OT: Three cheers for Gore and Bush
Steve
accusations, smears, and charges being hurled back and forth, the confusion
in Florida and the nearly-tied election bringing out the worst in Americans
of all political persuasions, what a breath of fresh air the two candidates'
speeches were last night!
Although I wasn't a Gore supporter, I really appreciated his eloquent and
gracious concession speech. I agree with the pundits now speculating that
if voters had seen more of *that* Al Gore during the campaign, Bush would
likely have been the one conceding.
Bush's speech, following Gore's, was also gracious and appropriately
low-key. He didn't try to upstage Gore's big moment.
It really felt good to see the conclusion to this melodrama bringing out the
best in the candidates. If we can sustain and build on this spirit of
bipartisan cooperation, with the federal government now split almost 50-50
betweeen the two major parties, maybe some good stuff will actually get done
in Washington. Hope springs eternal ...
Karen Horn
:
: It really felt good to see the conclusion to this melodrama bringing out the
: best in the candidates. If we can sustain and build on this spirit of
: bipartisan cooperation, with the federal government now split almost 50-50
: betweeen the two major parties, maybe some good stuff will actually get done
: in Washington. Hope springs eternal ...
:
Well, they both "did what they had to." Doesn't mean Al didn't
go home and kick the cat, or George didn't do a sack dance off screen.
They both came out ahead on it by being fairly low key.
KAren
Michael A Benedetto
"Steve" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It really felt good to see the conclusion to this melodrama bringing out
> the best in the candidates. If we can sustain and build on this spirit of
> bipartisan cooperation, with the federal government now split almost
> 50-50 betweeen the two major parties, maybe some good stuff will actually
> get done in Washington. Hope springs eternal ...
If anyone manages to do anything in the next two years -- a dubious
proposition -- I assure you that it either will be not worth doing or
worth not doing.
"Bipartisanship" is one of those words that *never* means anything good.
Just like "grassroots", a code word for the efforts of idiots to force
their ideas onto people who know better but are afraid to resist. Both
words make for excellent rhetoric, but you'd have to be hopelessly naive
to actually expect them to translate into the implementation of sound
public policies.
-Mike
--
The Cast Recordings FAQ -- http://www.geocities.com/mibenedetto
Marinus
news:nzi_5.8793$h67.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.
..
> After five weeks of torturous partisan fighting, vicious
and irresponsible
> accusations, smears, and charges being hurled back and
forth, the confusion
> in Florida and the nearly-tied election bringing out the
worst in Americans
> of all political persuasions, what a breath of fresh air
the two candidates'
> speeches were last night!
I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible that the
one who got the least votes, got to be president...
Concerning this election the US has got nothing to be proud
of. Not even the predictable, diplomatic 'breath of fresh
air'. Some weeks ago I predicted that this story would be
turned into a Hollywood movie, now I'm not sure, the ending
sucks.
Marinus
PS Not based on any political color, just on the
election-procedure.
Zorro5280
>
>I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible that the
>one who got the least votes, got to be president...
>Concerning this election the US has got nothing to be proud
>of. Not even the predictable, diplomatic 'breath of fresh
>air'. Some weeks ago I predicted that this story would be
>turned into a Hollywood movie, now I'm not sure, the ending
>sucks.
>
It gets worse...the networks are reporting that Gore's speech got much higher
ratings than Bush's. I mean, he even has higher RATINGS, for god's sake.
wester...@my-deja.com
And, of course, that matters every bit as much as Gore getting
more popular votes.
--Matthew
P.S. Why I never hear anyone talking about undervotes in any state
other than Florida? The popular vote was a statistical dead heat, any
way you look at it.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
wester...@my-deja.com
"Marinus" <in...@marinus.nl> wrote:
> "Steve" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nzi_5.8793$h67.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.
>
> one who got the least votes, got to be president...
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
Can we PLEASE not start this again? That's the United States
system, that's the way it happens sometimes.
> Concerning this election the US has got nothing to be proud
> of.
On the contrary, I think we have a lot to be proud of.
Considering the way the process might have been conducted in other
countries, with tanks and guns and uprisings, we came out ahead, the
Constitution more or less intact.
