World Forums

"How about this, every Senator, Republican or Democrat found of wrongdoing in connection with Jack Abramov steps down. Just like that. It works for me. "

It's a pipe-dream, though a noble idea in general. Not going to happen. The most I wish for is that our pols admit that donating money to whatever political campaign is supposedly covered by the U.S.Constitution and stop voting for ridiculous bills wrought with plenty of loopholes, which are allegedly serve to preserve the integrity of the political process.

"Shouldn't the state or local government decide the fate of casinos or let voters decide it?"

Correct, that's the way it's supposed to be. Except one thing - local politics are even more corrupted than on the federal level.

Leonid wrote:"In minds of Massachussetts voters Ted Kennedy is not crazy, disgusting, a mental midget, etc? You know, Massachussetts, among the top states in IQ and in income per capita. "

Yeah, I know...only low-income dimwits vote for Republicans. Personally, I have no IQ to speak of, never mind that my income is a lot higher than Massachussets average. In short, it has nothing to do with IQ and income. Never mind the way they calculate that proverbial average IQ, which is a meaningless piece of information to me.

At this point the server ceased responding....

I do not think you're getting the point (unless the server interrupted you).

I am saying that Massachussetts voters are not some dimwitted losers, yet, they do not believe Ted Kennedy is a disgusting, intellectual midget, etc.

My income is also much higher than MAssachussetts average, but my state is among the lowest-paid, and least-educated. After all, Mel Martinez got voted in from Florida. That says a lot.

" am saying that Massachussetts voters are not some dimwitted losers"

I don't think I said they are. I have a simple test for any politician - you've never worked in a private sector, never had to worry about mortgages, jobs, etc. - you're nobody in my book as a politician.

Splash:)

Leonid wrote:" am saying that Massachussetts voters are not some dimwitted losers"

I don't think I said they are. I have a simple test for any politician - you've never worked in a private sector, never had to worry about mortgages, jobs, etc. - you're nobody in my book as a politician.

Splash:)

Does working for Cuban anti-Castro groups the whole life counts?

Better to dedicate your life to the liberation of the enslaved people than to be a raving idiot - Belafonte:)

Besides, it's a private organization, is it not? Oh well, feel free to fake misunderstanding and pretend you didn't know what I was talking about.

Leonid wrote:Better to dedicate your life to the liberation of the enslaved people than to be a raving idiot - Belafonte:)

Besides, it's a private organization, is it not? Oh well, feel free to fake misunderstanding and pretend you didn't know what I was talking about.

Oh, it is a private organization, alright. Very private. Very idiotic.

They do less for the "enslaved people" than for their own political advancement.

What they do or don't I doubt you have a clue, not that I need to discuss the matter with you, I've got better sources. Not to mention that the U.S.Government should have blown that regime from the face of Earth a long time ago, not private U.S.citizens. Just don't forget to call them "fascists" next time.

I don't know enough about Ted to gage whether he is an intellectual midget, though I consider Leonid a good judge of character and wouldn't argue on that score.

What isn't debatable is the despicable manner in which Ted behaved on the night Mary Jo Kopechne died. Leaving her without reporting the incident until the next day wasn't the way I'd think that any right-minded person would behave.

He's a disgusting character alright, and I find it hard to believe he's related to great men like John and Robert.

Mark

He wouldn't be reminded of what happened back then so often, if he treated decent people like he should.

At the very least 1991 Judge Thomas hearings were nasty, but interesting. Nowadays it's nasty, boring and irrelevant. Kennedy and Co. lose and waste their time, while telling the deserving public nothing about Judge Alito's judicial merits, intellect and temperament, precisely because they're digging for dirt. I thought I'd better find it out for myself, so I've spent some time watching Sen. Leahy on C-SPAN. Talk about boring and irrelevant. At least he wasn't nasty.

Jack and Bobby Kennedy weren't angels of course, but no one, not even Republicans would call them blowhards, and they definitely had class.

Leonid wrote:What they do or don't I doubt you have a clue, not that I need to discuss the matter with you, I've got better sources. Not to mention that the U.S.Government should have blown that regime from the face of Earth a long time ago, not private U.S.citizens. Just don't forget to call them "fascists" next time.

I think you have neither sources nor a clue. These people are deranged idiots. They are dangerous and it is said they have any legitimacy.

