Problems for Democrats in 2002
Foxtrot
September 27, 2001
THE CAMPAIGN
Democrats Face Difficulty Finding 2002 Candidates
By RICHARD L. BERKE
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 Top Democratic officials say the
terrorist attacks have severely hampered their recruitment
efforts, particularly for candidates for the Senate, and have
upended their entire political game plan for the midterm
elections next year.
Democrats are particularly unsettled because before the
attacks, polls showed the country was more in tune with their
issue agenda of Social Security, health care and education.
Now, the party's talking points are obsolete because the
single-minded focus is on war, protecting Americans and the
economy.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The Democrats' agenda of more handouts and bigger
government is doomed--at least for now.
Dr Love
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/27/national/27CAMP.html
>
> September 27, 2001
>
> THE CAMPAIGN
>
> Democrats Face Difficulty Finding 2002 Candidates
>
> By RICHARD L. BERKE
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 Top Democratic officials say the
> terrorist attacks have severely hampered their recruitment
> efforts, particularly for candidates for the Senate, and have
> upended their entire political game plan for the midterm
> elections next year.
>
> Democrats are particularly unsettled because before the
> attacks, polls showed the country was more in tune with their
> issue agenda of Social Security, health care and education.
> Now, the party's talking points are obsolete because the
> single-minded focus is on war, protecting Americans and the
> economy.
>
>
Yes, and the GOP's single minded focus prior to Sept 11th was Conduit/Levy,
before Conduit /Levy the single minded focus was on tax cuts for the rich,
before that it was "Your vote doesn't count because This is Not a Democracy,"
before that it was let's impeach Clinton for lying about having sex with
Lewinsky.
It seems that the Republicans can't help being single minded since their minds
are so extremely narrow.
Senor Chico
David Nathan Cole <dnc...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<3bb5d68e...@24.7.143.118>...
> On The Date Of Thu, 27 Sep 2001 05:51:52 GMT, Foxtrot <Fox...@null.com>
Wrote The
> Followng:
>
> ->Democrats Face Difficulty Finding 2002 Candidates
>
>
> Thats because they're all a bunch of GD LIBERALS NOW!
>
> LIBERALS SUCK!
>
Give it a rest, Craig...
Rich Travsky
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/27/national/27CAMP.html
>
> September 27, 2001
>
> THE CAMPAIGN
>
> Democrats Face Difficulty Finding 2002 Candidates
>
> By RICHARD L. BERKE
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 Top Democratic officials say the
> terrorist attacks have severely hampered their recruitment
> efforts, particularly for candidates for the Senate, and have
> upended their entire political game plan for the midterm
> elections next year.
>
> Democrats are particularly unsettled because before the
> attacks, polls showed the country was more in tune with their
> issue agenda of Social Security, health care and education.
> Now, the party's talking points are obsolete because the
> single-minded focus is on war, protecting Americans and the
> economy.
So, in other words, this is wag the dog? Duhbya needs a "war"
to help him out? What if the "war" goes badly or has so little
news out of it that it's inconsequential? Is Duhbya gonna keep
the country riled up for whole year?
> The Democrats' agenda of more handouts and bigger
> government is doomed--at least for now.
Handouts? Like Duhbya's bailout for the airlines? How much is THAT
going to end up costing? Bigger government? Duhbya just added to it!
Homeland Defense!
You'd best get out of that Newbury Park sun.
RT
CB
"Dr Love" <nos...@my.net> wrote in message news:3BB2D50C...@my.net...
Condit like clinton put his personal lies, deceits, oath shredding above his
duty for country. He jeopardized the timely investigation of a murder,
obstructed justice by being evasive and hostile in a homicide investigation.
The "rich" are the people who pay your wages. Offer them a chance to keep
more of the money THEY made and the trickle down will be investment in
labor, production and capital flow into the economy.
Any honest person would say only legal votes count in an election,
attempting to use marketing firms to propagate lies about votes not counting
false short of facts produced in the court of law. Democracy works because
the Florida courts thumped al gore who in his attempt to establish higher
regard for selected counties proving to be democRAT in their majority, thus
proving bigotry and prejudice to the rest of the counties of Florida. The US
Supreme Court recognized the attempt of al gore to place higher value on
recounting selected counties can voted accordingly. Al gore is a bigot of
the majority of legal votes.
The Constitution demands accountability of legal transgression. Lying under
oath by the highest law enforcement of America is grounds for impeachment.
It's a no brainer for law abiding people to understand. Attempting to inject
a "wag the dog" and say it's about sex is nothing but an insult to
intellectual honesty. Akin to spreading your legs and asking, "what stinks"?