--Matthew
Karen Horn
Maybe people assumed that Bush would automatically be gracious and
were wondering if Gore could do the same.
:-D
Karen
Karen Horn
:
: I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible that the
: one who got the least votes, got to be president...
: Concerning this election the US has got nothing to be proud
: of. Not even the predictable, diplomatic 'breath of fresh
: air'. Some weeks ago I predicted that this story would be
: turned into a Hollywood movie, now I'm not sure, the ending
: sucks.
:
: Marinus
:
: PS Not based on any political color, just on the
: election-procedure.
The founding fathers put in a republic for a very specific reason. They
knew that the country was going to be very diverse and they wanted to make
sure that all voices and parts of the country were listened to. I doubt
if it's something that's in your school curriculum there, but don't
forget that the US has a bicaramel legislature. i.e. two houses --- one
a house of Representatives the other a Senate. Each state-- REGARDLESS
of population (and there's some states that don't even have 2 million
people in the whole state---nuts, IIRC North Dakota doesn't even muster
1 million in that vast expanse which would cover a few European COUNTRIES
rather nicely) has exactly 2 senators---no more---no less---you could
argue that people in those states are more porportionally represented
than the folks in more populated states. The house of representatives is
divvied up according to population. Each state gets at least one
representative at a minimum---but from then on it's so many inhabitants per rep.
By design "the people's house" has a full turnover every two years every
rep. is up for re-election.....this would take care of any pressing
"immediate" concerns. The senate by design have their members serve 6
years before they come up for re-election. By nature and design the senators
have their concerns with the citizenry as a whole--and are more insulated
from "light and transient causes" --- it's designed to act as a built
in check against either an overbearing president OR a house that gets a
"mob rule" mentality in its head. One may as well argue Hillary Clinton
out of a job because if the electoral college is "unfair" then so is the
senate. And the senator's terms do not all come up at once, but staggered--
1/3rd is up for re-election every two years. It makes for long term stability.
And one could consider the rules of filibuster----I.e. it takes SIXTY
percent of the senate to shut a debate off not 50+1. This makes for a
minority being heard. IT's a pain in the ass sometimes--but it's done
for a careful philosophical consideration. The electoral votes per state
are divvied up as followed: one elector per house of representative
rep+2 (one for each senator) for each state---it does tilt it a bit
to the states with less population---but this is exactly what the founders
had in mind. When the constitution was being put together, it is said
that an old woman asked Benjamin Franklin and said: "well, Mr. Franklin--
what form of government have you given us" -- and he said: "A republic
madam --- if you can keep it." Don't forget the founding fathers were
men who had to carve out a country and they spent much time in thought
and debate about which forms of government were better than others---
fundamentally they put a restraint on 50%+1 when it came down to very
important issues.
I'd say we can take a lot of pride in our system. Thomas Jefferson was
considered a great man. It would do well to remember that he also,
ended up being appointed by the house of representatives in the end.
Yeah, I'm sure it sucks when your guy doesn't win because of a "Technicality"
but it's also time to remember the technicality is there for a reason
and not just because the founding fathers are sitting up there laughing
away. Both candidates enter the race knowing the rules---so it's
not like they should be "surprised" or go around muttering "But I
won the popular vote"
Karen
DgSWEET
>knew that the country was going to be very diverse and they wanted to make
>sure that all voices and parts of the country were listened to.
Except, of course, women and blacks.
>it does tilt it a bit to the states with less population---but this is exactly
what the founders had in mind.
And they were looking at a markedly different world, one in which the majority
of the population still lived in the country, one in which communications
sometimes meant that getting a message across the country took weeks ...
This is a mechanism that was created to address a world that no longer exists.
It's an anachronism, and it flies in the face of equal protection under the
law. One person, one vote should be the rule when we're voting for national
offices. And I expect to see some significant movement to reform.
Stephen/Rhonda
Several hundred thousand votes? More than Kennedy won by when, as many
have said, he stole the election from Nixon? (Still in that case, Nixon
could not have won electorally.)
The saddest thing is that, with all our technological capabilities,
we're still accepting a margin of error of this degree as "built into
the system".
