Originally Posted By thethe1 >>They don't own the branches of government - they're just leasing them for the time being.<< Leasing, own, does not matter the Libs are just not wanted by most Americans
Originally Posted By thethe1 >>and that's why we own the Senate the House, and the Presidency, and soon the Supreme court.<< >>You scare me.<< I would be much more scared of a person who think's it's OK to suck the brains out of a baby that has been in the womb for 7-9 months, now that person is evil and very very scary.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Where in the Constitution does it define what a declaration of war is?" Trying to re-frame the issue again? What does this have to do with anything? We haven't declared war, period. We authorized force. Sorry to disappoint you.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Where in the Constitution does it define what a declaration of war is?<< It doesn't, but an authorization to use force is different than a declaration of war.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer A declaration of war loosens restrictions on executive power in regards to warrants, arrests, and detentions, for one thing.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's all over the US Code - the laws passed by Congress, signed by the President, and in many cases reviewed by the courts.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Alito, on the other hand, bragged about membership in this group whose main purpose was to keep Princeton as white and male as possible on his job application to the Reagan administration, and now "forgets" all about even belonging.>> <You're misrepresenting Alito's resume, as well as the group he was once a member of.> Wrong on both counts.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The main purpose of Concerned Alumni for Princeton was not to keep Princeton as white and male as possible. There is no evidence that was one of its purposes at all. And I certainly haven't seen any evidence that Alito was "bragging" about his membership in CAP when he listed it on his resume. So, right on both counts.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>It's all over the US Code - the laws passed by Congress, signed by the President, and in many cases reviewed by the courts.<< But under the concept of the Imperial Presidency, I mean unitary executive, laws signed by previous Presidents don't apply anymore. Just the fiat of the current Emperor, I mean President. George W. Bush is god and Rush Limbaugh is his prophet.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The main purpose of Concerned Alumni for Princeton was not to keep Princeton as white and male as possible. There is no evidence that was one of its purposes at all. And I certainly haven't seen any evidence that Alito was "bragging" about his membership in CAP when he listed it on his resume. So, right on both counts.> No, wrong on both counts. The "bragging" is my word - but certainly anything you list on your resume, especially non-essential things like group membership as opposed to essential things like work experience, are things that you want to draw attention to - things that you list to say "I'm the guy you want, and here's why." Why list something like that at all unless you think it makes you look good in the eyes of the people reviewing the application? Moreover, it was one of only two such groups he mentioned. And what did this organization stand for? <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200601110008" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/items/ 200601110008</a> "Founded in the same year that Alito graduated -- three years after Princeton began admitting women to the university -- CAP was criticized in its early years by current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) who, according to a November 27, 2005, New York Times article, sat on a Princeton alumni panel in 1975 that condemned "the distorted, narrow and hostile view of the university" advanced by the members of CAP." So even Frist knew they were no-good-niks. From their own publication: "CAP published a magazine, Prospect, edited by Alito classmate T. Harding Jones, who, according to the Princetonian, wrote in the February 1973 issue that the increasing number of women in the Princeton student body showed that "[t]he makeup of the Princeton student body has changed drastically for the worse." On March 3, 1974, according to People for the American Way, Jones told The New York Times that "[c]o-education has ruined the mystique and the camaraderies that used to exist. Princeton has now given into the fad of the moment, and I think it's going to prove to be a very unfortunate thing." According to the Princetonian, Davis wrote in Prospect: "May I recall, and with some nostalgia, my father's 50th reunion, a body of men, relatively homogenous in interests and backgrounds, who had known and liked each other over the years during which they had contributed much in spirit and substance to the greatness of Princeton ... I cannot envisage a similar happening in the future," Davis added, "with an undergraduate student population of approximately 40% women and minorities, such as the Administration has proposed." Additionally, according to The Nation, "[T]he executive committee of CAP published a statement in December 1973 that affirmed unequivocally, 'Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy.' " And according to a November 26, 2005, New York Times article by staff writer David Kirkpatrick, in the 1980s CAP also opposed the integration of three all-male "eating clubs where many upper class Princeton students took their meals." Also, according to People for the American Way, "A 1973 CAP fundraising letter claimed that 'a student population of approximately 40 percent women and minorities will largely vitiate the alumni body of the future.'" What part of "'Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy.' " do you not understand?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I understand that those on the left are taking sentences out of context and reporting satire as if it was said straight faced. If CAP was against allowing women and people of color into Princeton, why were some of the editors of its newsletter women and people of color?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Don't fret Doug as read some of the buffoonery that Pass has directed solely at me. FYI----The cape cod times today has one person actually asking for Ted to prove his "greatness" by standing up and going forth with the filibuster aka the "nuclear option"! How insane is that, both politically and rationally?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe addendum-----let me explain that I'm talking about the Supreme Court nominee Alioto as pass may pretend to not understand.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Note that the word "War" is actually used. >> <<Trying to re-frame the issue again? What does this have to do with anything? We haven't declared war, period. We authorized force. Sorry to disappoint you.>> STPH, by your logic we never went to war with VietNam either since we didn't " declare war " in that conflict. I love how you libs try and act like we are in no war with terrorists. It kind of explains why the left has no idea how to keep the country safe and are more concerned that Bruce and Gary can get married than they are about stoping Muhammed from blowing up Disneyland. It is very fortunate that the adults run the White House and congress.
Originally Posted By FaMulan We didn't go into a Declared War in Vietnam. It was always referred to as a "Police Action" in government documents.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I understand that those on the left are taking sentences out of context and reporting satire as if it was said straight faced.> Huh? Are you saying that "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy." was meant satirically? >If CAP was against allowing women and people of color into Princeton, why were some of the editors of its newsletter women and people of color?> Are you sure that was the case, at the time these things were written? After all, people and organizations change: George Wallace who once vowed "segregation forever" eventually hired black staffers. Were the editors of the newsletter at the time in question (let's say 1973, since two of the quotes are dated then) women and minorities? Can you show me that? Or did you find some website or something that pointed out that much later they changed their positions, Wallace-like, and are trying to obfuscate?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are you saying that "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy." was meant satirically?> It's possible. It's also possible that it was taken out of context. <Are you sure that was the case, at the time these things were written?> No, but I am aware that people who supported CAP or worked there at the beginning have said it wasn't true that CAP was against letting minorities and women into Prinecton.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Are you saying that "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy." was meant satirically?>> <It's possible. It's also possible that it was taken out of context.> LOL!!! It's "possible" it was satiric? Man, you could probably answer just about anything with that one. How do we know bin Laden really still wants to attack us, based on that recent tape? Maybe he meant is satirically! ROTFLMAO. <<Are you sure that was the case, at the time these things were written?>> <No,> ...didn't think so. Which makes you previous comment a pure attempt at obfuscation. <but I am aware that people who supported CAP or worked there at the beginning have said it wasn't true that CAP was against letting minorities and women into Prinecton. > Gee, I wonder why they'd say that in 2006? Ever see "Eyes on the Prize?" They had people from White Citizens Councils 25 years later saying they had "nothing against black people." What time WILL do to a memory.
