Two more Republicans in desperate need of lives
D.F. Manno
> Just a few blocks from the future site of Bill Clinton's $160 million
> presidential library, a couple of Clinton haters hope to open a museum
> devoted to mocking his presidency.
>
> "As long as he's talking, we'll have to be here trying to keep him somewhat
> honest and stop him from rewriting history," says John LeBoutillier, a former
> Republican congressman from New York who rode Ronald Reagan's coattails to
> victory in 1980.
>
> LeBoutillier and his partner, Houston businessman Richard Erickson, plan to
> call it the Counter-Clinton Library. They say the museum here and one planned
> for Washington will look at such topics as Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, the
> last-minute pardons, even damaged White House furniture....
<http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030722_967.html>
I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
museum.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what
they do not want to hear." (George Orwell)
Patrick M Geahan
> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> museum.
I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
Clinton.
I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
politicos.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
Quote of the Week: "I probably won't start on the idea, and if I do it
will wind up being an unfinished project on my personal website featuring
pictures of my cat." rh2600 on /.
Greg Goss
>D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
>> museum.
>
>I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
>Clinton.
>
>I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
>they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
>drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
>Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
>politicos.
And it lost them any chance at the 96 election. I'm beginning to
worry that the "good" side is going to blow 04 the same way. If you
hate hard enough, nobody listens.
SoCalMike
"D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:dommanno-F01B8B...@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> From the Associated Press via ABC News:
>
> > Just a few blocks from the future site of Bill Clinton's $160 million
> > presidential library, a couple of Clinton haters hope to open a museum
> > devoted to mocking his presidency.
> >
> > "As long as he's talking, we'll have to be here trying to keep him
somewhat
> > honest and stop him from rewriting history," says John LeBoutillier, a
former
> > Republican congressman from New York who rode Ronald Reagan's coattails
to
> > victory in 1980.
> >
> > LeBoutillier and his partner, Houston businessman Richard Erickson, plan
to
> > call it the Counter-Clinton Library. They say the museum here and one
planned
> > for Washington will look at such topics as Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky,
the
> > last-minute pardons, even damaged White House furniture....
>
> <http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030722_967.html>
>
> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> museum.
mebee some of ronnies soiled depends?
SoCalMike
"Patrick M Geahan" <pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote in message
news:a89lv-...@ziggy.thepatcave.org...
> D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> > museum.
>
> I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> Clinton.
>
> I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
> Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> politicos.
and considering how well things were going for the country back then, and
his second term sweep... no need to steal either of those elections, no
sirree.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> >> museum.
I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
> >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> >Clinton.
Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
;)
> >I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> >they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> >drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
What part of politics escapes you? The Dems showed during the Regan years
that the Independant council law was a good stick for Congress to use
against a sitting president. So the Repubs give 'em the same treatment.
> >Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> >politicos.
> And it lost them any chance at the 96 election. I'm beginning to
> worry that the "good" side is going to blow 04 the same way. If you
> hate hard enough, nobody listens.
Depending on who the Dems run, this may be a good Thing. Howard Dean, it
looks like, is playing into the "will froth to throw the election" hand.
That sort of rhetoric plays well in primaries amoungst the faithfull, but
he's got to be able to dosey-doe pretty quick when it comes to the general
election.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
D.F. Manno
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> > Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> > >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or "Counter-Reagan"
> > >> museum.
>
> I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
> museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
A museum is several orders of magnitude beyond buttons and bumper
stickers.
> > >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> > >Clinton.
>
> Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
> exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
> ;)
Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
you are unable to comprehend.
Adam Smith
> I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> Clinton.
He's a lying scumbag and felon who disgraced the Presidency and whose
incompetence led to the 9/11 attacks. What other reasons do you want?
> I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
Perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and subborning
perjury aren't "little things". Neither is sexual harassment. Add in
abuse of power (siccing the FBI and IRS on his political opponents,
which BTW Nixon was nearly impeached for TRYING and FAILING to do) and
a long history of general sliminess (it's one thing to just fire the
(appointed) head of the travel office who'd served every president
since Kennedy because you want to appoint someone else, it's quite
another to try to dig up dirt on him so as to fire him 'for cause' so
it doesnt look like exactly what it was.
> Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> politicos.
Since when are felonies "petty"?
Adam Smith
> Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> you are unable to comprehend.
Right,typical democratic regard fore the 'facts'.
The FACTS are that GWB won every recount in Florida, including the
media sponsored ones.
The facts are that elected official the responsibility of making the
relevant decisions made them fully in compliance with florida law,
which the democrats tried to overturn in the courts.
the facts are that the media created the entire problem by reporting
floridas polls closed and Gore the winner while the polls in the
(predominately conservative and republican) panhandle were still open.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <8130079e.03073...@posting.google.com>):
The facts are that the election was extremely close and that the
Supreme Court ended it with a decision that left Bush the winner.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
SoCalMike
<ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
news:PNaWa.395$GW4.2...@newshog.newsread.com...
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> > Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
>
> > >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or
"Counter-Reagan"
> > >> museum.
>
> I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
> museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
>
> > >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for
Bill
> > >Clinton.
>
> Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
> exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
> ;)
mm hmm. theres a big difference between a hummer and a war. and osamas still
out there laughing his ass off, waiting to strike again. when he does, who
will we blame next? iran?
>
> > >I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it
when
> > >they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could
possibly
> > >drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
> What part of politics escapes you? The Dems showed during the Regan years
> that the Independant council law was a good stick for Congress to use
> against a sitting president. So the Repubs give 'em the same treatment.
so iran/contra never really happened?
SoCalMike
> The facts are that the election was extremely close and that the
> Supreme Court ended it with a decision that left Bush the winner.
which will hopefully be the last time something like that is used.
SoCalMike
>
> Since when are felonies "petty"?
compared to starting a war? pretty petty.
GrapeApe
his second term sweep... no need to steal either of those elections, no
People forget his second term sweep had its own squeeky moments in the slanted
view of some. He won the electoral college, but I think the spin on his
popular vote meaning bupkus to some, is that it was not a true majority, that
is a third party sopped up the spillover, Perot or somebody. I think he had
like 48 percent of the vote to the elephants 47 or something, with Ross taking
up the slack.
GrapeApe
perjury aren't "little things". Neither is sexual harassment. Add in
abuse of power (siccing the FBI and IRS on his political opponents,
which BTW Nixon was nearly impeached for TRYING and FAILING to do) and
a long history of general sliminess (it's one thing to just fire the
(appointed) head of the travel office who'd served every president
since Kennedy because you want to appoint someone else, it's quite
another to try to dig up dirt on him so as to fire him 'for cause' so
You are captain of the football team. Your prom date, Suzy Kominsky, the head
cheerleader, has a very clean reputation, despite being a cheerleader. After
the dance, she gives you a blowjob, without your even asking.