Marinus
news:91dkgj$78f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <91coee$1loho$1...@reader4.wxs.nl>,
> "Marinus" <in...@marinus.nl> wrote:
> > "Steve" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
news:nzi_5.8793$h67.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.
> >
> > I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible that
the
> > one who got the least votes, got to be president...
>
> Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
> Can we PLEASE not start this again? That's the
United States
> system, that's the way it happens sometimes.
And me posting a remark that may have been posted before is
also the way it happens sometimes.
Now tell me, which of the two should be more frustrating?
:-)
Marinus
wester...@my-deja.com
Newpor...@webtv.net (Stephen/Rhonda) wrote:
> <The popular vote was a statistical dead heat, any way you look at
it.>
>
> Several hundred thousand votes? More than Kennedy won by when, as
many
> have said, he stole the election from Nixon? (Still in that case,
Nixon
> could not have won electorally.)
Yes, I consider it a statistical dead heat, and so do a lot of
other people. Look at it this way--how many votes were cast total,
approximately 100 million? And the number of votes that Gore had over
Bush was approximately 350,000, correct? If you do the math, that
means Gore has a 0.35% lead over Bush. And you don't consider that a
statistical dead heat?
--Matthew
Marinus
news:91dmfn$1p7g$1...@thoth.cts.com...
> Both candidates enter the race knowing the rules---so it's
> not like they should be "surprised" or go around muttering
"But I
> won the popular vote"
Knowing the rules doesn't make them fair.
Ofcourse there's a certain system behind all this (and yes,
I've learned about it at school. Did you learn about ours?)
but still... getting more votes and not win the elections...
it's weird.
Marinus
PS I might have missed it, but did anyone in Florida check
if Bush's and Gore's 'holes' were equally worn out?
Zorro5280
>PS I might have missed it, but did anyone in Florida check
>if Bush's and Gore's 'holes' were equally worn out?
>
Hey, hey, hey; that's WAY too personal, I think.
Z
"Some things are white; some things are black. Some girls wear makeup; mine
shaves her back". - Stephen Lynch
Karen Horn
: "Karen Horn" <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
: news:91dmfn$1p7g$1...@thoth.cts.com...
:
:> Both candidates enter the race knowing the rules---so it's
:> not like they should be "surprised" or go around muttering
: "But I
:> won the popular vote"
:
: Knowing the rules doesn't make them fair.
:
: Ofcourse there's a certain system behind all this (and yes,
: I've learned about it at school. Did you learn about ours?)
Heck no....but I can point to it and know that the average Dutchman
is a hell of a linguist. ;-D I even spent a week there one day!
: but still... getting more votes and not win the elections...
: it's weird.
:
: Marinus
:
: PS I might have missed it, but did anyone in Florida check
: if Bush's and Gore's 'holes' were equally worn out?
:-D LOL! --- okay, I'm tempted to ask---pieholes? Assholes? ;-D
Karen
Karen Horn
:>The founding fathers put in a republic for a very specific reason. They
:>knew that the country was going to be very diverse and they wanted to make
:>sure that all voices and parts of the country were listened to.
:
: Except, of course, women and blacks.
Non-sequitor! Are you implying, BTW that women and black are fundamentally
incapable of reading voting instructions or need to be carted personally
to the polls? How is it that blacks had a 50% higher turnout in Fla last
time around and you're whining that they were underrepresented?
:>it does tilt it a bit to the states with less population---but this is exactly
: what the founders had in mind.
:
: And they were looking at a markedly different world, one in which the majority
: of the population still lived in the country, one in which communications
: sometimes meant that getting a message across the country took weeks ...
"time" per se is fine---can you imagine the mess that would have occured
were there not 10 weeks to change admins? It isn't like a two man
club where it's "you be president M-W-F and I'll be president T-TH-Sat and
we can alternate sundays."
The "country" per se doesn't necessarily mean a thing on its own so that
doesn't follow either.
: This is a mechanism that was created to address a world that no longer exists.
We'd have to agree to disagree.