Clintonian ethics.
2002 will be a litmus test for America's future in Karma.
--
CB
"He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon
will be, void of all regard for his country."
--Samuel Adams
blue...@webtv.net
theRadicál
care to explain that Christian Bigot? measuring accountability has
nothing to do with your narrow mindedness. however, thanks for
admitting you are narrow minded.
[snip]
------
"One way we folks in corporate America can
really fix the left-wingers, is to make
their lives miserable in the private sector.
"If you know any left-wingers looking for work,
don't hire them to work in your company.
"If folks with left-wing tendencies are
already working in your company, you can
harass them by giving them extra assignments,
denying them raises and promotions, and
even refusing to eat with them during lunch
in the company cafeteria. Harassment for
sexual or racial reasons is prohibited by
law. But there's nothing that says you
can't harass a liberal for being a liberal."
- Steven D. Litvintchouk
sdli...@earthlink.net
------
"FUCK the 'poor'"
- Panhead
EyePatch Goatee
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BB334C7...@MOVEhotmail.com...
> > Democrats are particularly unsettled because before the
> > attacks, polls showed the country was more in tune with their
> > issue agenda of Social Security, health care and education.
> > Now, the party's talking points are obsolete because the
> > single-minded focus is on war, protecting Americans and the
> > economy.
>
> So, in other words,
Way "other word". Not even on the same planet "other words"
There should be a new term invented for this sort of hilarously
convoluted extrapolation. Asstrapolation.
this is wag the dog? Duhbya needs a "war"
> to help him out? What if the "war" goes badly or has so little
> news out of it that it's inconsequential? Is Duhbya gonna keep
> the country riled up for whole year?
Burning questions based on foolhardy asstrapolation. Pffft.
> > The Democrats' agenda of more handouts and bigger
> > government is doomed--at least for now.
>
> Handouts? Like Duhbya's bailout for the airlines?
"Duhbya" is a Democrap?
Or more asstrapolation?
How much is THAT
> going to end up costing? Bigger government? Duhbya just added to it!
> Homeland Defense!
>
What a Travesty, Rich.
Ulysses
the failed policies and failed proposals of the Bush administration
out of the fire. And it only took 6,000 casualties and a "war" to do
it! I can't think of anything else, offhand, that could have done the
trick.
Basically, this gives him an opportunity to say: Everything I said and
did was in error, but now we have to change everything anyway.
The problem is that Mr. Bush Junior is going to be stuck with this
war, and the economy, long after 2002, probably. Osama Bin Laden may
have been the Bush administration's short term savior, but the fever
will eventually pass.
And then, we have the, uh, character flaws that have become so
evident.
Arne Langsetmo
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/27/national/27CAMP.html
>
> September 27, 2001
>
> THE CAMPAIGN
>
> Democrats Face Difficulty Finding 2002 Candidates
>
> By RICHARD L. BERKE
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 Top Democratic officials say the
> terrorist attacks have severely hampered their recruitment
> efforts, particularly for candidates for the Senate, and have
> upended their entire political game plan for the midterm
> elections next year.
>
> Democrats are particularly unsettled because before the
> attacks, polls showed the country was more in tune with their
> issue agenda of Social Security, health care and education.
> Now, the party's talking points are obsolete because the
> single-minded focus is on war, protecting Americans and the
> economy.
Yeah, the economy is getting on real well under Dubya's
leadership. Maybe the ranks of the newly unemployed that
the House Republican leadership just told to go to hell will
find jobs in today's new "Be All That You Can Be" Army.
And how long do you think they can keep this "war" hysteria
going?
As for "protecting Americans", I'd think that it wouldn't
hurt to point out that Dubya and Cheney said "no thanks"
to the bipartisan terrorism task force that told them to
expect just such an occurrence, and recommended in _February_
some of the changes that we're seeing right now, a day late
and a dollar short. Cleaning up their own mess, I'd say. . . .
Now let's see how they propose to do this. Those 7000
will never be brought back to life. And that's a fact.
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
news:<9ovebq$qe2$1...@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com>...
"Duty for country"? Huh?
> . . . He jeopardized the timely investigation of a murder, . . .
Huh? How so? Perhaps we should charge Dick Cheney with
OOJ, as he wasn't exactly forthcoming about the fact that
he was meeting with Condit on the day Levy disappeared.
That might have led the police down the wrong track at a
critical time in the investigation, no?
> . . . obstructed justice by being evasive and hostile in a
> homicide investigation.
You obviously don't know what OOJ is. But FWIW, _what_
"homicide investigation"?
> The "rich" are the people who pay your wages. . . .
