A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE
Kaiju
well his newly acquired ability to regurgitate party rhetoric works with this
one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE > SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE by Mark
H.
> Levine, Attorney at Law.
> >
> >
> > Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court
> decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
> >
> > A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore
got
> > the most votes.
> >
> > Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason,
right?
> >
> > A: Right!
> >
> > Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
> >
> > A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the >
> hand-counts were legal and should be done.
> >
> > Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would
find >
> any legal ballots? >
> >
> > A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine
> justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an
> unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete
way
> by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't
>
> be.
> >
> >
> > Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't >
> conservatives love that?
> >
> >
> > A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have
held >
> that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state
> university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is
> prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business
> telling > a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal
> government use the equal protection clause to force states to take
measures
> to stop violence against women.
> >
> > Q: Is there an exception in this case?
> >
> > A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own
state
> elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This
decision
> is limited to only this situation.
> >
> > Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
> >
> > A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
> circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes
> generally presents many complexities."
> >
> > Q: What complexities?
> >
> > A: They don't say.
> >
> > Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The
votes
> can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of
the
> > election after it was held." Right?
> >
> > A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida
Supreme
> Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court
> found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.
> >
> > Q: Huh?
> >
> > A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting
vote
> is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not
> adopting a clearer standard.
> >
> > Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the
Legislature's
> law after the election.
> >
> > A: Right.
> >
> > Q: So what's the problem?
> >
> > A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme
Court
> > should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what
is
> > a legal vote"
> >
> > Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
> >
> > A: Right.
> >
> > Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have
> > been overturned.
> >
> > A: Right. You're catching on.
> >
> > Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been
overturned
> > for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not
changing the
> rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did,
legal
> votes could never be counted.
> >
> > A: Right. Next question.
> >
> >
> > Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that
some
> counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
> >
> > A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of
systems.
> Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties
> record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely
> Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So
approximately
> > 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.
> >
> > Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
> >
> > A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of
> Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity"
was
> > not a problem.
> >
> > Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked
> > more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.
> >
> >
> > A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan
got his
> highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home
with
> Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.
> >
> > Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?
> >
> > A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of
Democrats
> (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat
> less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly
> different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their
> best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter"
> may have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent.
> >
> > Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count
the
> > votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?
> >
> > A: Nope.
> >
> > Q: Why not?
> >
> > A: No time.
> >
> > Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans,
agree
> > the intent is clear? Why not?
> >
> > A: Because December 12 was yesterday.
> >
> > Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
> >
> > A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't
> > counted until January 4.
> >
> > Q: So why is December 12 important?
> >
> > A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the
results.
> >
> > Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme
Court?
> >
> > A: Nothing.
> >
> > Q: But I thought ---
> >
> > A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to
complete its
> work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States
> Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing
the
> Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.
> >
> > Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the
> > votes counted by December 12.
> >
> > A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices
stopped
> > the recount last Saturday.
> >
> > Q: Why?
> >
> > A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.
> >
> > Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore,
hanging
> chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the
> other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who
won?
> Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the
> American people will know right away who won Florida.
> >
> > A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that
such
> counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and
Gore's
> > winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast[] a cloud"
over
> > Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."
> >
> > Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they
won't
> > accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
> >
> > A: Yes.
> >
> > Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
> >
> > A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law,
this
> reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives
> from creating new law out of thin air.
> >
> > Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
> >
> > A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
> >
> > Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count
the
> votes?
> >
> > A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is
not
> > binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December
12.
> >
> > Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for
> > arbitrarily setting a deadline?
> >
> > A: Yes.
> >
> > Q: But, but --
> >
> > A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws
it
> > sets for other courts.
> >
> > Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
> >
> > A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the
mob
> > in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and
the
> > US Supreme Court for stopping the recount.
> >
> > Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
> >
> > A: Gore, of course.
> >
> > Q: Tell me this: Florida's laws are unconstitutional, right?
> >
> > A: Yes
> >
> > Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted
> > differently are unconstitutional?
> >
> > A: Yes. And 33 of those states have the "clear intent of the voter"
> > standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.
> >
> > Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
> >
> > A: Um. Because...um.....the Supreme Court doesn't say...
> >
> > Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared
by the
> US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the
> election there, right?
> >
> > A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore
won
> > Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).
> >
> > Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state?
> Count> all ballots under a single uniform standard?
> >
> > A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.
> >
> > Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political
> > favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
> >
> > A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's
wife is
> collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush
> administration.
> >
> > Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?
> >
> > A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the
Florida
> > Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.
> >
> > Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political
way.
> >
> > A: Read the opinions for yourself:
> > http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf (December
9
> > stay stopping the recount), and
> > http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf (December 12
final
> > opinion)
> >
> > Q: So what are the consequences of this?