The next day, you are brought up in front of the entire class, you don't know
why, and you are grilled about whether you had sex with Suzy Kominsky. Did you
Score? Huh?
Well, you could, proper gentlemans kneejerk response, say that really isn't any
of their business, but if you do, they say you must be covering up something.
Do you say you did not have that private moment, to protect her reputation? Or
do you tell the truth, because coach says you must, if you want to play in the
big game?
You know, some people leave that stuff in grade school, rather than spending
millions towards some odd end. If she doesn't drown, shes a witch.
D.F. Manno
grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:
> People forget his second term sweep had its own squeeky moments in the slanted
> view of some. He won the electoral college, but I think the spin on his
> popular vote meaning bupkus to some, is that it was not a true majority, that
> is a third party sopped up the spillover, Perot or somebody. I think he had
> like 48 percent of the vote to the elephants 47 or something, with Ross taking
> up the slack.
To those people I say "So?" I could parrot those who so loudly declaim
Bush's legitimacy and say that the popular vote doesn't count, or I
could note that Clinton got more votes than his opponents, something
Bush couldn't manage.
That spin on the popular vote you mention sounds like the Bushies'
oft-repeated line that Bush won more votes than Clinton did in either
of his elections. The problem with that line is that Bush wasn't
running against Clinton, he was running against Gore, and he came in
second.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> In article <PNaWa.395$GW4.2...@newshog.newsread.com>,
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> > > Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> > > >D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I don't remember anybody opening a "Counter-Nixon" or
> > > >> "Counter-Reagan" museum.
> >
> > I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out,
> > not a museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
> A museum is several orders of magnitude beyond buttons and bumper
> stickers.
Nah, it's not. It's being funded by private individuals, and well, the
man did have a truth issue, so it's not ureasonable to guess that there
will be a whitewash in the library and they want to see that that doesn't
happen.
> > > >I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred
> > > >for Bill Clinton.
> >
> > Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush?
> > It's the exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was
> > well deserved ;)
> Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> you are unable to comprehend.
Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
Patrick M Geahan
> Nah, it's not. It's being funded by private individuals, and well, the
> man did have a truth issue, so it's not ureasonable to guess that there
> will be a whitewash in the library and they want to see that that doesn't
> happen.
I assume, then, that you'd be perfectly happy with an anti-Reagan,
anti-Bush, or anti-Nixon library?
Fact is, all of them have had 'truth issues'. The difference is that no
one else was petty enough to bitch about them after they were done and
gone.
Whiny bastards, al
> Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
> part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
Actually, I'm very proud of the work Bill Clinton did. Balanced budget,
low unemployment, good work towards peace.
None of which you can say about the current president. I assume, then,
that since you're in favor of full-blown truth, that you'll be waiting to
open the anti-GWB library. After all that one might be a whitewash too.
Patrick M Geahan
> I recall quite a boat load of Counter-Reagan crap being trotted out, not a
> museum specifically, but quite a load of crap none the less.
Huge huge difference between a few people writing articles and a museum
dedicated to hatred of *one* man.
Would you be in favor of an anti-Reagan library? There's good evidence in
the historical record that he may have lied about Iran-Contra. Would you
call his museum a 'whitewash'?
> Do you perhaps understand the Democratic hatred for George Bush? It's the
> exact same thing... (except when directed at Clinton it was well deserved
Hatred? I don't see anyone investigating GWB for his pre-White House
business dealings or his absence from the Texas National Guard. What I do
see is a lot of questoins being asked about his *current* performance,
which is what Congress is supposed to do.
> What part of politics escapes you?
The part where politicians become whiny pricks who can't handle losing
like adults.
GrapeApe
> House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> you are unable to comprehend.
Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
>><BR><BR>
Yall is tooty fruitcakes, ya know that?
Charles A Lieberman
Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> I assume, then, that you'd be perfectly happy with an anti-Reagan,
> anti-Bush, or anti-Nixon library?
>
> Fact is, all of them have had 'truth issues'. The difference is that no
> one else was petty enough to bitch about them after they were done and
> gone.
I'm sorry, *Nixon*? Once he was out of office, he was free and clear in
the great court of public opinion? Really?
--
Charles A. Lieberman | When free speech is outlawed,
New York, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
Charles A Lieberman
"SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > What part of politics escapes you? The Dems showed during the Regan years
> > that the Independant council law was a good stick for Congress to use
> > against a sitting president. So the Repubs give 'em the same treatment.
>
> so iran/contra never really happened?
Um, Clinton's pecadillos did too. You could, however, argue based on the
relatve importance of the two, vis-a-vis policy, rule of law, etc. etc.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> > Nah, it's not. It's being funded by private individuals, and well, the
> > man did have a truth issue, so it's not ureasonable to guess that there
> > will be a whitewash in the library and they want to see that that doesn't
> > happen.
> I assume, then, that you'd be perfectly happy with an anti-Reagan,
> anti-Bush, or anti-Nixon library?
Knock yourself out. The more people speaking out, the better IMO.
> Fact is, all of them have had 'truth issues'. The difference is that no
> one else was petty enough to bitch about them after they were done and
> gone.
You very statement renders itself incorrect.
> Whiny bastards, al
Al? Yeah, he could be a tad whiney when he wasn't boasting of fake
accomplishments. :)
> > Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
> > part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
> Actually, I'm very proud of the work Bill Clinton did. Balanced budget,
Yeah, Clinton was repugnant enough to get a Republican revolution in for
the next election and that did do the trick.
> low unemployment,
Yup, the ground work laid down by the previous administartions yeailded a
strong spurt of economic growth for him to be sitting in the white house
for.
> good work towards peace.
Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading force,
Taking half measures when they were politically expedient and then no
follow through, from Somalia to Iraq to Hati to Koscovo: great record
there.
> None of which you can say about the current president.
That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the previous
adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy. Rising
unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of course, the old
status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being righted. All in all
leagues above the previous administration. Not perfect, to be sure, but
still majorly improved.
> I assume, then,
> that since you're in favor of full-blown truth, that you'll be waiting to
> open the anti-GWB library. After all that one might be a whitewash too.
Go for it. I'd love to see it. It should be amusing to see all the
anti-bush propoganda gathered into one locale.
Patrick M Geahan
> Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading force,
> That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the previous
> adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy. Rising
> unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of course, the old
> status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being righted. All in all
> leagues above the previous administration. Not perfect, to be sure, but
> still majorly improved.
Wow. That's absolutely *amazing*. According to you, Bill Clinton did
*nothing* for eight years but ride on the coattails of previous
administrations? That Reagan, Bush Sr., and all those folks did such an
amazing job running the country that it was able to run for eight years on
auto-pilot?
That's so amazingly thick-headed that I don't even know where to start.
Richard R. Hershberger
> I really, really, really don't understand this Republican hatred for Bill
> Clinton.