Oh, really. Guess we should just be grateful to them for
being so nice, eh? Glad to know that you've got a "charity"
job like some hand-me-down coat, just to get you to STFU.
I get paid what I'm worth, OTOH. I'll work for anyone, large
or small, that is willing to give me what I deserve (and that
deserves to have me work for them), and _I_ get to set the
terms.
> . . . Offer them a
> chance to keep more of the money THEY made and the trickle
> down will be investment in labor, production and capital flow
> into the economy.
Which is why companies that are losing money and laying
off people left and right are handing out millions of
dollars to the people they think are leading them in the
"right direction"?
Trickle-down turned out to be "piss on me, thank you,
massah". The rich got richer but the workers got very,
very little. And we _all_ got saddled with a $4 trillion
debt.
> Any honest person would say only legal votes count in an
> election,
And even the treasonous five on the U.S. Supreme Court
admitted that under Florida law, there were legal votes
uncounted in the undervotes (and also overvotes, FWIW).
> attempting to use marketing firms to propagate lies about votes
> not counting false short of facts produced in the court of law. . . .
Huh? Read what I said above. And refute it, if you can.
Cites to cases that support your position would be appreciated.
> . . . Democracy works because
> the Florida courts thumped al gore who in his attempt to establish
> higher regard for selected counties proving to be democRAT in their
> majority, thus proving bigotry and prejudice to the rest of the
> counties of Florida. . . .
Huh? Lay off the bottle. The Florida courts stated that _all_
counties should be manually recounted (instead of just the
ones that had, on their own volition, done "stealth" recounts
resulting in a net of 180 votes for Dubya).
But it was Dubya's lawyers that argued _successfully_ for
the very same votes to be discarded in Democratic-leaning
counties (including _military_ ballots) as they were
simultaneously arguing _should_ be counted in Republican
leaning counties.
> . . . The US
> Supreme Court recognized the attempt of al gore to place higher
> value on recounting selected counties can voted accordingly. . . .
Absolute nonsense. The recounts they stayed and then halted
permanently were statewide recounts.
> . . . Al gore is a bigot of
> the majority of legal votes.
Huh?
> The Constitution demands accountability of legal transgression.
Then I guess the five Supes should be impeached for their naked
power grab.
> Lying under oath by the highest law enforcement of America is
> grounds for impeachment.
Nonsense. But if you limit it to substantive matters, you
could go demand that Ashcroft and Olson be fired forthwith,
and charged with felony false statements under oath to
Congress.
> It's a no brainer for law abiding people to understand. Attempting
> to inject a "wag the dog" and say it's about sex is nothing but an
> insult to intellectual honesty. . . .
_You're_ an "insult to intellectual honesty". In fact, an
insult to "intellect" itself.
> . . . Akin to spreading your legs and asking, "what stinks"?
> Clintonian ethics.
Guess you'd know about "spreading your legs". . . .
> 2002 will be a litmus test for America's future in Karma.
I think you should then move to Karma. Good place for you.
Dimwit Dubya might mistake it for Burma and bomb your fool
head off. . . .
-- Arne Langsetmo
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3BB334C7...@MOVEhotmail.com...
> > > Democrats are particularly unsettled because before the
> > > attacks, polls showed the country was more in tune with their
> > > issue agenda of Social Security, health care and education.
> > > Now, the party's talking points are obsolete because the
> > > single-minded focus is on war, protecting Americans and the
> > > economy.
> >
> > So, in other words,
>
> Way "other word". Not even on the same planet "other words"
Nope, right at home on this planet. If the "war" is currently
pushing other issues out, issues where the Dems lead in support,
then this DOES help Duhbya.
> There should be a new term invented for this sort of hilarously
> convoluted extrapolation. Asstrapolation.
A good word to describe what you do.
> this is wag the dog? Duhbya needs a "war"
> > to help him out? What if the "war" goes badly or has so little
> > news out of it that it's inconsequential? Is Duhbya gonna keep
> > the country riled up for whole year?
>
> Burning questions based on foolhardy asstrapolation. Pffft.
That pfft sound is your logic evaporating. Dem issues will regain
the forefront if Duhbya blows it or there's no results to show.
> > > The Democrats' agenda of more handouts and bigger
> > > government is doomed--at least for now.
> >
> > Handouts? Like Duhbya's bailout for the airlines?
>
> "Duhbya" is a Democrap?
> Or more asstrapolation?
A fact you're dodging. Duhbya IS proposing an airline bailout plan.
> How much is THAT
> > going to end up costing? Bigger government? Duhbya just added to it!
> > Homeland Defense!
> >
>
> What a Travesty, Rich.