> >
> > A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under
our
> > Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the
all
> > important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
> >
> > Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
> >
> > A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In
America,
> in> the year 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.
> >
> > Q: Is there any way to stop the Supreme Court from doing this again?
> >
> > A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the
Senate.
> > It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic
> Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not
> approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be
> democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end...and
> one day we can hope to return to the rule of law.
> >
> > Q: What do I do now?
> >
> > A: E-mail this to everyone you know, and write or call your senator,
> reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three
> times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather
> than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote.
> And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you
> want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004 when a president is finally
> chosen by most of the American people.
--
Before you think, think.
The Devil's Advocate©
>This is posted especially for DA's edification and education. Let's see how
>well his newly acquired ability to regurgitate party rhetoric works with this
>one.
I'll read it tommorrow evening. I've already got some some issues lined up for
you with your other replies. More fireworks to come, I'm off to bed....
kafou
Kaiju wrote:
> This is posted especially for DA's edification and education.
<snip>:
DA means well, he is just misguided.
Kafou "Where is the key that opens eyes?" Lobo
Charley Brown and SNOOPY
"Kaiju" <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A938004...@mindspring.com...
Spectre
Kaiju wrote:
> This is posted especially for DA's edification and education. Let's see how
> well his newly acquired ability to regurgitate party rhetoric works with this
> one.
>
Like who cares? You seem, like most of the losing crew, hung up on this loss by
Gore. You need to take your own advice and 'think before you think'. Its time to
move on. Accept the loss and move on.
Spectre
kafou wrote:
Like you have answers? Hell you cannot even go back to your home
country. Try giving your guidance to your misguided Haitian countrymen,
lord knows they need it.
Charley Brown and SNOOPY
David Richardson
acrimony that the "defeat" has engendered. Yet during the verification of Electoral
College votes, the Democratic Senators sat silently as the Black Caucus railed on.
As a side note, I have complained on several occassions about the quality ( or
really lack of quality) of the NAACP website; I really think they are really
missing an opportunity. Well I got curious about the Congressional Black Caucus
website and found out that while they did register one, it leads to a deadlink. On
top of that it is about to expire. Remmeber what happen to the Martin Luther King
website?
dratster
Kaiju
First, he didn't lose. The Supreme Court did something unprecedented and
contradictory to its own prior decisions and the Constitution. I care about
things like that. Second, I see no reason to "move on". Fuck that.
Kaiju
Kaiju
David Richardson wrote:
>
> Perhaps because I am a Republican I am bias, but I am amazed about the amount of
> acrimony that the "defeat" has engendered.
Acrimony? That's putting it lightly. Try outright outrage. The USSC did
something that should have not involved judicial activism driven by politics,
and this one was high profile and inexcusable. People are more angry because
of that, not because of political leanings. And furious because Republicans
think is is just okay to usurp the legal process on the highest level for
political gains. It doesn't take Democrats to be angry at this sort of
garbage. I'd have to be stupid and blind to accept that particular decision
without anger. I assure you, I am neither.
Do you know that the Supreme Court justices who went along with the party line
are receiving thousands of angry letters, faxes, and email messages DAILY?
The Supreme Court is currently in great turmoil and likely split beyond repair
to the point that at least one justice has reconsidered retiring, delaying
retirement until Shrub is out of office.
> Yet during the verification of Electoral
> College votes, the Democratic Senators sat silently as the Black Caucus railed > on.
Politics as usual. They did the same thing with Clarence Thomas, who lied
throughout his Confirmation Hearings (even before the sexual harassment
charges were brought), and was very obviously, through his own words, not the
best qualified for the position. I don't have any respect for the Senators
involved, but unfortunately, I could not, and still cannot vote for them. Or
not. (My Senators voted against confirmation.)
Look. I don't care what personal political leanings the justices have. I
don't want those leanings entering into their judicial decisions. In other
words, I strenuously object to judicial activism. I don't care which
political philosophy is involved. If the Court is involved in judicial
activism, we are left with two branches of government, and there is no
possibility of Constitutional proscribed checks and balances.
And don't you dare throw some "Black" angle at me again. It is not
appreciated. There are some issues that transcend race. This is one of them.
Kaiju
Another Bushit:
"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the
legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the
difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute
them."-Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000
And we all know how much Shrub loves executions, lawmakers or otherwise.
David Richardson
> Acrimony? That's putting it lightly. Try outright outrage. The USSC did
> something that should have not involved judicial activism driven by politics,
> and this one was high profile and inexcusable. People are more angry because
> of that, not because of political leanings.
In this country were less and less peole are caring to vote each year, I really think you
are in the minority of people who have thoughtful examined the issue and are not
influenced by political leanings. Tho I still am surprised by your " cut off your nose to
spite your face..." attitude, no disrespect intended. Six months from now you will be in
the smaller minority of people who this will even be on their radar screens.
