Thursday, June 02, 2005

The Magnificent Seven...Appeasers

Check out Seven Extaordinary Idiots

Here's what appeasement does for ya! You come up with a compromise with unprincipled bullies and then you get taken advantage of. The seven "wise" and conciliatory Senators Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee know how to cut a great deal when the see one. Anne Coulter says it best:

"The seven Republicans we're not leaving in charge of the national treasury believed they could trust the Democrats to interpret "extraordinary circumstances" fairly. And why not? It's not as if the Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Oh wait — no, I have that wrong. The Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Hmmm.

Well, at least the Democrats didn't wait until Trent Lott foolishly granted them an equal number of committee chairmanships following the 2000 election to seize illegitimate control of the Senate by getting future Trivial Pursuit answer Jim Jeffords to change parties after being elected as a Republican. Oops, no — they did that, too.

The seven Republican "mavericks," as The New York Times is wont to call them, had just signed off on this brilliant compromise when the Democrats turned around and filibustered John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations."

Call it stupid. You never deal with bullies, YOU DEFEAT THEM! Hey! Wait! We did defeat them!

22 Comments:

At 9:10 AM, Blogger United We Lay said...

WHOOHOO! This debate has had my stomach in knots for days now, which the threat that if it happened, I was leaving the country and taking my belly fruit with me.

The republicans have resored to bullying, and I find it offensive. I teach the Constitution. To watch how our President has gone against it is terrifying, but keep the faith. Revolution is coming!

 
At 11:47 AM, Anonymous Innocent Bystander said...

Two things:

1.)In what way has Bush gone against the Constitution?

2.)What are the Republiicans doing that can be considered bullying?

If you want a better example of going against the Constitution, look at the Supreme Court! Ever since the fifties and sixties, they have been legislating laws (Roe v. Wade, for example), not interpereting them! They are not given authority by the Constitution to do so, (Look at that entire section, that power is not granted to them.)yet no one on the Hill, or anywhere political for that matter, is challenging them! CONGRESS is to make the laws because they are the elected officials of the people. The founding fathers set it up that way in order to avoid a heirarchy of power hungry tyrants such as the type who would allow the modern holocaust of abortion to continue without legal accountability.
I think that Congress should remove the Supreme Court's power in Legislative affairs and rebuild it from the ground up. It was congress who created it, so Congress can remove it. Something MUST be done to save this country; It is worth fighting for.

 
At 12:04 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

IB: you have a good point. However, juridical action such as Roe v Wade et al come from president dating back to Jefferson and would be a difficult thing to accomplish. To combat this, a possible president to follow is Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Soon after the Supreme Court's infamous "Dredd V.Scott decision, President Lincoln, by Presidential decree, lawfully set all slaves free.

If something like this, or action from either Legislative or Executives branches, the Judicial Branch may be roped in. It takes moral courage, though, and for that matter, do we have men or women in government to do the job?

 
At 9:16 AM, Blogger United We Lay said...

Innocent -
In the interest of not talking out of my butt, give me a day or two to compile and explain all of President Bush's Constitutional indiscretions (including the Terri Schiavo thing). I promise, I WILL get back to you.

2. The Terri Schiavo thing and the culture of life debate
The judicial nominee thing
The Ten Commandments on public property thing
The war with Iraq
The Patriot Act
Faith Based initiatives
Again, I'll complile a list.

I am well aware of the Constitution and what is says, as I have been eaching it for fuve years. The Supreme Court, under a checks and balance system, is supposed to make sure laws are constitutional, and sometimes that requires interpretation. I think you need a little more education on what the founding fathers intended. Try studying Jefferson, Paine, Washignton, Franklin, Locke, etc. I'd be more than happy to suggest books. You do read books, don't you? I'm not even going to get into the abortion debate with you until you answer one question: are you male or female?

 
At 9:17 AM, Blogger United We Lay said...

Underground,
I'll publich my lists on my site so as not to clutter yours.

 
At 11:01 AM, Anonymous Innocent Bystander said...

Polanco,
Whether I am male or female does not change the point of whether abortion is moral or not. But I'll answer your question anyway: I am male.

As to your other statements, yes I enjoy reading books and I am always more than willing to learn. You said I need more education on the founding fathers and such. Please educate me then! I never professed to know everything about anything and I appologize if my statements made it seem that way.

Underground,
As to your last question, I am not sure and am rather skeptical if there is anyone in the political arena at this time that is willing to stick their neck out to rope in the supreme court. I fear that general politicians today worry more about the good of their party or their own careers than the good of the country as a whole. I hope I am mistaken. Although, there may be a few that stand out among the rest that have the potential to do something. We will see.

 
At 11:48 AM, Blogger United We Lay said...

The reason I askeed is because men and women think differently. I would explain my ideas to a man differently than I would to a woman.

