Religions > Atheism > Alan Keyes: Let's Revoke the 17th Amendment!!! (re: Can a Moron Get More Moronic?)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2004 09:42:28 PM |
| Object: |
Alan Keyes: Let's Revoke the 17th Amendment!!! (re: Can a Moron Get More Moronic?) |
Now Keyes is on to another crowd pleaser: ending elections for
senators and giving the choice back to state legislatures. "There has
been a steady deleterious erosion of the sovereign role of the
states," Keyes told a radio station on Friday and ending popular
elections for senators would help put things right.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_15.php#003260
==============================================================
[Article XVII.]
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from
each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each
Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of
the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the
Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of
election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any
State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments
until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may
direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or
term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the
Constitution.
================================================================
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -947 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "torresB" |
|
| Title: Tit For Tet |
17 Aug 2004 10:56:38 PM |
|
|
Tit For Tet
May 26, 2004
Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive
during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we
were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to
lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.
The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in
support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12
years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.
Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the
public that we are losing the war in Iraq. Communist dictators may
have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they
displayed a certain degree of rationality. America may not be able to
wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing
with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions
while chanting "Allah Akbar!"
And yet the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib,
Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war
in Iraq is going well provokes laughter. The distortions have become
so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being
considered a reliable source.
If President Bush mentions our many successes in Iraq, it is evidence
that he is being "unrealistically sunny and optimistic," as Michael
O'Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution put it.
O'Hanlon's searing indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need
to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves
decide how to spend that are not already pre-allocated." So that's the
crux of our challenge in Iraq: Make sure their "accounts receivable"
columns all add up. Whenever great matters are at stake, you can
always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint.
We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed
his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his
neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out
to Osama bin Laden. Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as
half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.
So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons - brucella and
Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin - and
long-range missiles in Iraq.
The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by
Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when
it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala
had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave,
further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq -
the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets. Last weekend, our troops
patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.
The entire Kurdish region - one-third of the country - is patrolled by
about 300 American troops, which is fewer than it takes to patrol the
Kennedy compound in Palm Beach on Easter weekends.
But the media tell us this means we're losing. The goalpost of success
keeps shifting as we stack up a string of victories. Before the war,
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq
would be a nightmare: "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe
out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out,
"we're incredibly lucky.")
We've done all that! How incredibly lucky.
Kristof continued: "We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground -
which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much
bloodier."
We've captured Saddam! And it wasn't bloody! Indeed, the most
harrowing aspect of Saddam's capture was that he hadn't bathed or been
de-liced for two months.
Kristof also said: "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting
was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're
taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000
regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia."
And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks! Incredibly
lucky again! And just think: all of this accomplished without even
having a "Plan."
Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their
rat holes from around the entire region - which liberals also said
wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated
Saddam Hussein - hated him! - because he was a "secularist"? As
geopolitical strategist Paul Begala put it, Saddam would never share
his weapons with terrorists because "those Islamic terrorists would
use them against Saddam Hussein because he's secular."
Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about
Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by
American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan
(where the natives would immediately surrender).
The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this
morning. Every day liberals can create a new narrative that destroys
the past as it occurred. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
To be sure, Iraq is not a bed of roses. As the Brookings Institution
scholar said, we have yet to give the Iraqis "budget resources" that
"are not already pre-allocated." I take it back: It is a quagmire.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Chamblee" |
|
| Title: Re: Tit For Tet |
18 Aug 2004 03:59:26 AM |
|
|
torresB <torresB@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote:
Tit For Tet
May 26, 2004
Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive
during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we
were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to
lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.
Who wrote this worthless crap?
It certainly wasn't you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Tit For Tet |
18 Aug 2004 11:58:16 AM |
|
|
In article <1rk5i0hpc2ds33pflc5j3kobqe0c501uib@4ax.com>,
torresB <torresB@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote:
Tit For Tet
May 26, 2004
Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive
during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we
were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to
lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.
The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in
support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12
years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.
Now liberals are using their control of the media
Yeah, those liberals like Joe Scarborough, Neal Boortz, John McLaughlin, Pat
Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Rupert Murdoch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr.Excitement" |
|
| Title: Re: Tit For Tet |
21 Aug 2004 06:43:38 PM |
|
|
ARE YOU THE SAME IDIOT FROM RASN????????????
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:cg0fra$9v9$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <1rk5i0hpc2ds33pflc5j3kobqe0c501uib@4ax.com>,
torresB <torresB@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote:
Tit For Tet
May 26, 2004
Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive
during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we
were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to
lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.
The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in
support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12
years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.
Now liberals are using their control of the media
Yeah, those liberals like Joe Scarborough, Neal Boortz, John McLaughlin,
Pat
Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Rupert Murdoch.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Satterwhite" |
|
| Title: Re: Tit For Tet |
20 Aug 2004 09:06:49 AM |
|
|
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <1rk5i0hpc2ds33pflc5j3kobqe0c501uib@4ax.com>,
torresB <torresB@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote:
Tit For Tet
May 26, 2004
Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive
during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we
were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to
lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.
The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in
support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12
years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.
Now liberals are using their control of the media
Yeah, those liberals like Joe Scarborough, Neal Boortz, John McLaughlin, Pat
Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Rupert Murdoch.
As the great Molly Ivins once said: "I tune in regularly to listen to William
F. Buckley,
Mona Charen, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, John Sununu, John McLaughlin,
Pat Buchanan, Gordon Liddy, James Kilpatrick, Robert Novak, Pat Robertson,
Paul Harvey, and Phillis Schlafly talk about how more conservative voices
are needed because of the liberal slant of the media."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