Yes, you are. But we're used to it. Especially since you dodge the fact the
it's Duhbya who just expanded government.
RT
oldlib
of Dems are narrow-minded and terribly PC.
oldlib
Ulysses <sal...@scn.org> wrote in message
news:b1403989.01092...@posting.google.com...
But remember, if you're a Democrat; character doesn't count.
John Wetrim
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> EyePatch Goatee wrote:
> > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3BB334C7...@MOVEhotmail.com...
> > > > Democrats are particularly unsettled because before the
> > > > attacks, polls showed the country was more in tune with their
> > > > issue agenda of Social Security, health care and education.
> > > > Now, the party's talking points are obsolete because the
> > > > single-minded focus is on war, protecting Americans and the
> > > > economy.
> > >
> > > So, in other words,
> >
> > Way "other word". Not even on the same planet "other words"
>
> Nope, right at home on this planet. If the "war" is currently
> pushing other issues out, issues where the Dems lead in support,
> then this DOES help Duhbya.
> > There should be a new term invented for this sort of hilarously
> > convoluted extrapolation. Asstrapolation.
>
> A good word to describe what you do.
The PeeWee Herman. " I know you are but what am I"
>
> > this is wag the dog? Duhbya needs a "war"
> > > to help him out? What if the "war" goes badly or has so little
> > > news out of it that it's inconsequential? Is Duhbya gonna keep
> > > the country riled up for whole year?
> >
> > Burning questions based on foolhardy asstrapolation. Pffft.
>
> That pfft sound is your logic evaporating. Dem issues will regain
> the forefront if Duhbya blows it or there's no results to show.
>
> > > > The Democrats' agenda of more handouts and bigger
> > > > government is doomed--at least for now.
> > >
> > > Handouts? Like Duhbya's bailout for the airlines?
> >
> > "Duhbya" is a Democrap?
> > Or more asstrapolation?
>
> A fact you're dodging. Duhbya IS proposing an airline bailout plan.
I think he's alluding to your dodge. The reference
to Dem handouts. In fact it appears any reference to
anythin at all launches the aptly described "asstrapolation"
where very RT response is a "oh you mean the..." dodge
Yep. He nailed you.
RT> "Oh you mean the nails that..."
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3BB3B00D...@MOVEhotmail.com...
> > EyePatch Goatee wrote:
> > > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3BB334C7...@MOVEhotmail.com...
> > > > > Democrats are particularly unsettled because before the
> > > > > attacks, polls showed the country was more in tune with their
> > > > > issue agenda of Social Security, health care and education.
> > > > > Now, the party's talking points are obsolete because the
> > > > > single-minded focus is on war, protecting Americans and the
> > > > > economy.
> > > >
> > > > So, in other words,
> > >
> > > Way "other word". Not even on the same planet "other words"
> >
> > Nope, right at home on this planet. If the "war" is currently
> > pushing other issues out, issues where the Dems lead in support,
> > then this DOES help Duhbya.
>
> > > There should be a new term invented for this sort of hilarously
> > > convoluted extrapolation. Asstrapolation.
> >
> > A good word to describe what you do.
>
> The PeeWee Herman. " I know you are but what am I"
Considering how off the wall eyepatch is, it fits his style.
> > > this is wag the dog? Duhbya needs a "war"
> > > > to help him out? What if the "war" goes badly or has so little
> > > > news out of it that it's inconsequential? Is Duhbya gonna keep
> > > > the country riled up for whole year?
> > >
> > > Burning questions based on foolhardy asstrapolation. Pffft.
> >
> > That pfft sound is your logic evaporating. Dem issues will regain
> > the forefront if Duhbya blows it or there's no results to show.
> >
> > > > > The Democrats' agenda of more handouts and bigger
> > > > > government is doomed--at least for now.
> > > >
> > > > Handouts? Like Duhbya's bailout for the airlines?
> > >
> > > "Duhbya" is a Democrap?
> > > Or more asstrapolation?
> >
> > A fact you're dodging. Duhbya IS proposing an airline bailout plan.
>
> I think he's alluding to your dodge. The reference
> to Dem handouts. In fact it appears any reference to
> anythin at all launches the aptly described "asstrapolation"
> where very RT response is a "oh you mean the..." dodge
>
> Yep. He nailed you.
Funny, it's Duhbya proposing the bailout.
What was that about nailing?
idleeric
Rich Travsky wrote in message <3BB3B00D...@MOVEhotmail.com>...
>EyePatch Goatee wrote:
>>
>> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3BB334C7...@MOVEhotmail.com...
>> > > Democrats are particularly unsettled because before the
>> > > attacks, polls showed the country was more in tune with their
>> > > issue agenda of Social Security, health care and education.
