt think any of you would want to talk politics in this forum.

I would like to apologize for the political bent to this thread. I started it with the intention of just exulting in the removal of an individual who is perceived by many around the world as the root cause of so much suffering and anguish through his mismanagement of the office to which he was appointed.

<IMO thats how Bush got into office in the first place, besides cheating at the election in florida in 2000>.

Ummm, that's how Clinton won in 1992. Ross Perot siphoned off about 20% of the vote (I voted for Perot, too). Clinton did not get a majority of votes in either presidential election.

The Florida election, well, all I can say is read the Supreme Court judgements of both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Every independent recount by media organizations, including the New York Times, verified that Bush got more votes than Gore in Florida. At the end of the day, that's what counts. Or least it should.

I thought it was priceless the Dems were screaming "voter disenfranchisement" when they tried to disallow a large number of absentee ballots from members of the military. They changed their position after a public relations debacle over the issue.

From the NY Times, hardly a mouthpiece for the Republicans:

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER

George W. Bush would have won even if the Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount that the Florida court had ordered to go forward.

There is more to the article, but you have join to view it. Please keep in mind this is the New York Times.

It's very easy to jump on the "Bush cheated" bandwagon, but as always the facts are much much deeper than that, and of course there was world-class manuvering behind the scenes to attempt to steer the election on both sides.

Yes, I know one can find many web sites claiming Bush cheated Gore out of the presidency, but they're mostly partisan. You can find just as many partisan sites taking the other position. Really, the fact that the NY Times takes this position ought to be enough.

Should anyone be surprised how ugly the Florida election became once the lawyers got involved?

I would like to apologize for the political bent to this thread. I started it with the intention of just exulting in the removal of an individual who is perceived by many around the world as the root cause of so much suffering and anguish through his mismanagement of the office to which he was appointed.

I'm sorry too :-)

I'm finished now, although this has been a very civil discussion. If we stay focused on facts and not allow emotion to drive us politically, it can be like this.

There are very few things I know which are absolutely certain, but this is one of them:

No one's political opinion has ever been changed via an internet discussion forum :-)

best regards to all, now where's that dank bud? :-)