You have the right to believe that abortion is not moral. You do no have a right to impose that belief on me. It is not fair of you to assume the ability to decide anything that happens to my body. Furthermore, there are circumstances beyond my conrol that may result in pregnancy, such as rape, or other harm coming to the fetus or myself. Why shouldn't I get to decide what happens in those instances? Am I not smart enough to make an informed, educated decision about what is best for me and/or the health of my child? Can you even imagine the emotional and physical suffering that comes from carrying the child of a man who raped you, beat you, and nearly killed you? Why do you get to decide if I can handle it?

My book comment was harsh, I apologize. Crankiness is no excuse. You should visit Monticello, if you haven't been. Madison's house is nearby. The People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn is a good place to start.

 
At 6:22 PM, Anonymous Innocent Bystander said...

Polanco,
I most graciously accept your appology. Thank you for the suggestions.

Now, on to the subject at hand:

Would it still be imposing my beliefs on you if the situation was where you murdered your neighbor?

As to my "assuming the ability to decide what happens to your body," it is equally unfair that you assume the ability to say what happens to the baby's body. What has the baby done to you to deserve death? You asked why do I get to decide? (You say me specifically because I'm against abortion, I assume.) Here's a question: Does the baby get to decide? How many abortion victims are around to give their opinion? None. They are all dead of course.

It is true that rape is dispicable and disgusting. But can two wrongs really make a right? How can aborting an innocent little child going to punish the rapist? In actuality, you are creating another victim in a domino effect resulting from the first, but horrible, act. Tachnically, I would not be forcing you to have the child, the rapist would be. I would just be forbiding you to murder the baby. Yes, I can't truly know what it would feel like to have all the emotional and physical pain that comes with rape, that I admit completely, but that brings me back to the question of "can two wrongs truly make a right?"

 
At 8:43 AM, Blogger United We Lay said...

A comment I made on a latter post applies, but here it is again, sorry for the repetition. As a society, we have not held the positiona that just like an egg is not a chicken, a grouping of cells is not a person. A rapist has nothing to do with this discussion, except for the fact that he put into motion the development of a current grouping of cells that may eventually become a person. The mother's emotional and physical well-being is at stake here, and it is her choice. Does she want to be forced to make a baby, or not? It is her choice, no matter how the chain of events began.

 
At 10:20 AM, Anonymous Innocent Bystander said...

Polanco,
I believe you are mistaking the question of "what it is" for "how developed it is."

Would you say it is worse to kill an adult than a fetus?
If yes, then is it worse to kill an adult than an adolescent?

So if we follow that line of reasoning, it would only follow that in the same way that it is wrong to kill an adult than a fetus, it is only somewhat wrong to kill an adolescent than a pre-adolescent. Correct? The developement of the human determines whether or not it is right to kill it?
Then here is another question, What is a human being? Then if a fetus is not human, what it is then? A potential X must be an actual Y, correct? So if a fetus is not human yet, What is it?

You said, "As a society, we have not held the positiona that just like an egg is not a chicken, a grouping of cells is not a person."
Is the majority always right? What about the Nazis? At one time they were a majority in Germany, but was genocide right then?

How are the minorities protected against the majorities? If the majority made lynching legal, would it still be a good law to make it illegal?

As to the rapist, he very well has everything to do with this. It is he that would be forcing the woman to make a child by his forcing her to have sex with him. If that had not happened, the woman would not have to deal with that situation at all. It was his choice to do this, and so it was his choice for the woman have a baby. ok I'm done talking about the rapist, but if you wish to continue with it, I will follow as well.

I hope I didn't overwhelm you by all of my questions! :)

 
At 11:46 AM, Blogger United We Lay said...

Question: What is the difference between a tumor and a fetus?

 
At 12:14 PM, Anonymous Innocent Bystander said...

A tumor is (according to Webster) "a circumscribed noninflamitory growth arising from existing tissue but growing independently of the normal rate or structural developement of such tissue and serving no physiological function."

A fetus is (also according to Webster) "the unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate; in humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week to the moment of birth."

I assume that your point is to say that a fetus is a type of tumor. Am I correct in assuming this?

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger United We Lay said...

No. But in the first eight weeks, there is more similarity between what is not yet a fetus and what is a tumor. Until the eigth week, it is human, but not a human, just as a tumor is human, but not a human.

 
At 2:03 PM, Anonymous Innocent Bystander said...

Just because that they are similar in some ways doesn't mean that they can be referred to equally. You're making the assumption that in the same way that a tumor is not a human, that the fetus in the first 8 weeks (I believe the term is zygote) is also not a human. I'm sorry to say this, but this is getting absurd in that by looking at the similarities, we dismiss the differences, which are quite important, are they not?

What are these differences you may ask? Well, I'll tell you what I have abserved just from the definitions I gave earlier.