>> > > Now, the party's talking points are obsolete because the
>> > > single-minded focus is on war, protecting Americans and the
>> > > economy.
>> >
>> > So, in other words,
>>
>> Way "other word". Not even on the same planet "other words"
>
>Nope, right at home on this planet. If the "war" is currently
>pushing other issues out, issues where the Dems lead in support,
>then this DOES help Duhbya.
>
>> There should be a new term invented for this sort of hilarously
>> convoluted extrapolation. Asstrapolation.
>
>A good word to describe what you do.
>
>> this is wag the dog? Duhbya needs a "war"
>> > to help him out? What if the "war" goes badly or has so little
>> > news out of it that it's inconsequential? Is Duhbya gonna keep
>> > the country riled up for whole year?
>>
>> Burning questions based on foolhardy asstrapolation. Pffft.
>
>That pfft sound is your logic evaporating. Dem issues will regain
>the forefront if Duhbya blows it or there's no results to show.
A year is an ETERNITY ... any one remember what we were thinking about 3
months ago?
blue...@webtv.net
blue...@webtv.net
Rich Travsky
Condit, Condit... Oh yeah ain't he on that defense committee?
RT
David Hartung
Like all of us, Bush is not perfect, but whaen it comes to character, He is
a far better individual to have as president than either his predecessor or
his opponent.
Robert W Lawrence
<>A year is an ETERNITY ... any one remember what we were thinking about 3
<>months ago?
The problem for the democrats is that they need to line up credible opponents to
incumbent opponents NOW and their choices are backing out en masse.
Robert W Lawrence
lawr...@rwlcpa.com
Psalm 24
Ulysses
Couldn't disagree with you more, although I have to say I didn't vote
for Mr. Gore at the time. Basically, it seems to me as if everything
the Bush administration has done or was trying to do were erroneous
and counterproductive. This includes the tax cut, first because we
could afford it, later because we couldn't afford it. Then the
military buildup, first because we could afford it, now because it's
the only form of economic stimulous they seem to understand. Then the
unilateral withdrawal from the middle east, now abandoned in favor of
coalition building, and the "war" itself with George Junior flouncing
about the country screaming about a war which is never going to take
place, and would be counterproductive if it did. He turned on that
one yesterday, apparently cooler heads (Powell) prevailed.
Then of course the policy on prescription drugs for the elderly, the
social security raid, the attempt to destroy the social security
system and public education....all erroneous and misguided. All
fortunately abandoned.
The best that can be said for the Bush Junior administration is that
Osama Bin Laden seems to have defeated the worst of their legislative
agenda.
louisa
lawr...@rwlcpa.com wrote:
here is something I can agree with you on -- both parties seem bereft of
leaders -- we have the greedhead party and its corporate puppets [and a
few of those in the other party as well] and yet the Democrats can't seem
to field very impressive candidates either. Pathetic all around -- and
this belief that it apparently didn't matter who was president has left us
in the current scarey situation.
Dave Simpson
>> Like all of us, Bush is not perfect, but whaen it comes to character, He is
>> a far better individual to have as president than either his predecessor or
>> his opponent.
>
>Couldn't disagree with you more, although I have to say I didn't vote
He's far better, incontrovertibly. Clinton-Gore was the most corrupt
administration ever, and there is absolutely no legitimate question
whatsoever as to comparison of character between Bush and Clinton.
Clinton makes Nixon look superior to the intelligent and honest, who
will say so. (To knowingly say the opposite is to lie.)
As a bonus, we're experiencing something among better liberals
similar to the change of heart concerning Israel's bombing of the
Osirak reactor in Iraq. At the time of the bombing, Oh, how scandalous,
outrageous, aggressive war-mongering it was! After Hussein had
Iraq invade Kuwait, "Whew! We were lucky. Thank God!"
When it comes to having to face the current situation in the new
administration we have effectively a "dream team" in there (good
thing adults instead of children, crooks, and traitors are back in
charge of things!).
Dave Simpson
tHewHiz
wrote:
Hey Dave you really out to quite smoking those left handed cigarettes.
J
David Hartung
> The best that can be said for the Bush Junior administration is that
> Osama Bin Laden seems to have defeated the worst of their legislative
> agenda.
Interesting that you should say this, the reports I have ben hearing,
indicate that the Bush agenda is moving forward.
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
"There will be peace in our time"
"We can see the light at the end of the tunnel"
"Vietnamization is proceeding in a satisfactory manner".
The first casualty of war is the truth.
