Republican's lies and misrepresentations

**Rhodan** · 01 May 05, 14:38

I'm not nieve, I know ALL politicians lie, stretch the truth, and misrepresent facts in such a way as to fit thier agendas. Democrat or Republican, Green party or Libertarian, they're all the same.

The recent sensations of Terri Schievo(sp?) and the Senate Fillibuster have the Neo-Con wing of the Republican's pumping out lies that are just TOOO bald faced though.

First is all the crap about liberal activist judges and the de-facto call for violence against the judges involved. The rallying cry being that anti-christian liberal judges are taking over the judiciary.

The judges referred to are actually CHRISTIAN REPUBLICANS. They did NOT adjudicate whether or not Terri should live or die. It wasn't a judge that ordered her feeding tube removed. What these judges ruled on was who had legal guardianship over Terri. These judges did what judges are supposed to do - they made a ruling based in existing law and precident. Terri's husband HAD the legal position as legal guardian - period. The judges could not rule any other way without going against the laws of the land.

The Neocons knew this but chose to inflame emotions by throwing their own (Christian Republican Judges) to the lions by characterizing them as Liberal Activists. The hipocracy is sickening - Delay himself, along with his family, had pulled the feeding tube from his own father and let him die then called for violence against these judges for doing thier jobs!

Now we go to the Senate Fillibuster. The Senate was designed specifically to prevent the "Tyranny of the Majority". There is no proportional representation in the senate, all states get the same number of senators. Debate has NO LIMIT and simply majority is not enough to call a vote. These things were done on _purpose_. The senate is supposed to be the place of sober second thought - not the rubber stamp for congress. The fillibuster is a CRUCIAL aspect of the entire purpose of the senate. It allows the minority to resist the tyranny of the majority.

Frist stood up in front of America and decried the actions of Democratic Senators in blocking a vote on Bush appointees. He said that never before in the history of the Senate had this happened before. WHAT A CROCK. Frist himself participated in a fillibuster against Clinton appointed nominees! He can't even claim this was an simple error since HE HIMSELF did the exact same thing! Gaawwwwwd doesn't it just make you sick?

Also the neo-cons are blustering about how the senate deadlock is an attack against people of faith. Forgettng to mention that over 200 of Bush's appointees were ALREADY APPROVED and a great many of them are christian republicans. The Democrats are blocking seven appointees because they see them as the worst of the worst. An example is the woman from the California Supreme court that ruled Date Rape isn't really rape because there is an implied consent - even when the woman says NO!.

Then there's all this crap about the Democrats calling the threatened changes to Senate rules the "Nuclear option". Frist gets up there are starts bashing democrats claiming "Only in the US senate could allowing a vote be considered an act of violence". Trent Lott (Republican) is the person that originated this term - he admitted that himself. FRIST himself took the term mainstream in media interviews. Since then, focus groups have showed that the public doesn't like the characterization so now the Republican's are trying to claim it was the democrats that came up with it? How freakin' bald faced can you get? These republican's appear on TV and Radio saying these things and yet they think the public has such a short memory and are stupid enough to believe them?

Sorry - all politicians are liars but these guys take the prize.

**Rhodan** · 01 May 05, 16:03

Sorry - was interrupted,

The last example I'll give is Bush's speech on social security. Bush said that when you put money into social security the government just takes that and spends it so you'd be better off putting your money into treasury bills.

Is he really that dense? First off, Social Security *IS* a treasury bill, it has a special status but, its almost identical to T-Bills. So Really what he said was "You can't trust T-Bills because they just steal your money so you're better off puting your money in T-Bills".

Second, what does he think the government does with money put into T-Bills? Why, it spends it! So who the hell does he think he's fooling?

Third, why is he telling the public that the credit of the United States of America is no good? That *IS* what he's saying when he says your money isn't safe in Social Security.

Not going to get into whether or not privatizing Social Security is good or bad. I have my own opinion but its not relevent to the topic of this thread.

**Confed999** · 01 May 05, 19:43

Originally Posted by Rhodan

the de-facto call for violence against the judges involved.

Please show me that one.

Originally Posted by Rhodan

The judges referred to are actually CHRISTIAN REPUBLICANS. They did NOT adjudicate whether or not Terri should live or die. It wasn't a judge that ordered her feeding tube removed. What these judges ruled on was who had legal guardianship over Terri. These judges did what judges are supposed to do - they made a ruling based in existing law and precident. Terri's husband HAD the legal position as legal guardian - period. The judges could not rule any other way without going against the laws of the land.

Your own statement destroys your "brown shirt" conspiracy from the other thread. LOL!

Originally Posted by Rhodan

The Neocons

ROTFL! Lull is back! Start using more smileys! I'll take a neocon over a neolib anyday.

Originally Posted by Rhodan

Now we go to the Senate Fillibuster. The Senate was designed specifically to prevent the "Tyranny of the Majority". There is no proportional representation in the senate, all states get the same number of senators. Debate has NO LIMIT and simply majority is not enough to call a vote. These things were done on _purpose_. The senate is supposed to be the place of sober second thought - not the rubber stamp for congress. The fillibuster is a CRUCIAL aspect of the entire purpose of the senate. It allows the minority to resist the tyranny of the majority.

If they had 60 votes a filibuster can be stopped legally. Wipes out your majority thing huh?

Originally Posted by Rhodan

Bush said that when you put money into social security the government just takes that and spends it so you'd be better off putting your money into treasury bills.