: It's an anachronism, and it flies in the face of equal protection under the
: law. One person, one vote should be the rule when we're voting for national
: offices. And I expect to see some significant movement to reform.
Okay, so you advocate ditching the electoral college and senate and doing
Hillary out of a job---you get to be the man to tell her "it's time for
you to go."
Don't be too surprised if she puts on that pretty-in-pink outfit she
drags out on occasion and sticks that spiked heel in your back. You won't
know what hit you. Cattle futures traders can be ruthless.
Karen
DgSWEET
>:
>
>Non-sequitor!
Not a non-sequitur. You're talking about the wisdom of the founding fathers,
and I'm pointing out that your contention that "all voices and parts of the
country were listened to" is palpably silly when, as they were crafting the
system, they were doing so leaving out a majority of the population. I said
nothing about the representation this time, just that to assume that something
is immutable because the founders created it is not to recognize that the
administration of an election might need changing given changing circumstances,
voter eligibility, communications, technical developments, etc.
>Okay, so you advocate ditching the electoral college and senate and doing
> Hillary out of a job---you get to be the man to tell her "it's time for
>you to go."
This makes no sense. How is agreeing with her position on the electoral
college gonna put her out of a job?
>Don't be too surprised if she puts on that pretty-in-pink outfit she
>drags out on occasion and sticks that spiked heel in your back.
More mindless bashing.
Jean Prouvaire
>
> DgSWEET <dgs...@aol.com> wrote:
> :>The founding fathers put in a republic for a very specific reason. They
> :>knew that the country was going to be very diverse and they wanted to make
> :>sure that all voices and parts of the country were listened to.
> :
> : Except, of course, women and blacks.
> :
>
> Non-sequitor! Are you implying, BTW that women and black are fundamentally
> incapable of reading voting instructions or need to be carted personally
> to the polls?
I think this may have been a reference to the section in the
constitution which runs:
<quote>
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons
</quote>
While this particular section was modified (eg "free" taken) out in
1866/8 it supports the position that the original principles underlying
the document can be, and are, subject to change.
(As someone else remarked, "The West Wing" just started here, so that's
the only reason I know about this constitutional clause!)
--
Remove "SPAMFREE" from e-mail address to reply.
______________________________________________________
http://www.thebarricades.com - Beyond the barricades
Les Miserables news, features, resources & recordings
http://www.thehungersite.com http://www.oscefa.org.au
______________________________________________________
Marinus
> : PS I might have missed it, but did anyone in Florida
check
> : if Bush's and Gore's 'holes' were equally worn out?
>
> :-D LOL! --- okay, I'm tempted to ask---pieholes?
Assholes? ;-D
>
> Karen
:-)
Karen, don't get all excited now!
Although I must have made you think about some wonderful
ways to give your vote to Bush, I'm sure you know what I
meant.
Marinus
PS And I'm 'linguistic' enough to know what I wrote :-)
Matthew Winn
> don't forget that the US has a bicaramel legislature.
Sorry, but I just had to step in and say that I love this typo.
Matthew
Stephen Farrow
"Bicaramel" - chewy, bad for your teeth, wrapped in silver paper, and
available for a dollar or so at any corner store?
Stephen
(who thinks that apartment hunting the week before Christmas SUCKS - and
yes I know that has nothing to do with anything, I just thought I'd say
it. So there.)
>
> Matthew
--
The Incredible Journey. Before a paper-clip reaches your stationery tray
it will have undergone over 800 separate manufacturing processes, none
of them interesting.
- Victoria Wood
Steve
of substance divides the Dems and Reps these days. Their differences are
mainly of degree -- how big a tax cut, how soon to pay down the deficit, how
to add prescription drugs to Medicare, how much to meddle in education u...
For all you hear in the press about our "deeply divided country", I think
it's less divided politically than at any other period in my lifetime.
There is no Vietnam War or other big crisis splitting us into warring camps.
I think the very closeness of the recent election showed how near the
parties have come on most issues. This is at least a golden opportnity for
bipartisan action, but partisan wrangling is always ready to gridlock the
federal government ... and sometimes I think that's the way much of the
public likes it.
A gridlocked federal government at least isn't actively making things worse.