>
blue...@webtv.net
blue...@webtv.net
Oracle
<F7Ys7.24626$2H2.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>:
>Like all of us, Bush is not perfect, but whaen it comes to character, He
>is a far better individual to have as president than either his
>predecessor or his opponent.
>
Utter nonsense.
Bush is a drug-abuser, drunk, draft-dodger and deserter...and that's just
one letter of the alphabet. He is without question, the sleaziest person
ever to have occupied the White House.
--
Bush of all people should quit talking about ending social promotion. The
man is the most prominent example of social promotion in the entire
country. I can see the bumper sticker now: "End social promotion -- defeat
Bush."
- Molly Ivins in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, September 6, 2000
Ulysses
> dhar...@bellsouth.net (David Hartung) wrote in
> <F7Ys7.24626$2H2.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>:
>
> >Like all of us, Bush is not perfect, but whaen it comes to character, He
> >is a far better individual to have as president than either his
> >predecessor or his opponent.
> >
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
> Bush is a drug-abuser, drunk, draft-dodger and deserter...and that's just
> one letter of the alphabet. He is without question, the sleaziest person
> ever to have occupied the White House.
Also the scariest. Watching him flounce around the country declaring,
in the four syllable bursts that fit on one line of the teleprompter,
for WAR WAR WAR, totally unaware that cooler heads had already
prevailed. Aren't they telling George what the policy is? I mean,
I'm glad the guy has no input into decision making, but it's kinda
embarrassing to see so clearly who the president takes orders from.
An unbelievably weak performance, from the initial saber rattling to
the recent reverses in fact, pronouncement, and, uh, "policy".
Got to be one of the dumbest presidents. Good thing most folks didn't
vote for him.
Ulysses
> >> Like all of us, Bush is not perfect, but whaen it comes to character, He is
> >> a far better individual to have as president than either his predecessor or
> >> his opponent.
> >
> >Couldn't disagree with you more, although I have to say I didn't vote
> >for Mr. Gore at the time. [...]
>
> He's far better, incontrovertibly. Clinton-Gore was the most corrupt
> administration ever, and there is absolutely no legitimate question
> whatsoever as to comparison of character between Bush and Clinton.
> Clinton makes Nixon look superior to the intelligent and honest, who
> will say so. (To knowingly say the opposite is to lie.)
Well, I kinda agree with part of this. "...There is absolutely no
legitimate question whatsoever as to comparison of character between
Bush and Clinton." That's certainly true. Clinton was obviously more
"moral" and will certainly prove to be more "ethical/professional"
than this wholely owned subsidiary of the US Chamber of Commerce,
George, the Chimp, Bush.
Personally, here is a guy whose father's job (in the CIA) covered up
his being AWOL from avoiding the Vietnam War, which he stupidly
supported. Who then spent the rest of his life snorting cocaine and
running three businesses into the ground, getting richer with every
failure (and his father always had an, uh, interesting job during the
period).
He ran for office on false pretenses, and has since abandoned every
single one of them. For which I'm as grateful as not, btw. He
reminds me A LOT of Dan Quayle, actually. He speaks exclusively in
three, four syllable bursts as the line comes up on the teleprompter.
Judging from his performance the past week or so, it seems Cheney and
Powell aren't even telling him what policy is.
Prophet
And don't forget, Bush is the first convicted criminal to ever be
president...appointed or otherwise.
Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
>Dave Simpson <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<zY3t7.8642$ev2....@www.newsranger.com>...
>> >> Like all of us, Bush is not perfect, but whaen it comes to character, He is
>> >> a far better individual to have as president than either his predecessor or
>> >> his opponent.
>> >
>> >Couldn't disagree with you more, although I have to say I didn't vote
>> >for Mr. Gore at the time. [...]
>>
>> He's far better, incontrovertibly. Clinton-Gore was the most corrupt
>> administration ever, and there is absolutely no legitimate question
>> whatsoever as to comparison of character between Bush and Clinton.
>> Clinton makes Nixon look superior to the intelligent and honest, who
>> will say so. (To knowingly say the opposite is to lie.)
Dave, of course, has to come to grips with the fact that the Clinton
administration had less forced resignations than any other
administration -- two OR one term -- in the 20th century. He has to
deal with the fact that the Special Prosecutor's office eventually had
nothing more than fibbing about blow jobs. And Dave has to come to
grips with the fact that Clinton was the most popular President this
past century.
He can scream "liar" all he wants, but the facts only make him look
like a fool.
Chris Nelson
> Dave Simpson <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:<zY3t7.8642$ev2....@www.newsranger.com>...
> > He's far better, incontrovertibly. Clinton-Gore was the most corrupt
> > administration ever, and there is absolutely no legitimate question
> > whatsoever as to comparison of character between Bush and Clinton.
Sure, that's what you Reich-wingers keep bleating over and over again.
Got any evidence to back that claim up?
--
Chris
AUDIO VIDEO DISCO - "I hear, I see, I learn"
Oracle
<b1403989.0109...@posting.google.com>:
>Also the scariest. Watching him flounce around the country declaring,
>in the four syllable bursts that fit on one line of the teleprompter,
>for WAR WAR WAR, totally unaware that cooler heads had already
>prevailed. Aren't they telling George what the policy is? I mean,
>I'm glad the guy has no input into decision making, but it's kinda
>embarrassing to see so clearly who the president takes orders from.
>An unbelievably weak performance, from the initial saber rattling to
>the recent reverses in fact, pronouncement, and, uh, "policy".
>
>Got to be one of the dumbest presidents. Good thing most folks didn't
>vote for him.
Let's be thankful he's not really president. Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al are
despicable but they're not stupid. As long as they keep giving Bush the
orders, we may survive.
Dave Simpson
>> He's far better, incontrovertibly. Clinton-Gore was the most corrupt
>> administration ever, and there is absolutely no legitimate question
>> whatsoever as to comparison of character between Bush and Clinton.
>> Clinton makes Nixon look superior to the intelligent and honest, who
>> will say so. (To knowingly say the opposite is to lie.)
>
>Well, I kinda agree with part of this. "...There is absolutely no
>legitimate question whatsoever as to comparison of character between
>Bush and Clinton." That's certainly true. Clinton was obviously more
>"moral" and will certainly prove to be more "ethical/professional"
>than this wholely owned subsidiary of the US Chamber of Commerce,
>George, the Chimp, Bush.
"Obviously" to the completely mindless, but I and others who have a
working mind know better. Sorry, I'm not part of the "ignorance vote"
bloc that supported Gore (and Clinton, twice). You have to do a better
job at uttering the opposite of the truth before we can be so easily fooled.
If you can't face or worse, won't face the truth, you're lost.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
Zepp the doofus wrote:
>Dave, of course, has to come to grips with the fact that the Clinton
>administration had less forced resignations than any other
>administration -- two OR one term -- in the 20th century. He has to
>deal with the fact that the Special Prosecutor's office eventually had
>nothing more than fibbing about blow jobs. And Dave has to come to
>grips with the fact that Clinton was the most popular President this
>past century.
I'm not ashamed of myself for having higher standards than the lower
fraction of society, who still cherishes Bill Clinton to this very day. I'm
also not surprised you'd overlook the hundred-plus witnesses who have
"fled or pled." When it comes to knowledge and honesty, you often are
"challenged."
>He can scream "liar" all he wants, but the facts only make him look
>like a fool.
Only to the stupid. Are you that stupid, too, Zepp, or just lying?
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
Chris Nelson wrote:
>Sure, that's what you Reich-wingers keep bleating over and over again.
Ahhh, the pathetic insults and lies.
>Got any evidence to back that claim up?
Do I have (using non-stupid-Clintonite, i.e., real, English) any evidence?
Go ask all those witnesses who fled the country or took the Fifth, or ask those
who kept stonewalling, or somehow never were able to find the documents they
were asked to provide. You're incredibly stupid if you suspect nothing or
believe
nothing wrong happened.
Best of all, go ask the Chinese.
>AUDIO VIDEO DISCO - "I hear, I see, I learn"
Try doing what you're saying.
Dave Simpson
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
wrote:
>
>Zepp the doofus wrote:
>
>>Dave, of course, has to come to grips with the fact that the Clinton
>>administration had less forced resignations than any other
>>administration -- two OR one term -- in the 20th century. He has to
>>deal with the fact that the Special Prosecutor's office eventually had
>>nothing more than fibbing about blow jobs. And Dave has to come to
>>grips with the fact that Clinton was the most popular President this
>>past century.
>
>I'm not ashamed of myself for having higher standards than the lower
>fraction of society, who still cherishes Bill Clinton to this very day. I'm
>also not surprised you'd overlook the hundred-plus witnesses who have
>"fled or pled." When it comes to knowledge and honesty, you often are
>"challenged."
Well, tell us how you feel about perjury these days, Dave? How about
lying to the public? How about refusal to cooperate with legal
investigations.
Are those all just as bad now as they were a year ago, Dave?
>
>>He can scream "liar" all he wants, but the facts only make him look
>>like a fool.
>
>Only to the stupid. Are you that stupid, too, Zepp, or just lying?
Wasting time on you probably doesn't suggest that I'm intelligent, but
it is fun to kick you around a bit. I'm betting you respond to this
part and delete what I wrote above. It's your style.
>
>
>Dave Simpson
>
Chris Nelson
>
> Chris Nelson wrote:
> >Got any evidence to back that claim up?
>
> Do I have (using non-stupid-Clintonite, i.e., real, English) any evidence?
"Got...?" is a common colloquial short form for the perfectly grammatical
"Have you got...?". Like the commercial "Got milk?" That's your English
lesson for the day.
> Go ask all those witnesses who fled the country or took the Fifth, or ask
those
> who kept stonewalling, or somehow never were able to find the documents
they
> were asked to provide. You're incredibly stupid if you suspect nothing or
> believe
> nothing wrong happened.
In other words, you have no evidence.
> Best of all, go ask the Chinese.
OK.
"Wei, zhongguoren a! You meiyou guanyu Kelindun renqi tanwu de zhengju?
Meiyou a? Hao, xiexie nimen."
No, they have no evidence.
--
Chris
CivikMan
>>"moral" and will certainly prove to be more "ethical/professional"
>>than this wholely owned subsidiary of the US Chamber of Commerce,
>>George, the Chimp, Bush.
I'm not sure how you figure that. Since when did getting a blow job by an
intern become the priority of domestic affairs? And when I said "affairs"... :)
CivikMan
>fraction of society, who still cherishes Bill Clinton to this very day
I voted for Clinton in both elections. I consider myself more poltically
aligned with Republicans than Democrats now. No, I don't speak as ill of
Clinton as some, but I don't make him out to be something he wasn't either. And
as for Gore...he is no Bill Clinton by any stretch, however much that's even
saying for Clinton.
blue...@webtv.net
Dave Simpson
Zepp the Fool wrote:
>Well, tell us how you feel about perjury these days, Dave? How about
>lying to the public? How about refusal to cooperate with legal
>investigations[?]
I'm more concerned about the harm done to this country during the
previous eight years, the real issue you cannot face, because you're
also part of the problem.
>Wasting time on you probably doesn't suggest that I'm intelligent, but
>it is fun to kick you around a bit.
You definitely are stupid or delusional if you believe that's what you do.
> I'm betting you respond to this
> part and delete what I wrote above. It's your style.
"Ditto" (pun-that-bothers-the-scumbags intended)
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
>"Got...?" is a common colloquial short form for the perfectly grammatical
>"Have you got...?". Like the commercial "Got milk?" That's your English
>lesson for the day.
I prefer correct, intelligent English, instead of loser language.
>OK.
>
>"Wei, zhongguoren a! You meiyou guanyu Kelindun renqi tanwu de zhengju?
>Meiyou a? Hao, xiexie nimen."
>
>No, they have no evidence.
Zhongguo know you loser.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
Civik Man wrote:
>>I'm not ashamed of myself for having higher standards than the lower
>>fraction of society, who still cherishes Bill Clinton to this very day
>
>I voted for Clinton in both elections. I consider myself more poltically
>aligned with Republicans than Democrats now. No, I don't speak as ill of
>Clinton as some, but I don't make him out to be something he wasn't either.
Fair enough. Your mind is working.
What I find sad is the very real likelihood that were Clinton not barred from
seeking a third term, against Dubya Clinton likely would have easily been in
office for another four years.
> And as for Gore...he is no Bill Clinton by any stretch, however much that's
> even saying for Clinton.
Gore's a different creature indeed. Note that while the Clinton-Gore legacy
was a huge, heavy stone that contributed to Gore's sinking, Gore had this thing
in his hands, his election to lose, and he then proceeded to lose it; not all
can
be blamed on Clinton for Gore's loss. (Gore didn't help his reputation by being
part of the coup attempt after he lost the election. The only thing he did well
as that concession speech in the end. I still say "Hillary" will beat him in
2004
if both of them seek the Democratic nomination.)
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
Civik Man wrote:
>I voted for Clinton in both elections. I consider myself more poltically
>aligned with Republicans than Democrats now.
Was this due to pull factors, push factors, both, or something "bigger"
in the form of maturity or other developments in your life?
Dave Simpson
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
wrote:
>
>>"Got...?" is a common colloquial short form for the perfectly grammatical
>>"Have you got...?". Like the commercial "Got milk?" That's your English
>>lesson for the day.
>
>I prefer correct, intelligent English, instead of loser language.
You mean like "Zhongguo know you loser."?
Dave Simpson
Zepp with the amazingly low IQ wrote:
>>I prefer correct, intelligent English, instead of loser language.
>
>You mean like "Zhongguo know you loser."?
Zhongguo know you and other loser Useful Idiot.
Dave Simpson