Partisanship?
FACE
president, I think Obama has been the most partisan President we have seen
in a while. For reference to refute this the five previous presidents
were: Bush,Clinton,Bush,Reagan,Carter.
Many of you were for Obama solely because he wasn't Bush. I was for RINO
McCain solely because he wasn't Obama.
Now, "McCain blames Obama for partisan climate in DC"
By David Edwards and Gavin Dahl
Sunday, December 20th, 2009 -- 11:30 am
The responsibility for the most partisan atmosphere in Washington history
goes to President Barack Obama, according to Sen. John McCain. "[Obama]
said there would be a change in the climate in Washington," McCain told
Fox News' Chris Wallace. "There's been a change. It's more partisan. It's
more bitterly divided than it's been."
A few Republicans have participated in crafting major legislation during
Obama's first year in office. Three Republican Senators voted for the
stimulus bill and Gang of Six Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe voted for the
health care bill coming out the Senate finance committee.
But for the most part, Republicans have voted together to block Democrats'
attempts to pass legislation more often than any Congress in history. On
December 18, Republicans broke the modern-day record for the most
filibusters in history, according to Campaign for America's Future.
Calling the US Senate 2009's Worst Person of the Year, Bob Burnett points
out obstructionism means "critical issues such as job creation, reform of
the financial system, and deficit reduction will not be addressed until
next year."
As recently as September, the American public still credited Obama for his
efforts at bipartisan lawmaking. Gallup reported, "Sixty percent say Obama
has made a sincere effort to work with Republicans, down from prior
measurements but still the majority view." "
When I heard that he had gone to congress and meet with Democrats only
behind closed doors, I thought something was wrong and then he invites
Democrats only to the white house to talk about his health care bill. All
that was ridiculously partisan..
So much for the Obama led "post-partisan" America Goldberg talks about
below:
"Obama's rhetoric breeds the cynicism he vowed to defeat
By Jonah Goldberg
December 24, 2009
On his own terms, President Barack Obama is a failure.
During the presidential campaign, he fought hammer and tongs with Hillary
Clinton over the best way to govern. Mrs. Clinton, casting herself as a
battle-scarred political veteran, argued that diligence, dedicated detail
work and working the system were essential for success.
Mr. Obama, donning the mantle of a redeemer descending from divine
heights, argued that his soaring rhetoric was more than "just words"; it
was a way out of the poisonous, partisan gridlock of yesteryear. Early on,
in New Hampshire, he proclaimed that his "rival in this race is not other
candidates. It's cynicism."
Occasionally the Obama-Clinton argument was explicit, but it was always
there, implicit in everything from their body language and stagecraft to
position papers and platforms. The great irony of it all is that it seems
they were both wrong. Mr. Obama's rhetoric in fact looks to be the best
way to achieve a Clintonian agenda. But a Clintonian agenda is the worst
possible way to live up to Mr. Obama's rhetoric.
From his 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote speech onward, Mr.
Obama rejected the partisan divide. He earned points by insisting that
invidious descriptions of political opponents harmed civic health and
distracted us from the fact that "we are one people, all of us pledging
allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States
of America."
In a speech following a June primary victory, Mr. Obama said he was
"absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look
back and tell our children ... this was the moment - this was the time -
when we came together to remake this great nation." So, does anyone feel
like Americans are coming together?
Obama the outsider hasn't changed the way Washington works; he's worked
Washington in a way that only an outsider with no respect for the place
would dare.
Consider his signature domestic priority: health care reform. After a year
of working on it, his progressive base is either profoundly disappointed
with him or seethingly angry. His Republican and conservative opponents
are not only furious, they are emboldened. And independents - who've been
deserting the Democrats in polls and off-year elections - are disgusted
with the whole spectacle. Most important, an administration that once
preened over its people-power roots can't even claim that Americans like
what he's doing.
The bill does have its supporters: inside-the-Beltway pundits and Capitol
Hill deal-makers, the pharmaceutical industry and the supposedly rapacious
insurance companies (don't take my word for it, just ask Howard Dean - or
your stockbroker).
Under the Clintonian governance model, Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson
parlaying his pro-life objections to the Senate bill into a windfall for
his state and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders leveraging his socialist
principles for billions in special deals would be dramatic twists in a
conventional story of LBJ-style arm-twisting.
But Clintonian means cannot further Obamaian ends. For the last year, Mr.
Obama's party has made a mockery of everything Mr. Obama was supposed to
represent. The tone has gotten worse as his communications staff spent the
year demonizing Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Fox News. House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called opponents of their
health proposals "un-American." Over the weekend, Rhode Island's Sheldon
Whitehouse insisted that Senate opposition is being driven in part by
"Aryan support groups."
Everywhere you look, the sizzle doesn't match the steak. He won the Nobel
Peace Prize as he (rightly) sent even more men off to war. He promised
that the oceans would stop rising but delivered a nonbinding
something-or-other in Copenhagen.
In his special health care address to Congress in September, he said, "I
am not the first president to take up [the cause of health care reform],
but I am determined to be the last." Those were just words, and everyone,
including Mr. Obama, knew it. Indeed, the only grounds for supporting the
bill, according to progressives, is that it is a "first step" or a
"starter house" that they'll build on for years, even generations, to
come. In other words, the health care debate is not only not going to end,
it's going to get uglier for as far as the eye can see.
But here's the point: Mr. Obama's rhetorical audacity breeds cynicism,
because utopianism always comes up short. Mr. Obama has many victories
ahead of him, but his cause is already lost."
~~~~
FACE
duckstandard
FACE wrote:
> Despite his lofty campaign rhetoric about how he would be a "non-partisan"
> president, I think Obama has been the most partisan President we have seen
> in a while. For reference to refute this the five previous presidents
> were: Bush,Clinton,Bush,Reagan,Carter.
Not that he hasn't tried. Republicans play these stupid political
games, like shutting themselves out of working with Democrats then
playing that they are being ignored by 'obama'
You fucking pussies need to step the fuck up in politics or just shut
the fuck up once and for all.
> Many of you were for Obama solely because he wasn't Bush. I was for RINO
> McCain solely because he wasn't Obama.
> Now, "McCain blames Obama for partisan climate in DC"
>
McCain is a worthless fucking coward.
KStahl
Actually he is quite rich, but I know what you mean.
John Q Public
Actually McCain is a bit liberal but, he is fairly consistent and does
stand up for his opinions
and will take the heat and is hardly a coward.
The dems on the other hand invented this (At least continuos widespread
use) of personality
destruction and now git miffed when it is used against them.
Well Boo Hoo Hoo
And you still don't get O'bama got voted in not on what he stood for
but because he appeared
to the right of McCain instead of vastly left (Thanks to the media)
Now his actual governance from the left is killing him.
America does want change, mainly right of center change!
BoreRocky the Squirrel
KStahl
Obama was voted in because he has a purpose to fulfill. It has nothing
to do with politics, race, ideology. It simply has to do with the people
who put him there wanting to accomplish something and regardless of what
you believe about him he will fulfill that purpose whether you like it
or not. You need not concern yourself about the nature of what he is
there to do because it isn't something that is visible in any overt way.
Atlanta Ranger
"KStahl" <kts...@yohaa.com> wrote in message
news:5t3Zm.65098$P05....@news.usenetserver.com...
You are right Ken. You are not political allies with the vile clown everyone
else has filtered out. Other than the fact you attaboy his vitriol several
times a week, why would I think that?
FACE
<duck...@lavabit.com>, wrote
I see that you are the standard, shallow, witless, low-life, obamasucker
duckstandard
Has nothing to do with Obama.
McCain, he used to mean a lot to me, he is nothing but a fox news\rove
bullshit propaganda extension today.
I love real conservatives. But the Republican party is just plain lost.
KStahl
Not only are they lost, they are also losers - as exemplified by most of
the conservatives that frequent this NG.
FACE
<duck...@lavabit.com>, wrote
Considering this, I don't think you actually read what I wrote as my intro
to the McCain article.
>I love real conservatives. But the Republican party is just plain lost.
I think that are some real Republicans still out there --and the platform
of the Republican party is conservative. The term RINO is meaningful,
and it was meant. Frankly, Bush did no favors for the conservative
movement, which actually is the majority of the electorate. Especially in
the last term, he was no conservative, he ended up more center left -- yet
at that, he was still far to the right of the feckless leftist idiot in
the white house now.