Could this be why for most of my lifetime voters have been reluctant to give
control of Congress and the White House to the same party.
-- Steve in VB
"Michael A Benedetto" <mb...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote in message
news:mb29-9AF453.0...@news.buffalo.edu...
Steve
history and purpose of our Electoral College system. It gives a little
extra clout to the small states, so that Presidential candidates don't just
campaign and win in New York, California, and Texas.
It is similar in purpose to our giving each state two senators, regardless
of its population. Both features of our system are designed to prevent a
handful of very populous states from bullying and controlling all the rest.
Like the Electoral College, the make-up of the Senate is the result of a
compromise between factions during the writing of the Constitution.
The electoral college also serves an important emergency function, should
the public be bamboozled into voting for a dangerous demogogue (e.g. Hitler
in 1933) the electors could override the the results of the popular vote. I
hope it never has to exercise this function, but it's good to know it's
possible in a real emergency.
-- Steve in VB
"Marinus" <in...@marinus.nl> wrote in message
news:91e45k$1muii$1...@reader3.wxs.nl...
Marinus
t...
> Marinus, I can't believe you followed this election
without learning the
> history and purpose of our Electoral College system.
I know the philosophy behind the system. I don't have any
comments on that, it seems fair.
It's the system itself that I'm questioning. I won't go into
a discussion about minor details (I don't know enough about
that) but a system in which, among other things, several
courts (who might be politically colored) have to decide who
gets to be president is far from ideal.
Marinus
PS What if 'a Hitler' gets to be president of the US and in
every election after that he uses the electoral college to
stay president?
DgSWEET
>comments on that, it seems fair.
And I don't think it is fair, because it says that a person's vote has extra
weight because of where he or she lives. I recognize that the system with the
Senate was a political compromise necessitated when each state felt more
autonomous -- more like a separate country. The justification for this is
being eroded by technological progress, more of a national (as opposed to a
regional or state) consciousness, etc. Tradition has its value, but there are
times when "We've always doen it this way" no longer holds as a valid argument.
I think we've reached one of those times.
BwaysingerNYC
for caramel too.
Eric
Karen Horn
: Actually, I thought bicaramel sometimes prefers chocolate, but sometimes goes
: for caramel too.
:
: Eric
:-D I know--I must have been thinking of a box of See's candy when
I wrote that.
Karen
:
:>From: Stephen Farrow
:
:
Karen Horn
:
: A gridlocked federal government at least isn't actively making things worse.
: Could this be why for most of my lifetime voters have been reluctant to give
: control of Congress and the White House to the same party.
I think so---many, many people split their vote---figuring that
heavy damage won't be inflicted on them that way. Whether or not
that would necessarily be the case is debatable, but it seem to me
many people want it that way.
Karen Horn
:
: I know the philosophy behind the system. I don't have any
: comments on that, it seems fair.
: It's the system itself that I'm questioning. I won't go into
: a discussion about minor details (I don't know enough about
: that) but a system in which, among other things, several
: courts (who might be politically colored) have to decide who
: gets to be president is far from ideal.
:
: Marinus
Simple. Because despite what some of the European press has been touting
it isn't a "Free for all" and there is a determinate process. Sometimes
the process takes a while [i.e. you can't just go whining to the Supreme
court] but it's there. The UK Telegraph had a nice article the other
day re: the US constitution. I.E. for all the Euro-superiority stuff
Euros sometimes try and pull--they'd do well to remember that the
written constitution of the US--that 213 document first written with
a quill pen has a longer life than the COMBINDED life span than the
current constitutions of Spain, Italy, Greece, France and several other
countries put together.
: PS What if 'a Hitler' gets to be president of the US and in
: every election after that he uses the electoral college to
: stay president?
:
By process it couldn't happen. Hint: electors are chosen by
the people of that state. Has zippity do dah to do with being
PART of the federal government.
Karen
Michael Haslam
> Simple. Because despite what some of the European press has been touting
> it isn't a "Free for all" and there is a determinate process. Sometimes
> the process takes a while [i.e. you can't just go whining to the Supreme
> court] but it's there. The UK Telegraph had a nice article the other
> day
I don't believe you :-)
> re: the US constitution. I.E. for all the Euro-superiority stuff
> Euros sometimes try and pull--they'd do well to remember that the
> written constitution of the US--that 213
?word, year-old?