>
> I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't understand it when
> they decided to investigate him for every little thing they could possibly
> drag up, and I don't understand it now that he's out of office.
>
> Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a lot for
> politicos.
I too have pondered this question. I think it is because Clinton was,
to their mind, dead wrong about nearly everything yet consistently
popular. This infuriates them to this day. After all, someone that
wrong yet that popular must be at best extraordinarily sleazy or at
worst actively in league with the devil. This leaves vilification as
the only legitimate reaction. Or so the logic goes...
Richard R. Hershberger
Charles A Lieberman
Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> That Reagan, Bush Sr., and all those folks did such an
> amazing job running the country that it was able to run for eight years on
> auto-pilot?
Although not years any of them were in office.
SoCalMike
"GrapeApe" <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote in message
news:20030731225351...@mb-m07.aol.com...
and in 2000, nader was the "spoiler"
Adam Smith
> > The FACTS are that GWB won every recount in Florida, including the
> > media sponsored ones.
> >
> > The facts are that elected official the responsibility of making the
> > relevant decisions made them fully in compliance with florida law,
> > which the democrats tried to overturn in the courts.
> >
> > the facts are that the media created the entire problem by reporting
> > floridas polls closed and Gore the winner while the polls in the
> > (predominately conservative and republican) panhandle were still open.
>
> The facts are that the election was extremely close and that the
> Supreme Court ended it with a decision that left Bush the winner.
As opposed to a decision which would have left Gore the winner? Which
didnt exist, as Bush won the media recounts.
Adam Smith
> >
> > Since when are felonies "petty"?
>
> compared to starting a war? pretty petty.
And the war Bush has "started" is which, exactly? It isnt the war
against terrorism, the terrorists started that by killing 3000+
Americans. It isnt the war against afghanistan, the afghans started
that by supporting the terrorists. It isnt the war against Iraq, Iraq
started that by invading Kuwait and then not complying with the terms
of their surrender agreement.
Adam Smith
> << Perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and subborning
> perjury aren't "little things". Neither is sexual harassment. Add in
> abuse of power (siccing the FBI and IRS on his political opponents,
> which BTW Nixon was nearly impeached for TRYING and FAILING to do) and
> a long history of general sliminess (it's one thing to just fire the
> (appointed) head of the travel office who'd served every president
> since Kennedy because you want to appoint someone else, it's quite
> another to try to dig up dirt on him so as to fire him 'for cause' so
> it doesnt look like exactly what it was. >><BR><BR>
>
>
> You are captain of the football team. Your prom date, Suzy Kominsky, the head
> cheerleader, has a very clean reputation, despite being a cheerleader. After
> the dance, she gives you a blowjob, without your even asking.
>
> The next day, you are brought up in front of the entire class, you don't know
> why, and you are grilled about whether you had sex with Suzy Kominsky. Did you
> Score? Huh?
Not relevant. Clinton was questioned as part of Paula Jones sexual
harassament suit, and other sexual conduct is standard evidence in
such suits.
> Well, you could, proper gentlemans kneejerk response, say that really isn't any
> of their business,
Not when Jane Doe has sued you for similar activities in a sexual
harassment suit you don't. It very specifically IS their business.
> but if you do, they say you must be covering up something.
Which he was- a pattern of behavior relevant to a sexual harassment
suit against him.
> Do you say you did not have that private moment, to protect her reputation? Or
> do you tell the truth, because coach says you must, if you want to play in the
> big game?
While I'm under oath, when lying would be a FELONY? I talk.
> You know, some people leave that stuff in grade school, rather than spending
> millions towards some odd end. If she doesn't drown, shes a witch.
Except that adults are expected to obey the law and minors not so
much. Clinton "just lied about sex" because sex was exactly the focus
of the investigation.
Imagine the "he wasn't lying about theft, he lust lied about swiping
stuff" argument.
D.F. Manno
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> > House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> > you are unable to comprehend.
>
> Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
> part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
The "bullshit lie" is that Bush was legitimately elected. You can spin
and lie all you like, but Gore won that election and SCOTUS stole it
from him.
D.F. Manno
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> Patrick M Geahan <pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I'm very proud of the work Bill Clinton did. Balanced budget,
>
> Yeah, Clinton was repugnant enough to get a Republican revolution in for
> the next election and that did do the trick.
>
> > low unemployment,
>
> Yup, the ground work laid down by the previous administartions yeailded a
> strong spurt of economic growth for him to be sitting in the white house
> for.
>
> > good work towards peace.
>
> Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading force,
> Taking half measures when they were politically expedient and then no
> follow through, from Somalia to Iraq to Hati to Koscovo: great record
> there.
>
> > None of which you can say about the current president.
>
> That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the previous
> adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy. Rising
> unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of course, the old
> status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being righted. All in all
> leagues above the previous administration. Not perfect, to be sure, but
> still majorly improved.
It's official--you're a resident of Cloud Cuckoo Land.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> > Sure, 9-11, hostility in Russia, establishing NATO as an invading
> > force, That's true. No balanced Budget when the policies of the
> > previous adminstration have caught up with us and ruined the economy.
> > Rising unemployment comes with that economic stumble too. And of
> > course, the old status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being
> > righted. All in all leagues above the previous administration. Not
> > perfect, to be sure, but still majorly improved.
> Wow. That's absolutely *amazing*. According to you, Bill Clinton did
> *nothing* for eight years but ride on the coattails of previous
> administrations?
Oh, that's not all he did. On the plus side, he did work to eliminate
bias against homosexualti in the military. Of course he went back on his
campaign promis there and only gave us "don't ask, don't tell" which
frankly, suck. On the minus side though, in addidtion to riding on the
coattails of others, he horribly mismanaged the Somalia operation,
expanded Nato into an offensive Axis, worked to curtail civil rights at
home, and worked to expand spending faster than it was already growing.
> That Reagan, Bush Sr., and all those folks did such an
> amazing job running the country that it was able to run for eight years on
> auto-pilot?
Pretty much; the economy was strong, the cold war was ended, the world
stood on the brink of a possible golden age, all we needed was a strong
foriegn policy to tie it all up... But that never materialized; The US
showed itself to be a paper tiger in Somalia, ecouraging terrorist
attacks; The couuntries of the formeer Soviet Union reached out to us for
help and guidance, and that was messed up, we essentially abandoned them;
NATO was used to attack; US military actions were weak and unfocused; etc.
Things didn't fall apart right away, since there was so much positive
momentum: the Berlin Wall had come down, The Soviet Union Not only fell,
but an abortive coup had been struck down the the people.
It's a matter of lucky timing that Clinton got what he got, But people
insist on giving him the credit anyway.
> That's so amazingly thick-headed that I don't even know where to start.
That they give him the credit? I agree.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <8130079e.0308...@posting.google.com>):
Yes, in fact, the Supreme Court did not make a decision that left
Gore the winner.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Sean Houtman
MOM!! He started it! He looked at me!