Is he really that dense? First off, Social Security *IS* a treasury bill, it has a special status but, its almost identical to T-Bills. So Really what he said was "You can't trust T-Bills because they just steal your money so you're better off puting your money in T-Bills".

Are you better off with your own T-Bill, or are you better off if the government has a T-Bill? The key word is "your".

Originally Posted by Rhodan

That *IS* what he's saying when he says your money isn't safe in Social Security.

But it's not "your" money in Social Security. You do realize partial privatization was something Clinton started working on when the devil with the blue dress came around right?

**Rhodan** · 02 May 05, 00:39

Originally Posted by Confed999

Please show me that one.

Tom Delay "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,"

John Cornyn "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. ... And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence.", "No one, including those judges, including the judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, should be surprised if one of us stands up and objects."

Originally Posted by Confed999

Your own statement destroys your "brown shirt" conspiracy from the other thread. LOL!

Not at all. In other threads I said the same thing as here - the particular judges and judgements in question were in line with existing law and precedent. Nowhere did I say there is no such thing as an activist judge.

The Supreme court is also somewhat different. Pass unconstitutional laws and have the supreme court say they ARE constitutional then every judge in the country is bound to follow them or be "activist".

Originally Posted by Confed999

If they had 60 votes a filibuster can be stopped legally. Wipes out your majority thing huh?

Again, not at all - it takes a CLEAR majority instead of a SIMPLE majority tp push through legislation. This is by design.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Are you better off with your own T-Bill, or are you better off if the government has a T-Bill? The key word is "your".

Either way, its a t-bill. If you cannot trust the government with a t-bill in social security then how can you trust it with t-bills at all? Or any other form of IUO for that matter.

Originally Posted by Confed999

But it's not "your" money in Social Security. You do realize partial privatization was something Clinton started working on when the devil with the blue dress came around right?

Like I said - not debating that in this thread. This is about current republican lies and misrepresentations. Though if you have any examples of recent juicy Democrat ones I'd love to hear those too. 8)

**Confed999** · 02 May 05, 01:00

Originally Posted by Rhodan

Tom Delay "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,"

Thats a "the de-facto call for violence" to you? LOL! You're kidding right? You must be a pretty violent fella. You forgot the "not today" at the end of that too.

Ever read a transcript of that speach?

Originally Posted by Rhodan

The Supreme court is also somewhat different. Pass unconstitutional laws and have the supreme court say they ARE constitutional then every judge in the country is bound to follow them or be "activist".

Impeachment.

Originally Posted by Rhodan

Again, not at all - it takes a CLEAR majority instead of a SIMPLE majority tp push through legislation. This is by design.

It takes a clear majority for tyranny by the majority? Also, to the best of my knowlege nobody is messing with the legislation filibuster.

Originally Posted by Rhodan

Either way, its a t-bill. If you cannot trust the government with a t-bill in social security then how can you trust it with t-bills at all? Or any other form of IUO for that matter.

One way it's yours, the other way it's the government's. When you die it would be transferable. Yours, you posess it, it belongs to you. Still don't get what he was saying?

Originally Posted by Rhodan

Like I said - not debating that in this thread. This is about current republican lies and misrepresentations.

Except that your belief in a lie is a misunderstanding, or maybe a spin.

Originally Posted by Rhodan

Though if you have any examples of recent juicy Democrat ones I'd love to hear those too. 8)

How about nearly everything said about Social Secuity reform. How about "GWB took us to war". It would be easier to find a Dem lie if they had any ideas of their own. Not to mention, just as you've shown, it's hard to actually prove the lie.

**Rhodan** · 02 May 05, 01:37

Originally Posted by Confed999

It takes a clear majority for tyranny by the majority? Also, to the best of my knowlege nobody is messing with the legislation filibuster.

Ah ok, you probably missed it. Trent Lott has threatened to have the fillibuster declared unconstitutional. The senate chair will be the person ruling on the issue. Since it will be either Cheney or Ted Stevens taking the chair it would definately be found to be so, instantly lowering the requirement to a simple majority.

Originally Posted by Confed999

One way it's yours, the other way it's the government's. When you die it would be transferable. Yours, you posess it, it belongs to you. Still don't get what he was saying?

That wasn't what he was talking about and not what I am complaining about.

Originally Posted by Confed999

How about nearly everything said about Social Secuity reform. How about "GWB took us to war". It would be easier to find a Dem lie if they had any ideas of their own. Not to mention, just as you've shown, it's hard to actually prove the lie.

The proof is all around you, you just refuse to see or believe any of it.

**Confed999** · 02 May 05, 01:43

Originally Posted by Rhodan

Trent Lott has threatened to have the fillibuster declared unconstitutional.

He'll never get the support to do it. There are Republicans that do not support stopping the judicial filibuster.

Originally Posted by Rhodan

That wasn't what he was talking about and not what I am complaining about.

That's what it looks like he was saying to me. Since this is about "privatization" it would fit perfectly.

Originally Posted by Rhodan

The proof is all around you, you just refuse to see or believe any of it.

I hear tons of conspiracy, but I see not concrete proof. You haven't provided any yet.

**Confed999** · 02 May 05, 01:48

Originally Posted by Rhodan

Trent Lott has threatened to have the fillibuster declared unconstitutional.

I've done some searching and I can't find where Lott has made a move against anything but the judicial filibuster. Do you have a transcript of the speach where he said he was going to do this?

Thread: Republican's lies and misrepresentations

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Republican's lies and misrepresentations

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions