Lefties, please leave us alone.
William F. Tell
on the "past 12 years" of Republican neglect, and then the voters in
Los Angeles and Texas (not to mention Jersey City) elect Republicans.
Another big race will be the Mayoral race in New York. I really hope
Rudy Giuliani can win this time.
--WFT
Mark Rush
Dinkins. One of their leaders, who is running for comptroller and whose name
escapes me has allied with giuliani.
Donald E. Hatfield
>--WFT
It is not accurate to assess the Los Angeles Mayorial race as a
"Republican vs. Democrat" battle. Mr. Riordan represents no official
party, and Mr. Woo represents no official party. Mr. Riordan donated
a good deal of money to Mr. Clinton's campaign, while Mr. Woo was
given a luke warm endorsement by President Clinton.
Mr. Riordan and Mr. Woo emerged from a pack of potential candidates
due to name recognition (Mr. Riordan's money bought more TV ad time
and his "turn around" of Mattel tends to be respected; Mr. Woo has had
his face plastering the news media ever since he became a City Council
man and is credited with making the first public calls by an official
for former Chief Daryl Gates' resignation), and because both men
claimed to be the candidates of change. Mr. Riordan appears to be the
man that will make the most changes, since Mr. Woo has been directly
involved with the City's process for several years.
It should be pointed out that both men had individuals from many
different races, genders, and political leanings. To simplify things
as "conservative vs. liberal" is to gloss over the complicated aspects
of this past and difficult race. In a city as large as LA, only about
500 000 voters turned out. I would have say that it would appear that
"none of the above" won this race.
I would have to end by asking what the meaning of your "lefties leave
us alone" line means? How do I know if I am a "lefty". Please, give
me a list of the people I must agree with to be considered a
Republican and a nonlefty, so that I may post.
--
Later, || dhat...@agsm.ucla.edu || My sense of humor
|| dhatfiel@uclagsm || has been revoked.
Donald E. Hatfield || imm...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu ||
Brad Kepley
>It is not accurate to assess the Los Angeles Mayorial race as a
>"Republican vs. Democrat" battle. Mr. Riordan represents no official
>party, and Mr. Woo represents no official party. Mr. Riordan donated
>a good deal of money to Mr. Clinton's campaign, while Mr. Woo was
>given a luke warm endorsement by President Clinton.
I loved the way Peter Jennings described the race. "Mr Riordan is a rich
businessman. Mr. Woo is a Democratic councilman." At least he could have
pointed out that Mr. Woo's father is a pretty "rich businessman" also (at
least, so I understand).
--
| "The natural progress of things is for government |
| to gain ground and for liberty to yield" |
| Thomas Jefferson |
| Brad Kepley kep...@photon.phys.unca.edu 704-252-8330/Voice-Days |
Dan Ward
: It is interesting how Clinton has blamed the problems of this country
: --WFT
The republican party is responsible for the mess we're in. If
you voted for Ronnie and George - then step right up and accept
some of the blame.
So far as recent elections - I don't know about Jersey City
but LA will soon be in flames again and then we'll see just how
effective a republican major is. I don't think he has enough
money to hire all the police he's going to need.
So far as Texas goes - what do ya expect? They're Texans! The
whole western portion of the state is suffering from water
depletion. And you know what happens when the brain doesn't
have enough water to work properly. Or, if you're still a
republican - maybe ya don't.
Clinton/Gore 'til 2004 Dan
Brad Kepley
> The republican party is responsible for the mess we're in. If
> you voted for Ronnie and George - then step right up and accept
> some of the blame.
> Clinton/Gore 'til 2004 Dan
Boy, you got that right Dan. With the Job he's doing, why I bet it's not
just Clinton/Gore 'til 2004, but probably Clinton/Clinton, Co-Presidents
for life. They're so damn competent, Canada'll probably ask them to
take over things there too, straighten out their debt problem, Quebec,
etc... then it's on to Europe which is struck almost dumb by the
political brilliance of Clinton & Clinton in this first one hundred
days...show 'em how to do it Bill...show them the work of a master
political team...just DO it!
Dan Ward
: In article <1vkm90...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, dw...@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward)
: writes:
: |> Bryan H. Williams (will...@bigsow.enet.dec.com) wrote:
: |>
: |> : In article <1vdc9o...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, dw...@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward)
: |> writes...
: |>
: |> Don't blame the schools. I'm 45 years old and I've had the
: |> chance to watch this in person. I followed the watergate
: |> hearings with great interest. Before that, the Spiro Agnew
: |> hearings which forced his resignation and "nolo contende"
: |> (Sp?)
: |> conviction. After than we had Labor Sec Brock and his
: |> alledged
: |> problems with bribery.
: And after that, we had Bert Lance. If the problem is government appointees
: abusing their power, why don't you support the party that tries to REDUCE
: the size of government?
So, I give you one name off the tope of my head to illustrate
corruption and you give me one name? And what does your comment
about the size of the government have to do with what I was
talking about? Although, since you want to bring it up - what
makes you think large government is a problem? Sounds to me like
a knee jerk echo of what Reagan, Bush, etc have been saying for
years....was this really an original thought on your part? For what
it's worth - I think it's totally unrealistic to expect the
government to retreat to the size it had in the 50's. As a
nation - we've grown. You can't expect a 15 year old boy to wear
the same pants he had at 5 and you can't expect the government
we have now - facing all the complexities of the 90's we face - to
operate efficiency if limited in size to the '50s. I don't
think big government in itself is "evil." Depending on how
much is demanded by the public, the government can be effective - or
it can just be big.
: |> I watched Ronnie step up to the plate
: |> and take a recovering economy and flush it down the toliet.
: Oh really? A recovering economy with nearly 20% inflation? Inflation that
: G. William Miller pretended to fight? Inflation that Carter refused to
: control when it was in his power to do so, particularly in light of Fed
: Chairman Volker's willingness to do whatever it took? No economy, anywhere
: in the world, is healthy when there is rampant inlfation.
What ARE you talking about? Give me some cites to backup
your assertions. I think Carter did everything in his power
to correct the problems Nixon had left him. Funny - when Ronnie
didn't accomplish miracles in the first 4 years - you guys
were all saying it was unrealistic to expect him to fix Carter's
problems in just 4 years. And with carter, you're upset because
he didn't cure the woes of the world in 7 days? And by the way
shopuld we compare Carters after office years with Reagans? Sorta
like comparing Saint Thomas with Bumbo and the bandits, don't ya think
: |> And let's not forget
: |> Ollie North and his lieing to Congress
: Lying to a kangaroo court trying to assert its non-existent authority?
: The President is Commander In Chief, not Congress.
Congress is hardly a kangaroo court. You should review (or
take) a basic civics course. There are three branches of
government. The constitution aauthorizes Congress to set up
oversight committees. A president who acts to lie to Congress
- when Congress is acting as it should - is a criminal. His crime?
Treason! Not only to the American people but to the constitution!
: |> few who were never detected. Congress has to rely on the
: |> Executive
: |> Branch for information. If the information provided is
: |> tainted,
: |> the decision is going to be a poor one.
: Spare me the nonsense! Congress dependent upon the President for
: information?
: Why are we paying for a Congressional Budget Office, then?
: Why do congressmen like Solarz or Boxer or Pelosi engage in foreign-policy
: grandstanding?
Of course Congress is dependent upon the Executive branch. Please
see my comments above. So far as Solarz, Boxer, etc - I don't know.
I am not familiar with them or their actions. However, if they
are guilty as charged by you - then I would expect their rational
is exactly the same as Ghram, Morela and the chief house turkey -
the dude from Georgia. What is his name anyway? Rush Limbaugh?
No - Rush is much fatter. Neidermyer? No - I think that was the
name of one of the concentration camp guards....Neidrick? mSomeone
help me here
: |> Not a threat,dude. I've always heard [source ?] "Those who
: |> fail
: |> to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Don't shoot
: |> the messanger (Sp?) and then act surprized when an event
: |> happens.
: |> Personally, my vested interest lies in maintaining a peaceful
: |> mode of existence. I'm white, middleclass and as peaceful as
: |> they come. But I'm not stupid. I've lived through Watts and
: |> the Chicago riots. If you're poor, miniority and see no hope
: |> for yourself or your children - there isn't much reason to
: |> maintain the status quo.
: I don't know about that. In the status quo, there is a social welfare
: system that keeps them in their place, but also pays them for not working,
: and coddles and tolerates their criminal acts. It also gives politicians
: like Maxine Waters a dependable voting base of parasites. I can see many
: of these people rioting in order to MAINTAIN and EXPAND the system. "No
: justice, no peace" is essentially blackmail, especially when they know
: liberal politicans will coddle criminals. (No, I really have no sympathy
: for that wife-beating drunk driver).
Them? Keeps them in their place? Who, exactly, is "them?" And
where, exactly, is "their place?" I think your white sheet is
showing. You need to wake up. You aren't God and you're not any
better than the "them" you despise. In fact, given a choice between
spending much time with you vs spending time with a street person ---
: |> I do not see the recent LA riots as
: |> a "passing period of civil disorder." I see it as an
: |> expression
: |> of rage and futility.
: Oh really? When 1/3rd of those arrested were illegal aliens?
: When ALL US Citizens arrested had prior criminal records? Look it up...
I have. You're wrong.
: |> Nothing has been done to alleviate the
: |> core problems - so I expect the riots will happen again.
: |> |>Particularly
: |> now that you have a major who has decided to take a hard line
: |> in
: |> enforcing the "law." I thik he would be better off trying to
: |> fix
: |> the problems.
: Criminal-Coddling is one of the problems. Why should inner-city residents
: "do
: the right thing" when they can see that it clearly doesn't pay to do so?
: And when they can intimate gutless liberal politicians to get more of the
: same?
:
Again, what is "the right thing?" MY first major was in
Philosophy. Seems men like Socrates, Plato, Kant, Descarte
and many more spent their entire life trying to determine
what "the right thing" was, You must be very intelligent
to have found the answer so quickly in your life. Now, quickly -
tell me so we'll both know!
Is it "right" to see your children forced into second class
schools - with teachers who expect them to fail - and who
generally make sure they do. Is it "right" to watch your
child die before your eyes because you don't have 1,000
bucks to obtain treatment? Is it right to turn your cheek
when you get NOTHING in return? I think not.
: |> And, so far as Mr. Jackson and Ms. waters are
: |> concerned, I think both of them are intelligent, articulate
: |> and responsible spokespersons.
: Oh really? Maxine Waters who all urged her constituents to "go wilding"?
: (Do you know what that term means???)
Yes, I know what the term means. And no, I don't believe she said
it. I think you are doing the same thing the republican
leadership has done for years - lie like hell and hope
someone is convinced
: |> Dan. A liberal and pround of it. And by the way, I pay
: |> my taxes and I've been paying them for about 30 years. I
: |> expect to have a voice in how my taxes are spent. I want
: |> them spent making jobs
: And you STILL believe the government is an effective job provider, when
: the taxes it takes in to make jobs come from companies who actually are
: HIRING people?
Yes. Look at the Depresion era WPA projects. They went
a long ways towards restoring a sense of dignity to a lot
of people. That, in turn, helped them feel they could
help themselves - and most of them did. They got back on
their feet and then they started companies and THEY provided
jobs to others.
: |>, and in providing every kid sleeping
: |> in an alley - or selling their bodies for food - a safe place
: |> to live and hope for the future.
: You would do better by strengthening the family institution--and not
: encouraging families to break up with bankrupt Me-Generation rhetoric,
: or declaring that deviant sexual relationships are the equivalent of
: families when they clearly are not.
I don't care what people do in their sex lives. I'm not
God and I don't know what HE expects. I figure he will
come down and tell me if it's all that important to him.
What I do object to is rape - by any name it's wrong. I
want my taxes to go towards preventing that.
I don't feel threatened when I find out someone is gay.
How about you? Feeling a little insecure?
: Nick Byram
: "Politically Correct" isn't.
Dan "People who rely on cliches are usually not original thinkers."
Bryan H. Williams
In article <1vkm90...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, dw...@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward) writes...
Ok, first I'd like to apologise to Dan for turning what was an otherwise good
post (IMHO) into a personal attack against him. It was uncalled for.
> Don't blame the schools. I'm 45 years old and I've had the
> chance to watch this in person. I followed the watergate
> hearings with great interest. Before that, the Spiro Agnew
> hearings which forced his resignation and "nolo contende" (Sp?)
> conviction. After than we had Labor Sec Brock and his alledged
> problems with bribery.
No offense, but then you're old enough to know better. At 45, you've seen the
"War on Poverty" and the failure of social programs to help those in need make
a better life for themselves. You've seen medicare put a demand on our health
care system that is at least partially responsible for our so-called health
care crisis. You've seen billions wasted by a large government coddleing to
special interests on both sides of the aisle, but most notably Democrats and
Liberals. (Listen to anti-war-at-all-costs Ron Dellums whine about the bases
closing in his congressional district). Why do we need a cooperative extension
office (Dept of Agriculture) in New York City (a New Deal Program?) ? Not many
farmers there..
> I watched Ronnie step up to the plate
> and take a recovering economy and flush it down the toliet.
Bwaha! Remember the misery index? High interest rates? Inflation out of
control? And the alternative? Carter? More misery all around.
> He was convinced he could improve things overnight - but his
> changes were too drastic. Too fast.
No, his biggest problem was not forcing Congress (liberal Democrats, remember?)
to cut spending.
>And let's not forget
> Ollie North and his lieing to Congress; Weinberger and his
> 11th hour pardon.
Yes, let's not forget the Boland Amendment, a blatently unConstitutional piece
of legislation, sponsored by one of the few Liberal Mass Reps who hasn't been
indicted yet. North and co believed in the legal term "lex mala lex nulla"
(an evil law is no law, in this case, evil in terms of the constitutional
provisions of Executive powers).
>No, the schools bear little responsibility
> for history. They can teach it - but they don't generally
> make it.
They don't teach it very well anyways, but I was wrong in applying this to you.
> Which party has been appointing the judges and runing the bureacracy?
The Democrats for the most part. Sen Biden held up over 130 judicial
appointments since last sprint in hops of a Democratic president to fill them
instead. So you tell me - given this type of partisan politics being played
with consititutional authority, which party REALLY owns the Judiciary? I'll
tell you: the party that owns the Senate, and that has been the Democrats with
the exception of 2 years over the last 40. (30?)
> For that matter - which party has sent the most liars to testify
> before Congress?
Which party has the most liars IN Congress? The Democrats.
>Ollie North, Weinberger, Abrams and probablu a
> few who were never detected. Congress has to rely on the Executive
> Branch for information. If the information provided is tainted,
> the decision is going to be a poor one.
But the information is tainted. Most testifying comes from mid level
bureauocrats, "civil servants" who want to expand their programs, and hence
power, not political appointees. We just hear about the appointees more. Just
think - our Congress relies on such experts as actresses to testify on the
plight of the family farm. Her credentials? she played a farmer's wife in a
movie. Now that's SUBSTANCE!!
> Not a threat,dude. I've always heard [source ?] "Those who fail
> to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Franklin?
>Don't shoot
> the messanger (Sp?) and then act surprized when an event happens.
> Personally, my vested interest lies in maintaining a peaceful
> mode of existence. I'm white, middleclass and as peaceful as
> they come. But I'm not stupid. I've lived through Watts and
> the Chicago riots. If you're poor, miniority and see no hope
> for yourself or your children - there isn't much reason to
> maintain the status quo. I do not see the recent LA riots as
> a "passing period of civil disorder." I see it as an expression
> of rage and futility. Nothing has been done to alleviate the
> core problems - so I expect the riots will happen again. Particularly
> now that you have a major who has decided to take a hard line in
> enforcing the "law." I thik he would be better off trying to fix
> the problems.
The trillions we've spent on social spending over the last 60-70 years has done
alot to alliaviate this, hasn't it? Our system keeps people in their place, so
to speak. A supressed study during the Carter years made a strong case against
most social spending because everything the government subsidizes tends to
flourish. So what happens when we pay them not to work? They learn that they
don't have to work to live. What happens when we subsidize unwed mothers? You
get more of them, particularly when they figure out that they can get out of
the house at 16, be "independant", get Section 8 housing assistance, food
stamps, a monthly check. THEN they figure out that if they have 2 MORE kids,
they can get a bigger apartment, all paid for by Uncle Sam. No responsibility
at all. THIS is a CRIME, and it's been perpetrated by, guess who? DEMOCRATS and
LIBERALS.
>And, so far as Mr. Jackson and Ms. waters are
> concerned, I think both of them are intelligent, articulate
> and responsible spokespersons. Ms. waters was elected to be
> a spokesperson and Jackson has becomes a spokesman by virtue
> of his lifestyle.
Maxine Waters votes for more welfare spending so she can expand the size of the
dependancy base she needs to get elected. Her motives are less than noble.
Jesse Jackson has NOTHING in common with those people he claims to represent,
except the color of his skin. He is rich. They are not. He can read and write.
Most of them cannot. He lives a lifesytle of plenty. They do not. What the
IrRelevent Jackson has done is assist in the setting up of a power structure
that supresses blacks and other minorities from achieving unless they do it
through the power structure. It infuriates him to no end that someone like
Clarence Thomas can achieve without going through the power structure.
>Refusing to listen to what they have to say
> because you don't want to hear the message does NOT make their
> message less accurate or honest.
I do listen to them. I just don't believe them, and I disagree that they are
being "honest."
[...]
>
> Clinton hasn't been as effective as I had hoped - but I don't
> think the country can stand even another month of borrow and
> spend republican leadership.
Read the Constitution. Who originates Tax bills? The House. Who passes the
Budget? The Congress. Who appropriates money for the government to spend? The
Congress. Who raises the Debt ceiling? The Congress.
Who has declared the last 5 budgets (previous to Clinton) DEAD ON ARRIVAL? The
Congress.
You are correct. We cannot continue another day of borrow and spend. Thank the
Democrats for continuing to mortgage our childrens' and grandchildrens'
futures.
>And who do you propose to replace
> Clinton? Dole? Kemp? Domenici? I could spend hours on their
> failings.
Ah! light at the end of the tunnel! I'm not sure any of the talked about
Republicans are who I'd want as President. Not Dole, he's a RINO. Kemp is a
squish. Don't know enough about Domenici. I do like Bill Bennett, but I'd want
to learn more about him first. I like Phil Gramm, but the same applies.
But I really don't think who the President is matters quite as much as
breaking the liberal stranglehold on Congress.
>: If you wonder what AlGore does when he's not in the Senate, watch PBS -- a show
>: called "Barney." The laugh is the same; the clap is the same, talkes at a 3
>: year old level and that stuuuuupid laugh. Identical.
>
> And I suppose your comments aren't a little mean? (Not to
> mention off-the-point? By the way, how do YOU sound when
> you laugh?
Mean? Moi? Yeah, I suppose it's "mean", but that is politics. I dunno how I
sound when I laugh, but it certainly isn't a "Barney" laugh.
> You've decided to shoot the messenger, haven't you? I would
> recommend you not type and chew gum at the same time. The
> task is obviously beyond your capabilities.
I apologised earlier in this post. My comment was uncalled for.
>: Now, are we done with the stupid comments and do you want to talk issues? If
>: not, I suggest you hang out at alt.activism.d instead of here.
>
> Issues? Issues? Give me a break. Grow up a little bit and
> give me a call when you have and we'll talk issues. Based on
> your post - I won't expect a response for at least 15 years.
I'm here - a scant 24 hours later.
> Dan. A liberal and pround of it. And by the way, I pay
> my taxes and I've been paying them for about 30 years.
That means they took money from you when you were 15? Doesn't that even touch
a liberal as unfair?
>
> I expect to have a voice in how my taxes are spent.
I expect to have a voice in how taxes are spent too. I believe that our
current legal system is out of control, resulting in stupid law like allowing
Mass to tax my income even though I live in NH, or allowing Maine to tax the
income of a spouse even though they work in NH. Something is definately wrong
when you are taxed without representation.
>I want
> them spent making jobs,
Why is it the government's responsibility to make jobs? Please show me where in
the Constitution the Federal Government is given this responsibility.
It's also fairly established (even Clinichio believes this) that small
businesses create the most jobs. Also, if you REALLY want to create jobs, and
the largest expansion in history, including the creation of 20 MILLION
taxpaying jobs, happened during the Reagan years, wouldn't it makes sense to do
similar things as Reagan? Raising taxes isn't going to do it. They did that in
1990, and look where it got us. Spending more isn't going to do it either. We
are spending more in the proposed budget than in previous appropriations.
If you want a REAL eyeopener, get ahold of Clinton's plan, and read the
appendix, where his 5-7 year forcasts are. If Clinton gets his way, we get
runaway deficits again in 1997 (starting with $600 Billion). So much for
"substantive" deficit reduction. Congress is going along with this charade.
Why? They get to spend more. Tax/Borrow and spend -- the legacy of the
Democrats in Congress.
>and in providing every kid sleeping
> in an alley - or selling their bodies for food - a safe place
> to live and hope for the future.
How many kids are there REALLY sleeping in an alley and whose estimate are you
basing this on?
The government has none of these responsibilities. They are wasting money
trying to prove otherwise... Cut spending, (which will mean eliminating
entitlements,) and cut taxes if you want the economy to recover and grow.
Al Sparks
> The Democrats for the most part. Sen Biden held up over 130 judicial
> appointments since last sprint in hops of a Democratic president to fill them
> instead. So you tell me - given this type of partisan politics being played
> with consititutional authority, which party REALLY owns the Judiciary? I'll
> tell you: the party that owns the Senate, and that has been the Democrats with
> the exception of 2 years over the last 40. (30?)
Actually you both have your statistics wrong. The Republicans had
control of the Senate for six years (1981-1987), not two. === Al
Joseph Harsch
>In article <1vkm90...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, dw...@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward)
>|> writes...
[stuff about economy deleted]
>
>|> And let's not forget
>|> Ollie North and his lieing to Congress
>
>The President is Commander In Chief, not Congress.
>
You can't actually be defending Ollie North, can you?
You're not saying that it's OK to lie to Congress, right? You
agree that breaking the law is, well, wrong, don't you?
Ollie North's obvious violation of the law (just
the false reporting and destruction of documents for now),
is unacceptable. He is a disgrace to his (former) uniform.
Now, as for the whole Iran Contra scandal, which was
clearly against the law as well, I think Ollie was a pawn. He
was used, and used bad. The real blame, and punishment, should
have been applied to Uncle Ron and the real power brokers.
Just my opinions, not BNR's, not NT's.
-jc harsch
Christopher Cannon
>In article <C8oIr...@odin.corp.sgi.com> by...@dba3.csd.sgi.com (Nick Byram) writes:
>>In article <1vkm90...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, dw...@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward)
>>writes:
>>|> Bryan H. Williams (will...@bigsow.enet.dec.com) wrote:
>>|>
>>|> : In article <1vdc9o...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, dw...@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward)
>>|> writes...
> [stuff about economy deleted]
>>
>>|> And let's not forget
>>|> Ollie North and his lieing to Congress
>>
>>Lying to a kangaroo court trying to assert its non-existent authority?
>>The President is Commander In Chief, not Congress.
>>
>
> You can't actually be defending Ollie North, can you?
>You're not saying that it's OK to lie to Congress, right? You
>agree that breaking the law is, well, wrong, don't you?
>
have when they exclude themselves from just about every other
law. I can't believe that that isn't unconstitutional.
It should be.
> Ollie North's obvious violation of the law (just
>the false reporting and destruction of documents for now),
>is unacceptable. He is a disgrace to his (former) uniform.
>
> Now, as for the whole Iran Contra scandal, which was
>clearly against the law as well, I think Ollie was a pawn. He
>was used, and used bad. The real blame, and punishment, should
>have been applied to Uncle Ron and the real power brokers.
>
>
> Just my opinions, not BNR's, not NT's.
> -jc harsch
--
===================
can...@lobby.ti.com
Donald E. Hatfield
either of this country's political party. Please, keep this type of
discussion to direct email. (I respond via the net in the hope that
such conduct is limited.)
The interesting point that both of you are trying to make is who has
been running the country and which party is the party of change. The
problem is that both parties have been communicating in the same manner
that you two gentleman have communicated to each other and forced the
rest of us to read in these posts.
will...@bigsow.enet.dec.com (Bryan H. Williams) writes:
>In article <1vdc9o...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, dw...@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward) writes...
>> The republican party is responsible for the mess we're in. If
>> you voted for Ronnie and George - then step right up and accept
>> some of the blame.
>Is that a fact? Our schools have failed miserably if you really believe that.
>Which party has owned the House of Representatives for the last 40 years and
>the Senate for all but 2 of the last 30(?) years? THE DEMOCRATS, joined by
>LIBERAL RINO's (Republican in Name Only). Only Congress can raise taxes. Only
>Congress can raise the debt ceiling. Both Reagan and Bush (and I'm no Bush fan)
>were held hostage by the liberals in Congress to sign an omnibus budget of
>"force little old ladies to go without Social Security checks because the
>government shut down."
[sample ramblings of both men deleted]
>[...]
>>
>> So far as Texas goes - what do ya expect? They're Texans! The
>> whole western portion of the state is suffering from water
>> depletion. And you know what happens when the brain doesn't
>> have enough water to work properly. Or, if you're still a
>> republican - maybe ya don't.
>Half the state is [not desert, what's the right word for it?]. What do _you_
>expect?
>>
>> Clinton/Gore 'til 2004 Dan
>Clinton/Gore - gone in four!
>Defeat Clinton in 96
[the equivalent to a call for attention deleted]
>called "Barney." The laugh is the same; the clap is the same, talkes at a 3
>year old level and that stuuuuupid laugh. Identical.
>I can go on, but more than 10 three syllable words in a short span are
>probably a bit much for you, Dan.
>Now, are we done with the stupid comments and do you want to talk issues? If
>not, I suggest you hang out at alt.activism.d instead of here.
>Bryan
>will...@barnyd.ENET.dec.com
Bret Elliott
> The republican party is responsible for the mess we're in. If
> you voted for Ronnie and George - then step right up and accept
> some of the blame.
>
> So far as recent elections - I don't know about Jersey City
> but LA will soon be in flames again and then we'll see just how
> effective a republican major is. I don't think he has enough
> money to hire all the police he's going to need.
>
> So far as Texas goes - what do ya expect? They're Texans! The
> whole western portion of the state is suffering from water
> depletion. And you know what happens when the brain doesn't
> have enough water to work properly. Or, if you're still a
> republican - maybe ya don't.
>
> Clinton/Gore 'til 2004 Dan
You must be have been enhaling when you composed this message, Bill and
Al's big adventure will end in 96 when they don't receive the democrat
nomination.
I do agree that the republicans do have some responsibility regarding the
deficit, but the lions share goes to the democrat party, that refuses to
cut spending. Our current budget situation is a great illustration of this,
Mr. Clinton's budget has virtually no spending cuts in it, all the proposed cut
come after 96 and any student of modern american politics knows that mean
the cuts will never materialize.
Reagan's policies did increase revenues receive by the fed
dramatically, the problem was and still is the rapid growth in
spending. Historically for every dollar of increased revenue receive by
the fed, congress spent $1.35. And I would bet twenty bucks that if the
tax increases currently being pushed thru are passed we will see the
same thing.
Finally if you really believe that this budget will decrease the
deficit 500 billion then there is little hope for you.
A silver lining, Clinton MAY, depending on how bad he screws up, and he
will screw up, give the republican party a majority in the House for the first
time in many many moons.
Regards,
Bret Elliott
My opinions are not necessarily shared by my employer.
Jeffrey N. Woodford
> > The republican party is responsible for the mess we're in. If
> > you voted for Ronnie and George - then step right up and accept
> > some of the blame.
> >
> > So far as recent elections - I don't know about Jersey City
> > but LA will soon be in flames again and then we'll see just how
> > effective a republican major is. I don't think he has enough
> > money to hire all the police he's going to need.
> >
> > So far as Texas goes - what do ya expect? They're Texans! The
> > whole western portion of the state is suffering from water
> > depletion. And you know what happens when the brain doesn't
> > have enough water to work properly. Or, if you're still a
> > republican - maybe ya don't.
> >
> > Clinton/Gore 'til 2004 Dan
>
>
> You must be have been enhaling when you composed this message, Bill and
> Al's big adventure will end in 96 when they don't receive the democrat
> nomination.
Now now, let's be a little fair here. I'm quite positive that ol'
Billary and Algore will receive the Democratic nomination. That
doesn't mean that they will win the general election. :-)
> I do agree that the republicans do have some responsibility regarding the
> deficit, but the lions share goes to the democrat party, that refuses to
> cut spending. Our current budget situation is a great illustration of this,
> Mr. Clinton's budget has virtually no spending cuts in it, all the proposed cut
> come after 96 and any student of modern american politics knows that mean
> the cuts will never materialize.
YES!
> Reagan's policies did increase revenues receive by the fed
> dramatically, the problem was and still is the rapid growth in
> spending. Historically for every dollar of increased revenue receive by
> the fed, congress spent $1.35. And I would bet twenty bucks that if the
> tax increases currently being pushed thru are passed we will see the
> same thing.
YES! (Sorry, I can't help but agree. :-)
> Finally if you really believe that this budget will decrease the
> deficit 500 billion then there is little hope for you.
YES!
> A silver lining, Clinton MAY, depending on how bad he screws up, and he
> will screw up, give the republican party a majority in the House for the first
> time in many many moons.
Well I don't know about the House, that's a bit of a long shot (for
1994 at least). But I'm hoping for a Republican majority in the
Senate in 1994. After all, if Kay Bailey Hutchinson can get in, so
can lots of other conservatives!
> Regards,
>
> Bret Elliott
-Jeff
NEVER take Ames105A
>It is a sad day when Dan and Bryan represent the political views of
>either of this country's political party. Please, keep this type of
>discussion to direct email. (I respond via the net in the hope that
>such conduct is limited.)
>
>The interesting point that both of you are trying to make is who has
>been running the country and which party is the party of change. The
>problem is that both parties have been communicating in the same manner
>that you two gentleman have communicated to each other and forced the
>rest of us to read in these posts.
>
>will...@bigsow.enet.dec.com (Bryan H. Williams) writes:
>
[...] much discussion deleted!
Don't listen to this guy! I for one thoroughly enjoyed this
informative and amusing flame-war at every twist and turn.
Besides, that's what this whole setup is for. Flame on! Flame on!
;-)
-Rich