> document first written with
> a quill pen has a longer life than the COMBINDED
I think I know what you mean.
> life span than the
> current constitutions of Spain, Italy, Greece, France and several other
> countries put together.
Say "several" means four. Perhaps the US Constitution is about 220 years
old. 220/8 = 27.5. Sounds like the writer of the article picked the European
countries that fitted his story. We know that Spain got rid of its fascist
regime only a few years ago, ditto Greece. Italy is a law unto itself
psephologically and constitutionally speaking. We in Britain have a much
older constitution. So old that it isn't written down. So there! On the
other hand every old constitution has been amended and added to over the
years, not always as disastrously as the amendment that gave the US
prohibition. Here in the UK trial by jury seems set to survive until after
the next election due to the date of Easter and a few other quirks. If you
like quill pen stuff you'll find a lot more of it over here despite the
recent modernisations. I guess the Swiss, the Icelandics, the Manx [oldest
parliament in the world?] and the Vatican do pretty well in the
constitutional longevity stakes.
> : PS What if 'a Hitler' gets to be president of the US and in
> : every election after that he uses the electoral college to
> : stay president?
> :
>
> By process it couldn't happen. Hint: electors are chosen by
> the people of that state. Has zippity do dah to do with being
> PART of the federal government.
I'm sure Hitler could have found a way to do it.
MJHaslam
Marinus
> Marinus <in...@marinus.nl> wrote:
> By process it couldn't happen.
Adolf wasn't 'Hitler' when he gained power. At this point
Bush is no Hitler, but who knows what he might turn out to
be the next 4 years (I'm not saying he WILL change). Do you
think so many Germans would have supported Hitler if they
knew then what we know now? My point is: people change or
wear masks. Don't be too naive to think that a bunch of
rules can prevent anything from happening. Especcially when
a system or process depends upon the judgement of people.
People make mistakes, people are naive, people's opinions
can be bought, etc. etc.
Don't forget that Yugoslavia once was full of 'Karens' who
were sure that 'by process it couldn't happen'....
So was Germany...
So was Holland once...
And Indonesia...
And so is the US right now
Marinus
Karen Horn
: "Karen Horn" <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
Philosophically you can say that for any country---I'll I can say
is that our rules WERE followed and the system played itself
out as it should.
Karen
DgSWEET
>is that our rules WERE followed and the system played itself
>out as it should.
Your "should."
I think somebody who loses the popular vote and actively prevents an honest
count on which the electoral vote is to be based (yes, we see that differently)
is not someone who has any kind of mandate, and there's no "should" involved.
This has nothing to do with morality or a system working, it had to do with the
most cynical political hardball. I think history will view this election very
critically and that the Court will be seen to have done itself considerable
damage. I see how potential Court candidates view this decision as being key
to whether they get approval when nominated.
Karen Horn
:>AllI can say
:>is that our rules WERE followed and the system played itself
:>out as it should.
:
: Your "should."
:
: I think somebody who loses the popular vote and actively prevents an honest
Once again "popular vote" means nothing. What happened, you get an
"F" in 9th grade civics? You sure as hell are a slowwwwww learner.
:count on which the electoral vote is to be based (yes, we see that differently)
: is not someone who has any kind of mandate, and there's no "should" involved.
Oh, so I guess the Slickster didn't have a "mandate" either since in
neither of his two times out did he have even 50 percent to do his bidding.
STill didn't stop him from issuing executive orders left and right like
some petty potentate.
:This has nothing to do with morality or a system working, it had to do with the
: most cynical political hardball. I think history will view this election very
: critically and that the Court will be seen to have done itself considerable
: damage. I see how potential Court candidates view this decision as being key
: to whether they get approval when nominated.
Yes, you'll all just hold your breath and turn blue and kick and scream
and whine like the little bawl babies you are. The public be damned
with having enough judges in place to settle cases- they all need to wait
4 years because bawl baby Bore couldn't face the fact, nor could his
supporters. What would you do if 4 years later Demos got the WH back
and then Republican senators pulled the same bawl baby stunts? You'd
piss and moan about it.
As I've said: I feel your pain, and I'm just as sincere about that
statement as Clinnochio was when he made it so often. Your own medicine
makes you puke doesn't it?
Karen
Michael Haslam
> <snip>
>
> Yes, you'll all just hold your breath and turn blue and kick and scream
> and whine like the little bawl babies you are.
And like you did about the un-argued President for the last eight years, Karen ;-)
> The public be damned
> with having enough judges in place to settle cases- they all need to wait
> 4 years because bawl baby Bore couldn't face the fact, nor could his
> supporters. What would you do if 4 years later Demos got the WH back
> and then Republican senators pulled the same bawl baby stunts? You'd
> piss and moan about it.
>
> As I've said: I feel your pain, and I'm just as sincere about that
> statement as Clinnochio was when he made it so often. Your own medicine
> makes you puke doesn't it?
You said it.
MJHaslam
Karen Horn
: Karen Horn wrote:
:
:> <snip>
:>
:> Yes, you'll all just hold your breath and turn blue and kick and scream
:> and whine like the little bawl babies you are.
:
: And like you did about the un-argued President for the last eight years, Karen ;-)
Clinton DID sometnhing to deserve it---like bomb aspirin factories to
cover up his malfeasance in office---do we really need to go into
the whole litany again? I thought that was only for idiots who didn't
hae a memory of more than 5 minutes.
Karen
halfce...@my-deja.com
wester...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <91coee$1loho$1...@reader4.wxs.nl>,
> "Marinus" <in...@marinus.nl> wrote:
> >
> > I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible that the
> > one who got the least votes, got to be president...
>
> Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
> Can we PLEASE not start this again? That's the United States
> system, that's the way it happens sometimes.
>
> > of.
>
> On the contrary, I think we have a lot to be proud of.
> Considering the way the process might have been conducted in other
> countries, with tanks and guns and uprisings, we came out ahead, the
> Constitution more or less intact.
Less. Way less.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"It's true we do not live in a zoo,
But man is an animal, too. So why can't you,
Like me, like animals?" --Leslie Bricusse
Michael Haslam
I thought the American system was incorruptible :-)
MJHaslam
BTC/TAK
It is!!! Didn't the recent coup of the 5 Injustices prove that???
8-{
Mila
Michael Haslam <mike...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3A41F5F0...@dircon.co.uk...
Noel Katz
>The public be damned
This sums up your entire attitude
http://hometown.aol.com/noelkatz/main.html
eagl...@my-deja.com
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2000/12/20/131045
Karen Horn
:>From: Karen Horn
:
:>The public be damned
:
: This sums up your entire attitude
Well, if the public is stupid, then yeah---thank you Ben Franklin et al.
Gérard Morvan
worse.
Gérard Morvan
Tim Gowen
<kah...@king.cts.com> writes
>Clinton DID sometnhing to deserve it---like bomb aspirin factories to
>cover up his malfeasance in office---do we really need to go into
>the whole litany again?
That's when he was going after Yosemite Bin Liner... And don't forget
that they sent a B2 to bomb something other than the Chinese embassy,
and "Whoops! Oh well".
Tim
PS I promised I wouldn't get involved in this stuff again, but then
James went and mentioned Alison's hair.
--
Tim Gowen
Karen Horn
: In article <91slfd$26pf$1...@thoth.cts.com>, Karen Horn
: <kah...@king.cts.com> writes
:>Clinton DID sometnhing to deserve it---like bomb aspirin factories to
:>cover up his malfeasance in office---do we really need to go into
:>the whole litany again?
:
: That's when he was going after Yosemite Bin Liner... And don't forget
: that they sent a B2 to bomb something other than the Chinese embassy,
: and "Whoops! Oh well".
Tim---re: the Chinese embassy, our military guys finally found a
target they liked!
"ya----HOOO!!!!!!! Let see what Billy Jeff says to cover this one up!"
Karen
[don't believe what "they" tell you, okay ;-D ]