Secondly, US government (nor any other government, for that matter) has no right to blow any regime from the face of the earth. If they do, they are the criminals.

I think he deserves to be reminded of it, regardless. I wouldn't like such a person to be representing me in Parliament.

Having said that, our previous MP was a pupil at my old high school, and had tried to torch the place while he was there, but that didn't stop my parents voting for him , and I would have done the same, had I been old enough to vote, as I certainly wouldn't have minded that place going up in flames.

Did you read The Spectator this week? John Major came out with about every cliche I could think of when speaking of how to deal with terrorism. He was a non-entity as a PM, and his article was no more interesting than he is.

Leonid wrote:Mark

He wouldn't be reminded of what happened back then so often, if he treated decent people like he should.

At the very least 1991 Judge Thomas hearings were nasty, but interesting. Nowadays it's nasty, boring and irrelevant. Kennedy and Co. lose and waste their time, while telling the deserving public nothing about Judge Alito's judicial merits, intellect and temperament, precisely because they're digging for dirt. I thought I'd better find it out for myself, so I've spent some time watching Sen. Leahy on C-SPAN. Talk about boring and irrelevant. At least he wasn't nasty.

Jack and Bobby Kennedy weren't angels of course, but no one, not even Republicans would call them blowhards, and they definitely had class.

Digging for dirt, isn't it a Republican thing to do?

We already know that Alito is liar and chameleon. We do not even need any dirt. We just need to make people see the kind of a liar and a chameleon he is.

Apparently, he has no integrity either. Oh, for the sake of getting a job his beliefs are one thing, but in reality they are quite the other or so he says.

A dispicable liar. That makes his intelligence irrelevant.

Which regime are you talking about, Eugene?

Mark wrote:Which regime are you talking about, Eugene?

What regime do you think anti-Castro Cubans are hoping to undermine?

Sorry, I didn't read all the way up the thread. I wouldn't mind seeing them blown out of existence either.

The Drifters
Why the Supreme Court makes justices more liberal

http://bostonreview.net/BR31.1/hansonbenforado.html

For all this Conservative yap, there are no Liberal justices on the Supreme Court bench. There are moderates, conservatives and ultra conservatives. Even Souter does not qualify, according to the history of his decisions as a Supreme Court Justice, to be a Liberal.

Another Right-Wing Lie.

Mark wrote:Sorry, I didn't read all the way up the thread. I wouldn't mind seeing them blown out of existence either.

And what about International Law? Would it be ok to have someone blow up White House? Downing Street, or any other regime on a whim?

So, are there Liberal Supreme Court Justices?

http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty ... career.htm

It seems that there may be some left-leaning libertarians, but not a single current liberal

Fortas, Marshall, Goldberg, Brennan, Warren, Rutledge may be thought of liberals, but they're not on the Supreme Court bench anymore. None of the current justices is even remotely as liberal as these.

International law? I'm only interested in the law of the land. I do not elect international politicians, apart from members of the European Parliament, which is something I don't even bother casting my vote on, as it's a completely toothless institution with most of its members seriously lacking in a backbone.

As far as I'm concerned the only law that I, or any of my fellow citizens are subject to is the law of England and Wales. When I can elect "international" leaders (whoever they may be), then we can talk about the relevance of international law.

Mark wrote:International law? I'm only interested in the law of the land. I do not elect international politicians, apart from members of the European Parliament, which is something I don't even bother casting my vote for.

As far as I'm concerned the only law that I, or any of my fellow citizens are subject to is the law of England and Wales. When I can elect "international" leaders (whoever they may be), then we can talk about the relevance of international law.

Exactly, Mark, you DO NOT ELECT other countries' leaders. Nor do the English laws apply outside of the British borders. Nor should US laws.

We can not allow anybody replace foreign leaders. Because that legitimizes anyone willing to replace any country's leadership on the whim. You know what that's called - WORLD WAR III.

It's official now, Boston Review is a right-wing. Eugene did what was expected of him: read few sentences (perhaps the title only) and knee-jerked:)

Point taken, though I didn't quite mean leaders of other countries should be elected by me. More that I don't get any say on "international law" (again, whatever that is?!), so as a result, I do not recognise it as relevant to me or my country, and neither does Tony Blair.