1.)A tumor is a growth that is made of the same tissue from which it is growing. (It's made out of the same sort of "stuff.")A fetus is not made of the same tissue from which it is growing. (It's not made out of the same sort of "stuff.")


2.)A fetus is an independant organism from the mother. A tumor is not, although it grows at independent rates. For if we said that a tumor was an independent organism, we would also have to say that the liver is also an independent organism (specifically when it is growing back after having a chunk taken out of it.)

3.)The tumor serves no Physiological function. It has no physical purpose nor does it have its own vital processes.(By definition of physiology) The fetus, on the other hand, has it's own vital processes and it's purpose? Well, I assume that any coherent being could guess this: to live, to prosper, to survive, to experience life, to populate the earth, to continue what is in our very nature, and at least to be.

I can list some more if you like, but I have to warn you that I may have to resort to religious reasons as well. (Da da dun!)

I also noticed that you didn't really answer my other bombardment of questions, so if you could do that, that would be wonderful. :)

 
At 7:40 AM, Blogger United We Lay said...

After Downing Street: A Resolution of Inquiry

By Steve Cobble / The Nation

It's not exactly a news flash that the Bush Administration lied to the public before the invasion of Iraq. What should be on front pages, though, is new proof of the Bush Administration's lies brought to light by the previously unknown Downing Street Minutes, recently obtained and printed in the Times of London. (The Downing Street Memo is a transcript of minutes of a secret meeting chaired by Tomy Blair in Britain in July of 2002 to discuss preparations and propaganda before going to war. It was marked "Secret and strictly personal--UK eyes only.")

The Downing Street Minutes are deserving, in the words of constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz, of an official "Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States."

Bonifaz, who two years ago took the Bush Administration to court on behalf of a coalition of US soldiers, parents of soldiers and twelve Members of Congress (including John Conyers Jr., Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson Jr., Jim McDermott, José Serrano, Sheila Jackson Lee) to challenge the constitutionality of the Iraq war, adds:

"The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Memo, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into a war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on 'preemptive' purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?"

As in previous investigations of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," such a "Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation."

Bonifaz's memorandum making the case for launching a Resolution of Inquiry is posted at www.afterdowningstreet.org/, a new website founded by David Swanson, Bob Fertik, Bonifaz and others (including this writer), together with a broad array of public interest groups that is posted on the web site.

Our memo is written to Representative Conyers, both because he is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and because he has been a brave truth-seeker on this issue and so many others. We support his letter demanding answers from the Bush Administration, signed originally by eighty-eight of his House colleagues; his call for 100,000 signatures to back up that letter; and his plan to go to London to seek more answers.

We have also made contact with several other members of Congress, and we believe that it will not be long before a group in Congress officially calls for an ROI.

Unfortunately, as most Nation readers know, the Downing Street Minutes have only been a story in the rest of the world, especially in Britain. In the United States it is taking much longer for the mainstream to pick up on it, and the issue is still being treated far less seriously than the seriousness of the charges warrant.

Fortunately, the blogosphere has found this new proof of George W. Bush's "misleadership" much more compelling than the mainstream press has; writers like Apian have posted incisive diaries on www.dailykos.com/, which regularly covers the story, as has Georgia10 and her friends, who founded the wonderful site www.downingstreetmemo.com/.

Despite a slow start, the Downing Street Minutes may have a long life expectancy, and the Misleader of the Pack may yet have to confront the truth.

 
At 7:42 AM, Blogger United We Lay said...

Religious reasons are invalid when you debate someone who is of a different faith, and cannot be used as logic.

A growth is not a fetus until the 8th week.

 
At 9:56 AM, Anonymous Innocent Bystander said...

A growth is not a fetus AT ALL.

You're changing the terms, here madame. Please stick to the original, unless you wish to define some new ones.

Arguments with religious reasons can still be valid. Validity describes arguments that contain premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived. Your problem is with the premises- which contain religious reasons- not the the validity of it. Please don't mistake the two terms "valid" and "truth."

 
At 7:58 PM, Blogger United We Lay said...

A conclusion cannot be logically drawn from a religious argument because religion is myth.

 
At 11:46 PM, Anonymous Innocent Bystander said...

Please explain how religion is myth.

 
At 9:01 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

I need to give some input her by taking it further than 'IB'...PROVE that religion is a myth.

First, you'll have to define what you mean by 'religion,' whether it is ALL religion, some religion, just one religion.

Two, you need to show your premises, which MUST be true.

Third, your arument MUST be in valid form.

If you can't, your statement is false and MUST be catagorically rejected; or, it is a huge act of faith on your part which comes under the myth of religion, which contradicts your initial statement in the first place, ergo, your argument is nonsensical. This then brings me to the all important question: why do continually resist the common master?

You have work to do.

 
At 7:34 AM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

I'm still waiting...ever waiting.

 
At 6:32 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Patience Sam, don't be a jerk!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home