The real problem we have now is that the US is solidly a two party state,
and as to myself, i know i am no donkey Democrat.
(I'm still wondering what happened to Romney...............)
FACE
Atlanta Ranger
There goes Ken again! The vile troll that everyone else filters out is not
an "ally" yet he never stops backslapping and parroting everything he says.
Hisler
A two party system is supposed to be partisan, not some fake choice
where both parties represent the same treasonous platforms where they
serve Wall Street and La Raza, as McCain wishes for. McCain is merely
voicing the truth that both parties are one and the same. As George
Wallace said back in 1968, "There ain't a dime's worth of difference
between the Democratic and Republican parties." When he said that, a
dime was worth a lot more.
Brian
<duck...@lavabit.com> wrote:
>McCain is a worthless fucking coward.
Apparently you know nothing of his life story. I would guess he went
through far more than either you or i can ever realize.
Brian
wrote:
>(I'm still wondering what happened to Romney...............)
>
>FACE
He's still around waiting in the wings. His religion is a factor. I
wish it weren't but it is. The secrecy bothers a lot of people.
KStahl
You mean the supposed secrecy of LDS? It is a farce really. There is
plenty of information about the LDS cult available so it really can't be
considered secret. Most of the stuff is just allegory veiled in symbols.
In the end the LDS cult is just a sham form of Freemasons.
John Rennie
'wasn't'
FACE
<drmorri...@comcast.net>, wrote
Yes, I know it is, but he seems to be an American first. The democrats,
always going on about 'freedom of belief' -- so long as it is the belief
of a protected minority or their belief -- will use his religion against
him.
There is at least one example of that in this thread.
FACE
Brian
wrote:
>Yes, I know it is, but he seems to be an American first. The democrats,
>always going on about 'freedom of belief' -- so long as it is the belief
>of a protected minority or their belief -- will use his religion against
>him.
>There is at least one example of that in this thread.
>
>FACE
It tends to be a support of their freedom of belief or what they wish
to allow.
Chaos out of Order
Partisanship only works if both parties can agree and if both parties
are rational. The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner
by trying to fan the flames of discontent, calling Democrats
socialists and communists, working up their base to the point where
the base won't accept any rational position. You can't compromise
with a people who will only accept their way or no way thinking.
KStahl
Republicans are no different. In fact they would like to insist that
everyone believe exactly like them and become obnoxious xtians who
impose their values by force if necessary.
Liberals are fine with other people believing all sorts of things as
long as no one interfere with the beliefs of anyone else. Republicans
simply aren't capable of behaving in that type of civilized manner. No
Democrat ever murdered a doctor simply because of the type of medical
practice he chooses to pursue - that is strictly a Republican thing,
based on their twisted religious beliefs.
Minority beliefs must be protected as long as they do no harm to other
people. To deny that is to deny one of the basic tenets of humanity.
FACE
Order <goof...@gmail.com>, wrote
Calling a spade a spade is not irrational.
The democrat base has become ruled by the leftist fringe of socialists
and communists.
Can you argue that Nationalized Healthcare and progressive income taxes
are anything other than "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his need".?
That line is basic Marxism.
FACE
Hisler
> Brian wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:13:53 -0500, FACE <AFaceIn...@today.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, I know it is, but he seems to be an American first. The democrats,
>>> always going on about 'freedom of belief' -- so long as it is the belief
>>> of a protected minority or their belief -- will use his religion against
>>> him. There is at least one example of that in this thread.
>>>
>>> FACE
>>
>>
>> It tends to be a support of their freedom of belief or what they wish
>> to allow.
>
> Republicans are no different. In fact they would like to insist that
> everyone believe exactly like them and become obnoxious xtians who
> impose their values by force if necessary.
>
> Liberals are fine with other people believing all sorts of things as
> long as no one interfere with the beliefs of anyone else. Republicans
> simply aren't capable of behaving in that type of civilized manner. No
> Democrat ever murdered a doctor simply because of the type of medical
> practice he chooses to pursue - that is strictly a Republican thing,
> based on their twisted religious beliefs.
But Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan, claiming it was used by
terrorists to produce WMD's, when it was in fact only an aspirin
factory. He bombed Belgrade, including a factory that then released
massive amounts of chlorine into a major river, killing all the fish for
hundreds of miles downstream. He allowed the use of depleted uranium in
Serbia, causing untold cancer deaths and birth defects for future
generations. While Monica sucked his cock, he ordered cruise missile
attacks on Middle Eastern countries, causing far more deaths than
murdering one doctor because he killed full term babies.
KStahl
How do you PERSONALLY know it was "just" an aspirin factory? Were you a
part of the investigation team? Did you have direct access to the
intelligence that was used during that mission? Did you personally know
the individuals who worked at that facility?
I know the answers to all of these questions. A resounding "no". The
only information you have is the same information that is freely
available to the public via the media. The story about the "aspirin"
factory was successfully peddled and everybody patted themselves on the
back for being oh so clever about the whole thing.
The same is true for all of the incidents you cited. You don't have any
personal knowledge about any of it.
In the world of executive actions, there is always far more to the
overall story then the public will ever know. The information is not
released because it could potentially jeopardize future operations and
might reveal means and methods that are only effective as long as they
are tightly held.
While I have criticized former President Clinton for being a personal
scum bag and douche for cheating on his wife and for publicly
embarrassing this nation because of sexual escapades in the White House
when he should have been protecting the dignity of the office that he
held, you cannot compare what he did in that regards to a nut job who
kills a doctor to pursue an evil and misguided religious vendetta. Shame
on you for being that type of asshole.
Brian
<goof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Partisanship only works if both parties can agree and if both parties
>are rational. The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner
>by trying to fan the flames of discontent, calling Democrats
>socialists and communists, working up their base to the point where
>the base won't accept any rational position. You can't compromise
>with a people who will only accept their way or no way thinking.
Do you mean bipartisanship?
When the Republicans were in power, they were criticized for not being
bipartisan by agreeing to whatever the Democrats wanted. Now that they
Democrats are in power, Republicans are told they should bow to the
wishes of the Democrats because they are in power.
Nowhere do I see a response the Democrats should be more conciliatory
and adopt what Republicans want.
Hisler
Not to mention Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians. Shooting one
full-term abortion "doctor" who had the audacity to go to church after
killing babies all week is a bread crumb sin compared to killing 82
people, including young children in Waco because they "stockpiled" guns.
I don't believe that you have some secret knowledge about the aspirin
factory in Sudan that justified the actions of Slick Willie in ordering
the attack while Monica sucked his dick either.
KStahl
Whether you "believe" something or not is hardly a factor. Basing
credibility on belief is absurd and totally irrelevant. Little children
believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny and their belief certainly cannot
be justified on known facts. You also have zero evidence to support your
silly, silly, silly notion that any attack was ordered while an act of
fellatio was occurring - that is yellow journalism and is a total
fabrication. You make yourself sound like a puerile little child just by
repeating that nonsense. As to secret knowledge - you don't know what I
know. On the other hand I am certain that you are forty years old and
still live with your parents, can't hold a steady job because of your
psychiatric condition and you are looking for a new place to buy your
adult diapers. I know these things in exactly the same way that you
think you can know what I know or do not know.
There is no such thing as a "bread crumb sin". You made that up as you
were writing - unless that is one of the favorite terms of your local
whacko religious nutter. You would use that same justification for
raping a child, offing a homeless person that no one would miss or even
blowing up an airliner because someone you dislike is on a particular
flight. There is no relativity when it comes to sin. For people like you
I hope there is such a thing as a judgment day because I'd like to sit
there and watch as you attempt to explain that some sins are worse then
others because in the end you don't get to make the rules and the rule
maker will hardly accept your justifications.
John Rennie
Well, that was an enjoyable read - I hope you stick around.
KStahl
Strange. Most people just wish that I were dead. Luckily wish
fulfillment doesn't occur very often.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On 2009-12-25 08:53:04 -0500, KStahl <kts...@yohaa.com> said:
>
>
>
> > duckstandard wrote:
>
>
> >>> Despite his lofty campaign rhetoric about how he would be a "non-partisan"
> >>> president, I think Obama has been the most partisan President we have seen
> >>> in a while. For reference to refute this the five previous presidents
> >>> were: Bush,Clinton,Bush,Reagan,Carter.
>
> >> games, like shutting themselves out of working with Democrats then
> >> playing that they are being ignored by 'obama'
>
> >> You fucking pussies need to step the fuck up in politics or just shut
> >> the fuck up once and for all.
>
> >>> McCain solely because he wasn't Obama.
>
> >>> Now, "McCain blames Obama for partisan climate in DC"
>
>
>
> stand up for his opinions
During the campaign he called for Gitmo to be shut; now he criticizes
Obama for wanting to do that. During the campaign, he proposed taxing
high cost health insurance plans to pay for his health care reform;
now he criticizes the Democrats for wanting to do that. McCain may
face a right-wing challenger in his Senate primary next time; he's
moving far to the right.
> and will take the heat and is hardly a coward.
> The dems on the other hand invented this (At least continuos widespread
> use) of personality
> destruction and now git miffed when it is used against them.
Huh? It began with the right-wing attack on Clinton, from calling him
a murderer and drug runner, to impeachment.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:09:19 -0800 (PST), in alt.politics, Chaos out of
That started with Jesus. Acts 4:
32. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of
one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he
possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection
of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were
possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the
things that were sold,
35. And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was
made unto every man according as he had need.
> That line is basic Marxism.
Or Christianity.
>
> FACE
John Rennie
> On Dec 25, 11:10 am, John Q Public <my2ce...@me.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-25 08:53:04 -0500, KStahl <kts...@yohaa.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> duckstandard wrote:
>>>> FACE wrote:
>>>>> Despite his lofty campaign rhetoric about how he would be a "non-partisan"
>>>>> president, I think Obama has been the most partisan President we have seen
>>>>> in a while. For reference to refute this the five previous presidents
>>>>> were: Bush,Clinton,Bush,Reagan,Carter.
>>>> Not that he hasn't tried. Republicans play these stupid political
>>>> games, like shutting themselves out of working with Democrats then
>>>> playing that they are being ignored by 'obama'
>>>> You fucking pussies need to step the fuck up in politics or just shut
>>>> the fuck up once and for all.
>>>>> Many of you were for Obama solely because he wasn't Bush. I was for RINO
>>>>> McCain solely because he wasn't Obama.
>>>>> Now, "McCain blames Obama for partisan climate in DC"
>>>> McCain is a worthless fucking coward.
>>> Actually he is quite rich, but I know what you mean.
>> Actually McCain is a bit liberal but, he is fairly consistent and does
>> stand up for his opinions
>
> During the campaign he called for Gitmo to be shut; now he criticizes
> Obama for wanting to do that.
The trouble is with a place like Guantanamo is that it is very
difficult to shut down once it has been opened. I stated that
loud and clear as did one or two others here when it was opened.
About one in ten of the Gitmo prisoners were/are fundamental Islamists
and rightly regarded as highly dangerous. Frankly they should
been handed over to the 'government' of Afghanistan i.e. war lords
who would have known how to deal with them when captured.
What was the reason for bringing them to Gitmo? Intelligence?
Don't make me laugh. Even if they could provided active
intelligence which was unlikely I doubt whether American
investigators were acute enough to discern it. Now we have
the situation where States are unwilling to have them in their
prisons. Again I find that very understandable. Putting
them on trial is a field day that most are looking forward to.
Now are our right wing jihadists going to criticise Obama
for not sticking to his campaign promise to shut Gantanamo
down. It was a rash promise, however, he has done his best
to reduce the number held there. The fact is George Bush/
Cheney/neo-cons are responsible for the long term problem of
Gitmo and no one else.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
John Rennie wrote:
>
> erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > During the campaign he called for Gitmo to be shut; now he criticizes
> > Obama for wanting to do that.
>
> The trouble is with a place like Guantanamo is that it is very
> difficult to shut down once it has been opened. I stated that
> loud and clear as did one or two others here when it was opened.
>
What was wrong with Gitmo Bay as a place to keep these crazies
anyway? Their location doesn't say anything about treatment or
whatever you have a problem with.
> About one in ten of the Gitmo prisoners were/are fundamental Islamists
> and rightly regarded as highly dangerous. Frankly they should
> been handed over to the 'government' of Afghanistan i.e. war lords
> who would have known how to deal with them when captured.
>
So it would be OK to hand them over to be tortured? I thought that
was not supposed to happen.
> What was the reason for bringing them to Gitmo? Intelligence?
> Don't make me laugh.
>
For some reason, they seem to talk right away, most of them. It's
not really a secret that al Qaeda uses suicide attacks even when
the suicide part isn't strictly necessary for the success of the
operation because they've had a lot of trouble with their people
talking after getting caught.
> The fact is George Bush/
> Cheney/neo-cons are responsible for the long term problem of
> Gitmo and no one else.
>
Where should they have put the people they put at Gitmo Bay?
--
Tiger tells eleven mistresses, "I will leave my wife for you."
Brian
>During the campaign he called for Gitmo to be shut; now he criticizes
>Obama for wanting to do that. During the campaign, he proposed taxing
>high cost health insurance plans to pay for his health care reform;
>now he criticizes the Democrats for wanting to do that. McCain may
>face a right-wing challenger in his Senate primary next time; he's
>moving far to the right.
I disagreed with McCain about closing Gitmo but he didn't want to do
it without any alternative plans as Obama has done.
>Huh? It began with the right-wing attack on Clinton, from calling him
>a murderer and drug runner, to impeachment.
You ever heard of Bork apparently.
Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.
Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy took
to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally
televised speech, declaring:
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into
back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters,
rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids,
schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and
artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors
of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of
citizens for whom the judiciary is�and is often the only�protector of
the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President
Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out
from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose
his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and
the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this
injustice.[10][11]
Bork complained, "There was not a line in that speech that was
accurate."[12] In its obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that
Bork was correct about the inaccuracy of Kennedy's speech, "But it
worked."[12] A brief was prepared for Joe Biden, head of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, called the Biden Report. Bork contended in his
best-selling[13] book, The Tempting of America, that the report "so
thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as
world class in the category of scurrility."[14]
TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.
Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of
Bork's nomination. The rapid response to Kennedy's "Robert Bork's
America" speech stunned the Reagan White House, and the accusations
went unanswered for 2� months.[15]
A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination
ensued, partly fueled by strong opposition by civil and women's rights
groups concerned with what they claimed was Bork's desire to roll back
civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork is one of
only three Supreme Court nominees to ever be opposed by the American
Civil Liberties Union, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel
Alito.[16] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of
disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost
executive supremacy",[8] which his role in the Saturday Night Massacre
exemplified according to his critics.
During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was
leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and
included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People,
and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a
copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote waggishly about it for
the Washington City Paper.[17] Dolan justified accessing the list on
the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such
privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident
led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork
FACE
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com>, wrote
><nothing worthwhile>
But then that was to be expected...........
poor baby sucking on a pacifier
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:28:59 -0800 (PST), in alt.politics, duckstandard
> <duck...@lavabit.com>, wrote
>
>>
>>
>>FACE wrote:
>>> Despite his lofty campaign rhetoric about how he would be a "non-partisan"
>>> president, I think Obama has been the most partisan President we have seen
>>> in a while. For reference to refute this the five previous presidents
>>> were: Bush,Clinton,Bush,Reagan,Carter.
>>
>>Not that he hasn't tried. Republicans play these stupid political
>>games, like shutting themselves out of working with Democrats then
>>playing that they are being ignored by 'obama'
>>
>>You fucking pussies need to step the fuck up in politics or just shut
>>the fuck up once and for all.
>>
>>> Many of you were for Obama solely because he wasn't Bush. I was for RINO
>>> McCain solely because he wasn't Obama.
>>
>>> Now, "McCain blames Obama for partisan climate in DC"
>>>
>>
>>McCain is a worthless fucking coward.
>
> I see that you are the standard, shallow, witless, low-life, obamasucker
so, do you get paid time-and-a-half for posting your illucid rants on xmas day or what?