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
Sean Houtman
The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their fondness for
hating. They do quite a lot of it.
Dana Carpender
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
> Go for it. I'd love to see it. It should be amusing to see all the
> anti-bush propoganda gathered into one locale.
>
>
Anti-Bush propaganda? I have yet to see a net-lore list of everyone
George has ever shaken hands with who subsequently died, with the strong
implication that he had something to do with their deaths. Many of us
may not like how Bush is doing his job, and may feel that his personal
and business record foretold that he'd be a crappy president, but I have
yet to see anything *like* the tin-foil-hat propaganda about him that I
did about Clinton.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Howard Dean For President
Take Back the Democratic Party!
Take Back America!
http://www.deanforamerica.com
Opus the Penguin
> The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
> fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?
--
Opus the Penguin
"Any question that begins with "Why do my cats..." is rhetorical." -
Jerry Randal Bauer
SoCalMike
"Adam Smith" <loc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8130079e.0308...@posting.google.com...
> "SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<YhiWa.23254$Vt6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > >
> > > Since when are felonies "petty"?
> >
> > compared to starting a war? pretty petty.
>
>
> And the war Bush has "started" is which, exactly?
im pretty sure its the current one. that little iraq thing.
meanwhile, osama plans his next move.
SoCalMike
>
> It's official--you're a resident of Cloud Cuckoo Land.
nah... hes the mayor of simpleton.
SoCalMike
"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93CAEB7489D14op...@127.0.0.1...
> seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote:
>
> > The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
> > fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
>
> What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?
theyre too friggin nice. thats changing tho.
Kevin O'Neill
I think this is very close to right on. The attitude reminds me of me
dear old paternal grampy, who could go into a purple rage at the sight
of two obviously gay men in public demonstration affection; Miami in
the '70s was really not the place for him to be. It just made him
crazy, I think in part because it was clear to him that the trend was
away from things he thought were important, and towards values he
really really disliked, and that these guys were clearly not ashamed,
or ostracized, or anything, they were often wealthy, young, looked
happy, driving nice cars and wearing nice clothes and in general
appearing to be doing well, and gay as all hell right out there in
front of god and everyone, it just made him crazy. So too our current
crop of Repubs; to them, Bill was a walking symbol of liberal social
views, and the fact that the country liked and trusted him drove them
up the wall, perhaps because they're old and crabby and hate the idea
that whatever blather they go on about, in fifty years hating someone
for being gay will be considered the height of ignorance, fewer people
than ever will believe in god, fewer people than ever will get
married, many of our public figures will have experimented with drugs,
and on and on and hey! the world won't end and Jesus won't come down
and smack anyone around for it. Bill was the future, and it drives
them up the wall.
I think too that that issue of us trusting Bill, especially when he
skipped so many of the right's 'required' pretenses for trust, was
galling and still is. In fact, I would bet that one or two of our
local social conservatives started twitching when they read that word
a few lines up, ready to shout out to all us misguided liberals that
we damn well paid for trusting him, didn't we? Implying that he
showed himself untrustworthy, you see. Except that, for me, and for
many liberals, he didn't. We still see the whole Ken Starr witch hunt
as a, you know, witch hunt, and don't really think Bill did anything
unreasonable, except in perhaps averting our eyes from the sort of
countrified Arkansas trailer park aesthetic he seemed to find
attractive...
I am unfortunate enough to live in Plano, though only for a few more
days, which is one of the bastions of social conservatism in Texas. I
live in a pretty racially mixed neighborhood. All my white neighbors
hate Bill. Half my black neighbors still love him, half are mad Al
isn't running, but black folks don't seem to be required to be
Republicans the same way everyone else does in order to be accepted
into the social order hereabouts. All my hispanic neighbors are
proud-to-be-fitting-in brand new Republicans. The funny thing to me
is that the hispanic folks, all of whom have just brought home new
babies, by the way, like five families all at once, how weird is that?
anyway, the hispanic folks are pretty uniformly church goers, seem
pretty socially conservative, I would not expect them to be cool with
the pregnant daughter or the gay son, say, and I would have expected
them to be all up on the hate-Bill bandwagon. Not so. They don't
love him, but there's not the vitriol I hear from white conservatives.
In my experience it's a purely white social conservative phenomenon.
Kevin
Opus the Penguin
Does "nice" mean "self-righteous" "smug" "sour-grapesy" and "full of
schadenfreude"? I'm always looking to expand my vocabulary.
SoCalMike
> "SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93CAEB7489D14op...@127.0.0.1...
> >> seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote:
> >>
> >> > The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
> >> > fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
> >>
> >> What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?
> >
> > theyre too friggin nice. thats changing tho.
>
>
> Does "nice" mean "self-righteous" "smug" "sour-grapesy" and "full of
> schadenfreude"? I'm always looking to expand my vocabulary.
just less so than the republicans. democrats need more dirty tricks, and the
balls to try em.
Adam Smith
> > And the war Bush has "started" is which, exactly?
>
> im pretty sure its the current one. that little iraq thing.
Ah, another ignorant Lefty. Let me explain- the penealty for failing
to comply with a surrender agreement is resumption of hostilities.
Resumption is NOT the initiation of new hostilities.
> meanwhile, osama plans his next move.
Either Iraq was going to be invaded or no future surrender agreement
can have disarmament and inspection as terms. Saddam was let off easy
the first time, would you rather deny the US the option of letting off
others easy next time than see the US actually enforce the terms of a
surrender agreement? No, we can't let saddam off and expect the next
guy to comply.
M C Hamster
> "SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93CAEB7489D14op...@127.0.0.1...
> >> seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote:
> >>
> >> > The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
> >> > fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
> >>
> >> What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?
> >
> > theyre too friggin nice. thats changing tho.
>
>
> Does "nice" mean "self-righteous" "smug" "sour-grapesy" and "full of
> schadenfreude"? I'm always looking to expand my vocabulary.
Democrats are more given to eleemosynary concerns.
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
M C Hamster
Wrong, completely wrong. Perhaps you have forgotten that the US Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, which itself simply
authorized the continuation of the hand counting of ballots in Florida (and
disallowed the premature certification of the vote count by Katherine
Harris). If you're right, that hand recount would have made Bush the
completely legitimate winner in Florida. The hand count could have been
completed within about a week. But the US Supreme Court didn't know that
would be the outcome of the hand count, and so decided to overturn a state's
own decision, despite the fact that the Supreme Court *always* chooses to
defer to states rights (on any social issues which hew to a conservative
political philosophy).
So you're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, the alternative decision by the SCOTUS
would NOT have left Gore the winner, given the "media recounts" you mention.
What it did is give people on the left yet another opportunity to question
the legitimacy of GWB's election which needn't have occurred had they been
willing to find out who *actually* got the most votes in Florida.