I never thought I'd be praising a Labour leader, but Tony has done a great job in most areas (Sold out to the EU with the rebate, but that's another debate for another time), and I'll actually be sorry to see him go. Gordon Brown will take us back into the dark ages, I fear.

And while many mistakes have been made with regard to Iraq, I'm not at ease to say that we should NEVER go for regime change. If we had the resources, I'd be quite happy to see Mugabe bombed out of existence, and that goes for a few other foreign leaders.

I'm certainly not happy about what's going on with Iran, and I don't imagine that you are comfortable with it yourself.

Leonid wrote:It's official now, Boston Review is a right-wing. Eugene did what was expected of him: read few sentences (perhaps the title only) and knee-jerked:)

Actually, my point has nothing to do with Boston Review article. Even if it did, it would not be with Boston Review but with the authors of the article. After all William Krystol writes for NYT.

I know...you love such examples as a proof of the supposed NYT's intellectual tolerance, while at the same time being the most primitive and rigid adversary of a free-thinking, whenever it differs from your leftist orthodoxy:)

It's official now, Harvard Law School and Cambridge University - bastions of right-wingers:)

Justice Ginsburg, of the ACLU fame - moderate....yeah, moderate her bony ass. LOL

Mark wrote:Point taken, though I didn't quite mean leaders of other countries should be elected by me. More that I don't get any say on "international law" (again, whatever that is?!), so as a result, I do not recognise it as relevant to me or my country, and neither does Tony Blair.

I never thought I'd be praising a Labour leader, but Tony has done a great job in most areas (Sold out to the EU with the rebate, but that's another debate for another time), and I'll actually be sorry to see him go. Gordon Brown will take us back into the dark ages, I fear.

And while many mistakes have been made with regard to Iraq, I'm not at ease to say that we should NEVER go for regime change. If we had the resources, I'd be quite happy to see Mugabe bombed out of existence, and that goes for a few other foreign leaders

I'm certainly not happy about what's going on with Iran, and I don't imagine that you are comfortable with it yourself..

.

Where does it stop? I am not comfortable with dozens of regimes accross the planet. But, we have no right to remove it. Or than it gives the right just about anybody to remove any other country's regime. Perhaps even yours or mine. I am not fine with that. Are you?

I'm absolutely comfortable with someone trying to remove Mark's "regime". Bring it on:)

Leonid wrote:I know...you love such examples as a proof of the supposed NYT's intellectual tolerance, while at the same time being the most primitive and rigid adversary of a free-thinking, whenever it differs from your leftist orthodoxy:)

It's official now, Harvard Law School and Cambridge University - bastions of right-wingers:)

Justice Ginsburg, of the ACLU fame - moderate....yeah, moderate her bony ass. LOL

If this isn't a tea pot calling kettle black!

Facts are your biggest enemy. Whether or not NYT is tolerant (they are), William Krystol treife writing is not something to judge NYT on. And that is just one of so many points you happily missed, you intellectual giant, you King of the Irrelevance you.

And a point, a silent one, on ACLU - if human rights protection is left-wing, they are indeed as left-wing as it gets.

What's wrong with my regime, Leo? I've been very understanding of other cultures, and even proposed Saudi style sentences for immigrant criminals from Saudi Arabia to make them feel more at home.

And people say I lack understanding and tolerance.

Mark wrote:What's wrong with my regime, Leo?.

You lot drink tea with milk and eat strawberries with Sour Cream!!!! EWWWWW! Savages.

Mark


Remember: "what have the Romans ever done for us"? Ditto Brits:)

"We have no right to remove...blah-blah".

Yes we do, fuck your ACLU, UN and the League of Arab Nations very much. And you have the right to rave about it:)

Leonid wrote:Mark


Remember: "what have the Romans ever done for us"? Ditto Brits:)

"We have no right to remove...blah-blah".

Yes we do, fuck your ACLU, UN and the League of Arab Nations very much. And you have the right to rave about it:)

Does China also have that right?

The only right you and your criminal right-wing lot have is to bark at the moon. The rest is excess.

Without ACLU you're nothing, you're cannon meat, you're a lowly cog in a societal meatgrinder.

I get it now, Leo. I don't think anyone is going to invade us anytime soon anyway. The few countries that are capable of it simply wouldn't do it.