FWIW, I myself accept that Bush won Florida and the electoral college vote
(though of course all those bad ballots in West Palm Beach means that more
people *tried* to vote for Gore than Bush there, but c'est la vie). The
fact that Gore got half a million more votes in the country is far more
problematical, and the electoral college is a completely idiotic and
nonsensical system, but apparently that problem will never get fixed either.
No, George is MY president! (Just like my mother-in-law is my
mother-in-law.)
Adam Smith
> The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their fondness for
> hating. They do quite a lot of it.
Actually, it's the Democrats with the fondness for hating. Just look
at all the knee-jerk responses and assessments of conservatives and
conservative groups, FOR MERELY BEING CONSERVATIVE. You can't have an
intelligent conversation with Dems involving the NRA or Christian
Coallition because of their knee-jerk hatred.
Democrats also hate people for who they are, while Republicans only
hate for cause. Reagan V Clinton: Dems hated Reagan for being
conservative and popular, Repubs hate(d) Clinton for being a slimeball
(Whitewater (no, it wasn't "just a failed land deal", it was an
element in a scheme to loot a S&L which the Clinton's were neck deep
in), Evading the Draft, Bimbos (of which Paula Jones was only the
biggest), Sliminess (Travel Office firings, the aftermath of Vince
Foster's suicide).
Also note the talk from the left about what a 'dimwit' GWB suposedly
is, especially compared to Gore, and yet the evidence (test scores,
college grades, not flunking out of multiple schools) indicates that
GWB is clearly smarter.
Hell, look at the tarring and feathering of McCarthy, which was pure
slander. Notice how very little of what is said about him is actually
backed up with primary sources. 'Everyone' says he kept changing the
number of people on his list, yet no one ever provides actual
quotations. "He was just an opportunist seeking a cause that meant
nothing to anyone until he started beating his drum" Except that his
first speech was all of two weeks after Hiss was convicted.
"Reagan was senile as President" Given the ass-kicking he gave the
Dems, i think a better case can be made that THEY were senile.
Opus the Penguin
> rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote in message
> news:<82401463.0308...@posting.google.com>...
>> Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote in message
>> news:<a89lv-...@ziggy.thepatcave.org>...
>>
>> > I really, really, really don't understand this Republican
>> > hatred for Bill Clinton.
>> >
>> > I never have, and I don't think I ever will. I didn't
>> > understand it when they decided to investigate him for every
>> > little thing they could possibly drag up, and I don't
>> > understand it now that he's out of office.
>> >
>> > Personally, I think it makes them look petty, which is saying a
>> > lot for politicos.
>>
>> I too have pondered this question. I think it is because Clinton
>> was, to their mind, dead wrong about nearly everything yet
>> consistently popular. This infuriates them to this day. After
>> all, someone that wrong yet that popular must be at best
>> extraordinarily sleazy or at worst actively in league with the
>> devil. This leaves vilification as the only legitimate reaction.
>> Or so the logic goes...
>
> I think this is very close to right on.
Sorry, no.
Greg Goss
>FWIW, I myself accept that Bush won Florida and the electoral college vote
I never really accepted Florida. But he used the mid-term elections
and reformed many of the campaigns into a referendum on himself.
After the mid-terms, I consider him to have a "legitimacy" that he did
not have before.
You don't have to trust or respect a poseur to accept him. He just
is.
Greg Goss
>And of course, the old
>status quo that allowed crap like 9-11 is being righted.
You mean like the howls of outrage from a Republican congress when
Clinton tried to pick on a poor obscure Afghani preacher named Osama?
Remember "Wag The Dog"? Based on Clinton picking on this Osama guy?
Greg Goss
>Anti-Bush propaganda? I have yet to see a net-lore list of everyone
>George has ever shaken hands with who subsequently died, with the strong
>implication that he had something to do with their deaths. Many of us
>may not like how Bush is doing his job, and may feel that his personal
>and business record foretold that he'd be a crappy president, but I have
>yet to see anything *like* the tin-foil-hat propaganda about him that I
>did about Clinton.
There were a bunch of tinfoilers discussing the WTC "conspiracy". But
the anti-Bush nutcases get rightly dismissed as nutcases rather than
adopted as brave reporters./
Greg Goss
>There were a bunch of tinfoilers discussing the WTC "conspiracy". But
>the anti-Bush nutcases get rightly dismissed as nutcases rather than
>adopted as brave reporters.
examples
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html
http://www.bombsinsidewtc.dk/
http://makethemaccountable.com/whatwhen/index.htm
http://www.attackonamerica.net/home.htm
Greg Goss
>seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote:
>
>> The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
>> fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
>
>What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?
Many of their constituency have no concept of how money works. Of
course, the same applies to the Republicans, but the hate thing drowns
it out.
Greg Goss
>Whitewater (no, it wasn't "just a failed land deal", it was an
>element in a scheme to loot a S&L which the Clinton's were neck deep
>in)
The special prosecutor found no evidence of wrongdoing.
How about we spend the same amount of money looking at the Bush
brother who was running a S&L into the ground.
SoCalMike
"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:msooiv069b8lbmi26...@4ax.com...
tax and spend vs borrow and spend. which is worse?
Hank Gillette
"M C Hamster" <davo...@speakeasy.hairnet> wrote:
> FWIW, I myself accept that Bush won Florida and the electoral college vote
> (though of course all those bad ballots in West Palm Beach means that more
> people *tried* to vote for Gore than Bush there, but c'est la vie).
There's also the little matter of the purging of the of the Florida
voting rolls of "felons", most of whom it turned out were not felons at
all. It did keep them from voting in the election though.
--
Hank Gillette
Hank Gillette
Charles A Lieberman <cali...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, *Nixon*? Once he was out of office, he was free and clear in
> the great court of public opinion? Really?
>
He got a lot more acceptance and forgiveness than he deserved.
To the best of my knowlege, Nixon was the last Republican I voted for.
And unless there's another huge reversal of what the party's stand for,
he'll always be the last.
--
Hank Gillette
Hank Gillette
Patrick M Geahan<pmgeaha...@thepatcave.org> wrote:
> Wow. That's absolutely *amazing*. According to you, Bill Clinton did
> *nothing* for eight years but ride on the coattails of previous
> administrations? That Reagan, Bush Sr., and all those folks did such an
> amazing job running the country that it was able to run for eight years on
> auto-pilot?
Well, obviously that wasn't all he was doing. He was also setting in
motion all the problems that would occur in future Republican
adminstrations.
--
Hank Gillette
Hank Gillette
Opus the Penguin <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
> > The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
> > fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
>
> What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?
>
They keep finding ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
--
Hank Gillette
Greg Goss
>
>"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
>>
>> Many of their constituency have no concept of how money works. Of
>> course, the same applies to the Republicans, but the hate thing drowns
>> it out.
>
>tax and spend vs borrow and spend. which is worse?
I am a deficit fiend. So I come down on the side of the borrowers. I
would really prefer to choose none of the above.
Jeff
>|He's a lying scumbag and felon who disgraced the Presidency and whose
>|incompetence led to the 9/11 attacks. What other reasons do you want?
You're off your meds again.
J
--
Investigate, Indict, Impeach, Imprison [www.bongoboy.com]
Jeff
wrote:
>|> Since when are felonies "petty"?
>|
>|compared to starting a war? pretty petty.
Republicans are good at wars and they're good at stealing from the poor and
giving to the rich but they suck at sex. And so when faced with the option of
war or sex they make war on sex. If they had more sex the world would be a
safer place.
Kevin O'Neill
Ah well. Good then, glad we cleared that up.
Kevin
M C Hamster
news:99ae5d36.03080...@posting.google.com...
No, you were right Kevin. Opus may have more rarefied and complex feelings
toward Clinton, but he would be the exception; I too thought your
explanation was spot on.
Do you think a lot of the seething anger toward Bush is that he has high
popularity ratings too these days, in spite of being a horse's ass and/or
injurious to our country's well-being?
Greg Goss
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>Also note the talk from the left about what a 'dimwit' GWB suposedly
>is, especially compared to Gore, and yet the evidence (test scores,
>college grades, not flunking out of multiple schools) indicates that
>GWB is clearly smarter.
Typical Adam. GWB's test scores and grades are lower than Gore's.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <m2epiv4f4g8l1mtfr...@4ax.com>):
Sure you did. Paging Doctor Freud! Doctor Freud, please report to
the secure facility, stat!
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
M C Hamster
news:20030803035823...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Yes, of course, this has been published ad infinitum. Adam gets it a little
wrong now and then.
Opus the Penguin
Always happy to help.
--
Opus the Penguin
Sean Houtman
>"SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<MLKWa.47425$YN5.37274@sccrnsc01>...
>
>> > And the war Bush has "started" is which, exactly?
>>
>> im pretty sure its the current one. that little iraq thing.
>
>
>
>Ah, another ignorant Lefty. Let me explain- the penealty for failing
>to comply with a surrender agreement is resumption of hostilities.
>Resumption is NOT the initiation of new hostilities.
>
Perhaps, but if everyone goes home and the newspapers are all like "war is
over" in between, and then all "war starts today" all of a sudden, then that
sounds like a new war. Was WWII in Europe the same war as WWI?
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
Sean Houtman
>seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote:
>
>> The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
>> fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
>
>What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?
>
They tend to lose track of their objectives. That isn't really very disturbing
though.
tooloud
Hell, Kevin, I thought your explanation was right on. My only regret is that
I only came to the same conclusions a short time ago.
In fact, for those people that claim that Usenet discussions about politics,
drugs, religion, etc. will never change someone's mind, I can honestly tell
you that AFCA helped point me in the right direction. See, I was firmly
behind Bush when he was "elected". Hell, I voted for the guy. I thought WJC
was the worst thing to happen to the US in years. I'd love to have the guy
back right now. I'm kinda ashamed that a bunch of people like me wanted Bush
in the White House. The man seems thoroughly confused most days.
> Kevin
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
Opus the Penguin
> From: Opus the Penguin opusthe...@netzero.net
>
>> seanh...@aol.comnose (Sean Houtman) wrote:
>>
>>> The thing I find most disturbing about the Republicans is their
>>> fondness for hating. They do quite a lot of it.
>>
>> What do you find most disturbing about the Democrats?
>>
>
> They tend to lose track of their objectives. That isn't really very
> disturbing though.
I see. So wicked and/or foolish people register Republican. And fine,
upstanding people like you register Democrat. Is that what you're trying to
communicate?
--
Opus the Penguin
D.F. Manno
"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
> I see. So wicked and/or foolish people register Republican. And fine,
> upstanding people like you register Democrat. Is that what you're trying to
> communicate?
Works for me.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what
they do not want to hear." (George Orwell)
M C Hamster
news:bgkdnv$phsud$2...@ID-58324.news.uni-berlin.de...
Crisp and succinctly stated. I couldn't have said it better myself, Ope.
Glad to see you're finally seeing the light.
GrapeApe
> upstanding people like you register Democrat. Is that what you're trying to
> communicate?
Works for me. >><BR><BR>
Tolerance can work against you, when the game is one of mudslinging.
Ignorance and prejudice always have a loyal following however.
GrapeApe
And unless there's another huge reversal of what the party's stand for,
He was a moderate. Diligent in some foreign affairs matters, not too bright
regarding the economy, but generally a moderate. Probably nicer than the press
painted him too. Played piano and bowled.
Dole was a moderate, stuck in a party that had gone astray. and often found
himself in a position of defending something against his beliefs.
Sometimes I think Ahnuld is a moderate, and would work diligently towards
pulling the GOP back towards the middle once in some office.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <20030803232417...@mb-m03.aol.com>):
Ah hates biggits!
Jerry Bauer
(in message <bgkdnv$phsud$2...@ID-58324.news.uni-berlin.de>):
Hey! I've never registered Republican!
Gary S. Callison
: "Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
: > I see. So wicked and/or foolish people register Republican. And fine,
: > upstanding people like you register Democrat. Is that what you're
: > trying to communicate?
: Crisp and succinctly stated. I couldn't have said it better myself,
: Ope. Glad to see you're finally seeing the light.
Hard to find fault with the "I'm a genius, you're a big poop-head"
arguement, ya gotta admit.
...except Hamster has the pronouns backwards, of course. That's what you
get for arguing with a big poop-head.
--
Huey
Rick B.
news:0001HW.BB533141...@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
Your post is offensive to biggits.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
<snip 31 quoted lines for this one line resonse>
> It's official--you're a resident of Cloud Cuckoo Land.
If' you going to decend to simple name calling, the least you can do is
practice good nettiquette and not quote the entire post for a one line
reply.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> >
> > Go for it. I'd love to see it. It should be amusing to see all the
> > anti-bush propoganda gathered into one locale.
> Anti-Bush propaganda? I have yet to see a net-lore list of everyone
> George has ever shaken hands with who subsequently died, with the strong
> implication that he had something to do with their deaths. Many of us
> may not like how Bush is doing his job, and may feel that his personal
> and business record foretold that he'd be a crappy president, but I have
> yet to see anything *like* the tin-foil-hat propaganda about him that I
> did about Clinton.
Depend on where you sit Dana. I predict that you *won't* ever see such
things, becuse in you place, these are all serious questions that need to
be probed, even if they're unlikely. Of course, peeps on the otherside of
the fence see things differently.
Richard R. Hershberger
> In fact, for those people that claim that Usenet discussions about politics,
> drugs, religion, etc. will never change someone's mind, I can honestly tell
> you that AFCA helped point me in the right direction. See, I was firmly
> behind Bush when he was "elected". Hell, I voted for the guy. I thought WJC
> was the worst thing to happen to the US in years. I'd love to have the guy
> back right now. I'm kinda ashamed that a bunch of people like me wanted Bush
> in the White House. The man seems thoroughly confused most days.
>
> > Kevin
What was it that turned you from the dark side? After all, any number
of people see W's blank deer-in-the-headlights stare and think to
themselves "My, what a clever fellow he is!" What brought you around?
Richard R. Hershberger
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> In article <xJtWa.928$6W2.3...@monger.newsread.com>,
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> > D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
> > > House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
> > > you are unable to comprehend.
> >
> > Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
> > part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
> The "bullshit lie" is that Bush was legitimately elected. You can spin
> and lie all you like, but Gore won that election and SCOTUS stole it
> from him.
OK, you've obviously slipped off your meds. Here in this universe, the
law states that electors are selected by the laws in place before the
election. Under those laws, Bush won a razor thin margin in FL. Then the
Democratic chairman of the State comitee to elect Gore, who happened to be
the state attorney general started mucking with things through the courts.
things definetly got messy and courts stepped in on numerous levels all
the way up to the SCOTUS, but every single recount showed Bush winning and
even most of the unnoficial recounts had the same result. If the SCOTUS
hadn't prevent Gore's theft of the election, the State Legislature of
Florida was prepared to appoint the Electors directly.
But none of that matters much, since the law also provides a final arbiter
to judge if the electors from any state were selected incorrectly:
Congress get's to reject electors they don't think were selected properly.
Now, a few hothead representatives did indeed raise a challenge, but not a
single Sentaor even felt it was worth while to join with one of those
hothead representives to bring the matter to debate and vote. Not one in
a hundred.
Congress obviously felt that the electors from Florida for Bush were
properly selected: Who do you think you are to second guess them? Keep
your tinfoil shiny side out DF; you're willingness to let go of what's
obviously an uncomfortable reality to embrace your delusions will do you
no good.
Charles A Lieberman
<hankgillette-84B1...@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Hank Gillette <hankgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> To the best of my knowlege, Nixon was the last Republican I voted for.
> And unless there's another huge reversal of what the party's stand for,
> he'll always be the last.
Nixon wasn't villified because he took the party in a new direction, I
think, although dirty tricks had been the more or less exclusive
provence of the Dems in the decades leading up to ITT (and Watergate).
--
Charles A. Lieberman | When free speech is outlawed,
New York, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
Kevin O'Neill
Seething anger towards Bush, huh. I dunno. I'm not very objective,
since I don't like him much. I'm not really mad at him as much as I'm
amazed that someone who seems to me to be such a nitwit got elected,
and I'm unhappy with many of his decisions. But if someone largely
from the left, like me, can look at the Clinton-bashers and have some
idea why they seem to dislike him without much reference to his
policies, perhaps it would take someone from the right to dissect
whatever level of Bush-bashing is beyond that which would be justified
by his policies.
Kevin
M C Hamster
news:calieber-7BA46C...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article
> <hankgillette-84B1...@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
> Hank Gillette <hankgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > To the best of my knowlege, Nixon was the last Republican I voted for.
> > And unless there's another huge reversal of what the party's stand for,
> > he'll always be the last.
>
> Nixon wasn't villified because he took the party in a new direction, I
> think, although dirty tricks had been the more or less exclusive
> provence of the Dems in the decades leading up to ITT (and Watergate).
Oh, please. Educate us all.
Paul L. Madarasz
<davo...@speakeasy.hairnet> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>news:bgkdnv$phsud$2...@ID-58324.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> I see. So wicked and/or foolish people register Republican. And fine,
>> upstanding people like you register Democrat. Is that what you're trying
>to
>> communicate?
>
>Crisp and succinctly stated. I couldn't have said it better myself, Ope.
>Glad to see you're finally seeing the light.
>
>M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
>
I have this button: "Republicans are People, too... Mean, Selfish,
Greedy People."
--
Paul L. Madarasz
Tucson, Baja Arizona
"How 'bout cuttin' that rebop?"
-- S. Kowalski
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Charles A Lieberman
"M C Hamster" <davo...@speakeasy.hairnet> wrote:
> > Nixon wasn't villified because he took the party in a new direction, I
> > think, although dirty tricks had been the more or less exclusive
> > provence of the Dems in the decades leading up to ITT (and Watergate).
>
> Oh, please. Educate us all.
You're kidding me, right? Few people not actually in politics are
yellow-doggier than I, but I'm under no illusions that the Democrats
were pure as the driven snow in the '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s.
O'Daniel? the Longs? Talmadge? Daley? Curley? Hague? Any of these ring a
bell?
That doesn't demonstrate "more or less exclusive," sure, but I think in
this instance absence of evidence pretty strongly implies absence -- or
else the Republicans were much, much better at it. Goldwater, according
to my admittedly biased source, won elections as honest as these things
get.
groo
Reporter: "Mr. Bush, if you could have one wish granted, what would it
be?"
GWB: "To be elected President of the United States."
D.F. Manno
Charles A Lieberman <cali...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In article <3f2e9fc4$0$62206$45be...@newscene.com>,
> "M C Hamster" <davo...@speakeasy.hairnet> wrote:
>
> > > Nixon wasn't villified because he took the party in a new direction, I
> > > think, although dirty tricks had been the more or less exclusive
> > > provence of the Dems in the decades leading up to ITT (and Watergate).
> >
> > Oh, please. Educate us all.
>
> You're kidding me, right? Few people not actually in politics are
> yellow-doggier than I, but I'm under no illusions that the Democrats
> were pure as the driven snow in the '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s.
> O'Daniel? the Longs? Talmadge? Daley? Curley? Hague? Any of these ring a
> bell?
>
> That doesn't demonstrate "more or less exclusive," sure, but I think in
> this instance absence of evidence pretty strongly implies absence -- or
> else the Republicans were much, much better at it. Goldwater, according
> to my admittedly biased source, won elections as honest as these things
> get.
Philadelphia was controlled by a Republican machine until the '50s. It
was as crooked as they came. (One columnist called the city "corrupt
and contented.") When the extent of the corruption became known in the
late "40s, city workers took to jumping out of City Hall windows. They
found wads of cash stuffed in the desk of one of the suicides.
So much for "absence of evidence pretty strongly implies absence."
Jerry Bauer
(in message <oi8tiv0p25j0sbvsm...@4ax.com>):
<<<...>>>
> I have this button: "Republicans are People, too... Mean, Selfish,
> Greedy People."
What happens when you push it?
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
M C Hamster
news:dommanno-FF0C9D...@corp-radius.supernews.com...