ACLU sound like retards to me, but that kind of stuff happens here too. An Oxbridge student got locked in a prison cell for a night after he told a police officer his horse was gay. OK, not exactly the wittiest comment you'll ever hear, but he was just a student celebrating the end of his exams. Apparently it was "offensive". To whom I'm not sure. The horse's feelings were hurt? lol

Sorry, Eugene. While I'm not exactly for invading anyone we don't like, I still would rather stick to the US way (and the old UK way) of doing things than the manner in which the EU deals with despots and their ilk. Europe was supposed to be dealing with Iran, but what have they actually done?!

The Iranian president gets more obnoxious by the day. He's laughing at Europe, I suspect, because he knows that most of Europe's leaders are too weak-kneed to do anything about it.

"Without ACLU you're nothing, you're cannon meat, you're a lowly cog in a societal meatgrinder."

Really? Did ACLU already canceled the U.S.Constitution? May I exercise my right to be a cannon fodder under the protection of my constitution?

Always enjoy mocking brainless commie laughingstocks. Have a great weekend and try to find your beloved ACLU under the wreckage of the Kelo eminent domain:)

Oh, yes, you really do want to be the cannon fodder. Your Republican buddies would take away even that right.

Enjoy your sweet dreams, half-wit, those are the only things that you'd have left to you when the current White House is done if not for ACLU.

Have a good burning at the stake. Your Christian Coalition buddies are about to find out you're Jewish.

My Christian buddies are as comfortable with my Jewishness as I am with their Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Italian and Dutch roots.

My Christian friends don't serve dinners for Yasser Arafat. Your leftist fellows certainly did, many times over. Beat it, phony "zionist".

Mark wrote: ACLU sound like retards to me, but that kind of stuff happens here too. An Oxbridge student got locked in a prison cell for a night after he told a police officer his horse was gay. OK, not exactly the wittiest comment you'll ever hear, but he was just a student celebrating the end of his exams. Apparently it was "offensive". To whom I'm not sure. The horse's feelings were hurt? lol

Mark, ACLU stands at defense of personal rights. They fight against all kinds of offenses against people's privacy, they fight against inequality, they fight against discrimination. I fail to see what your "sexually deprived horse" has to do with ACLU.

Sorry, Eugene. While I'm not exactly for invading anyone we don't like, I still would rather stick to the US way (and the old UK way) of doing things than the manner in which the EU deals with despots and their ilk. Europe was supposed to be dealing with Iran, but what have they actually done?!

What is the US way? And who is to judge who is a despot and who is not? US way today is aggression at the whim of those trusted with power. And we already know how subjective the determination of who is "worthy" of ruling a country and who is not. Tomorrow, should Poland invade Belarus (or vice verse) under a pretense of removing a subversive, despotic, or simply bad, regime. What shell you say then?

The Iranian president gets more obnoxious by the day. He's laughing at Europe, I suspect, because he knows that most of Europe's leaders are too weak-kneed to do anything about it.

Now, Iran is more of a threat to the region and the world than Saddam was in 2003. Guess what, Bushwacko is bending over backward to show he is not about to invade Iran nor the already nuclear-capable Korea. Yet, Iraq had to be invaded and to accomplish it, this administration resorted to threats, insults, and lying.

Leonid wrote:My Christian buddies are as comfortable with my Jewishness as I am with their Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Italian and Dutch roots.

My Christian friends don't serve dinners for Yasser Arafat. Your leftist fellows certainly did, many times over. Beat it, phony "zionist".

You're a phony Jew. And a loser. Your buddies include Pat Robertson, Bush, and other criminal personalities. You support an aggressive, despotic government that considers your own personal rights a nuisance.

And, by the way, you should not use words meanings of which you have no idea of. Like "zionist", for example.

79% - 19%!

If Poland invaded Belarus tomorrow, then I don't believe it would be an issue for me, as I doubt we're relying too much on either country for anything.

I hope Poland would win, however, as they were great fighters in WW2, and many of them fought alongside our army (though got little official recognition for such bravery, more to the shame of our leaders).

I suppose it takes a "loser" not voting for losers and believing and counting on himself only, instead of counting on a nanny-state. I gladly accept the charge.

ROFL:)

Double-ROFL for the pathetic attempt to associate Pat Robertson with me. He's the only conservative aclu-lobotomized arab-lover ever heard of.

Try Robert Byrd. OK, enough cheap entertainment for one night, T-34 dimwit.