Your first post referred to "dirty tricks". I don't know how broadly you
wish to define that term, but simple run-of-the-mill corruption
(embezzlement or vote fraud, for instance) doesn't seem to me to be
specifically in that vein. I'd call dirty tricks things like illegal
wiretapping or surveillance, planting disinformation for political
advantage, forgeries, etc. , etc. The "trick" is that the action either
involves an illegal act of surveillance, or besmirches the opposing
political party (in this case, the Republicans).
Woodward and Bernstein described Nixon's "dirty tricks" as involving the
following:
***
"Following members of Democratic candidates' families and assembling
dossiers on their personal lives; forging letters and distributing them
under the candidates' letterheads; leaking false and manufactured items to
the press; throwing campaign schedules into disarray; seizing confidential
campaign files; and investigating the lives of dozens of Democratic campaign
workers.
"In addition, investigators said the activities included planting
provocateurs in the ranks of organizations expected to demonstrate at the
Republican and Democratic conventions; and investigating potential donors to
the Nixon campaign before their contributions were solicited."
Source: Washington Post, October 10, 1972
****
And of course, also breaking and entering, and illegal wiretapping, as we
now know.
The only one on the list I'm familiar with (quite familiar, since I've lived
in Chicago almost all my life) is Daley. I'm not aware of him doing any of
the above things (not that he had to, given his overwhelming victories each
election). But maybe he did.
If all you're saying is that the Dems are not pure as the driven snow, yeah,
sure, of course. If, though, some of the above cases you cite involve
"dirty tricks" as I've defined the term, please educate me.
Opus the Penguin
> On 3 Aug 2003 21:57:05 -0500, "M C Hamster"
> <davo...@speakeasy.hairnet> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
>> "Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> news:bgkdnv$phsud$2...@ID-58324.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>> I see. So wicked and/or foolish people register Republican. And
>>> fine, upstanding people like you register Democrat. Is that what
>>> you're trying to communicate?
>>
>> Crisp and succinctly stated. I couldn't have said it better myself,
>> Ope. Glad to see you're finally seeing the light.
>>
>> M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater
>> Revival
>>
>
> I have this button: "Republicans are People, too... Mean, Selfish,
> Greedy People."
And there you have it. This is why I can't stand Democrats. Even though I'm
about to register as one. I think I'll go take a shower now.
Paul L. Madarasz
<opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote, perhaps among other things:
Hey, Opus! I didn't say I *agreed* with the sentiment; I don't. I
figure it's got to be a parody.
tooloud
> "tooloud" <nospa...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:<bgkcv5$n4f4u$1...@ID-121148.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
>> In fact, for those people that claim that Usenet discussions about
>> politics,
>> drugs, religion, etc. will never change someone's mind, I can
>> honestly tell
>> you that AFCA helped point me in the right direction. See, I was
>> firmly
>> behind Bush when he was "elected". Hell, I voted for the guy. I
>> thought WJC
>> was the worst thing to happen to the US in years. I'd love to have
>> the guy
>> back right now. I'm kinda ashamed that a bunch of people like me
>> wanted Bush
>> in the White House. The man seems thoroughly confused most days.
>>
>>> Kevin
>
> What was it that turned you from the dark side?
The period before the war. The entire world was telling us to mind our own
business, and GW did nothing but mutter about weapons of mass destruction.
It's been said a thousand times here already. It's like one of my brother's
kids is running the country.
> After all, any number
> of people see W's blank deer-in-the-headlights stare and think to
> themselves "My, what a clever fellow he is!" What brought you around?
Lately, it's the gay marriage issue. Personally, I think GW should shut his
trap about the whole business.
Clinton may have been known as "Slick Willie", but that's generally
preferable to "Stupid Ass".
> Richard R. Hershberger
dogbert
>"D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<dommanno-8FCF33...@corp-radius.supernews.com>...
>
>> Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
>> House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
>> you are unable to comprehend.
>
>
>Right,typical democratic regard fore the 'facts'.
>
>The FACTS are that GWB won every recount in Florida, including the
>media sponsored ones.
False.
>The facts are that elected official the responsibility of making the
>relevant decisions made them fully in compliance with florida law,
>which the democrats tried to overturn in the courts.
Not a single court in Florida agreed with Harris' fantastically partisan
behavior; her shenanigans - e.g. issuing clearly false opinions to the
local boards to (temporarily) intimidate them into not counting, which
necessitated the first Florida decision extending the certification time,
was part of the ultimately successful delaying tactic.
>the facts are that the media created the entire problem by reporting
>floridas polls closed and Gore the winner while the polls in the
>(predominately conservative and republican) panhandle were still open.
Trivial in comparison to the felon's list criminality, for which Jeb Bush,
Harris, etc. belong in jail, as was obvious prior to the election.
dogbert
>D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> In article <xJtWa.928$6W2.3...@monger.newsread.com>,
>> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
>> > D.F. Manno <domm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Clinton was legitimately elected--twice. Bush slithered into the White
>> > > House by appointment of the Supreme Court. Again, a major difference
>> > > you are unable to comprehend.
>> >
>> > Well, that's becuase that's little more than a bullshit lie. The latter
>> > part, Clinton was legitimately elected twice much to our national shame.
>
>> The "bullshit lie" is that Bush was legitimately elected. You can spin
>> and lie all you like, but Gore won that election and SCOTUS stole it
>> from him.
>
>OK, you've obviously slipped off your meds. Here in this universe, the
>law states that electors are selected by the laws in place before the
>election. Under those laws, Bush won a razor thin margin in FL.
Not proven. The Florida courts were doing their best to determine who won
the razor thin margin.
>Then the
>Democratic chairman of the State comitee to elect Gore, who happened to be
>the state attorney general started mucking with things through the courts.
Butterworth was the eminence grise? I think Gore was sane enough to see
that it was close enough to ask for a recount.
>things definetly got messy and courts stepped in on numerous levels all
>the way up to the SCOTUS, but every single recount showed Bush winning and
>even most of the unnoficial recounts had the same result.
>If the SCOTUS
>hadn't prevent Gore's theft of the election, the State Legislature of
>Florida was prepared to appoint the Electors directly.
What theft by Gore? He simply attempted to use Florida and US law, which
was rather clearly on his side, to recount the votes and determine who won
Florida. Bush stole it by having a court in his pocket issue just about
the most outrageous and illogical opinion ever.
>But none of that matters much, since the law also provides a final arbiter
>to judge if the electors from any state were selected incorrectly:
>Congress get's to reject electors they don't think were selected properly.
>Now, a few hothead representatives did indeed raise a challenge, but not a
>single Sentaor even felt it was worth while to join with one of those
>hothead representives to bring the matter to debate and vote. Not one in
>a hundred.
Because there was a deal concerning control of the senate
>
>Congress obviously felt that the electors from Florida for Bush were
>properly selected: Who do you think you are to second guess them?
They didn't feel it was worth challenging it, feeling they had lost
already, and acquiesced to the SCOTUS's self-appointment as the US
Politburo. A different thing entirely.