> And furious because Republicans think is is just okay to usurp the legal process on the
> highest level for political gains.
I was listening to MSNBC or one of those talking heads channels and saw the ubiquitous
Republican/Democratic wonks where they were arguing over that very same point, but with
respect to Clinton lying under oath.
If all things were right Clinton would have resigned from his office (Not because of the
sex, but because he lied and then obstructed justice). If all things were right Bush
would not have accepted the Presidency unless all votes were counted.
But all things are not right and there will be the next potical schism over the horizon.
> It doesn't take Democrats to be angry at this sort of
> garbage. I'd have to be stupid and blind to accept that particular decision
> without anger. I assure you, I am neither.
Well remember that is only the second stage, you've got three more left.
> Do you know that the Supreme Court justices who went along with the party line
> are receiving thousands of angry letters, faxes, and email messages DAILY.
And that will fall off and be forgotten in short order.
> The Supreme Court is currently in great turmoil and likely split beyond repair
> to the point that at least one justice has reconsidered retiring, delaying
> retirement until Shrub is out of office.
And when hasn't that been the case.
>
> Politics as usual. They did the same thing with Clarence Thomas, who lied
> throughout his Confirmation Hearings (even before the sexual harassment
> charges were brought), and was very obviously, through his own words, not the
> best qualified for the position. I don't have any respect for the Senators
> involved, but unfortunately, I could not, and still cannot vote for them. Or
> not. (My Senators voted against confirmation.)
Well, lucky you! You have the only righteous Senators in the country.
> Look. I don't care what personal political leanings the justices have. I
> don't want those leanings entering into their judicial decisions. In other
> words, I strenuously object to judicial activism. I don't care which
> political philosophy is involved. If the Court is involved in judicial
> activism, we are left with two branches of government, and there is no
> possibility of Constitutional proscribed checks and balances.
So do you think that the Florida Supreme Court did not judicial activism?
> And don't you dare throw some "Black" angle at me again. It is not
> appreciated. There are some issues that transcend race.
Don't I dare? Wow and I thought this was supposed to be a civil discussion.
Well be that as that may, as I said before this issue transcended race so much, not even
one Democratic Senator could rise to speak out against in Congress. If this was so
universal wrong, why is it that the CBC was trhe group that spoke up?
dratster
trudogg®
> Look. I don't care what personal political leanings the justices have. I
> don't want those leanings entering into their judicial decisions. In other
> words, I strenuously object to judicial activism. I don't care which
> political philosophy is involved. If the Court is involved in judicial
> activism, we are left with two branches of government, and there is no
> possibility of Constitutional proscribed checks and balances.
...but this is exactly how the Florida Supreme Court was behaving. Is
there a double-standard here? Is this ok on a state level but not on a
federal level? Inquiring minds want to know...
The Devil's Advocate©
>...but this is exactly how the Florida Supreme Court was behaving. Is
>there a double-standard here?
Of course there is. Yeah, I'm sooooooo sure that if the situation were reversed,
she'd be calling Gore an illegitimate president. She'd have accused Bush of
trying to steal the election by counting invalid ballots.
>Is this ok on a state level but not on a
>federal level? Inquiring minds want to know...
Good to see some balance and fair-mindedness, I was starting to think there was
no such thing around here anymore.
--
regards,
The Devil's Advocate
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"listen to both sides, the truth
usually falls in the middle"
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Charley Brown and SNOOPY
"Kaiju" <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A94C142...@mindspring.com...
trudogg®
> Of course there is. Yeah, I'm sooooooo sure that if the situation were reversed,
> she'd be calling Gore an illegitimate president. She'd have accused Bush of
> trying to steal the election by counting invalid ballots.
...there you go again.
> Good to see some balance and fair-mindedness, I was starting to think there was
> no such thing around here anymore.
...it's all politics as usual. The split was 50-50 and the arguments
seem to be also...
Kaiju
"trudogg®" wrote:
>
> Kaiju wrote...
>
> > Look. I don't care what personal political leanings the justices have. I
> > don't want those leanings entering into their judicial decisions. In other
> > words, I strenuously object to judicial activism. I don't care which
> > political philosophy is involved. If the Court is involved in judicial
> > activism, we are left with two branches of government, and there is no
> > possibility of Constitutional proscribed checks and balances.
>
> ...but this is exactly how the Florida Supreme Court was behaving.
Actually, not.
> Is
> there a double-standard here? Is this ok on a state level but not on a
> federal level? Inquiring minds want to know...
The Florida Supreme Court followed Florida law. How is that judicial
activism? In fact, the USSC faulted the Florida Supremes *for* following
Florida law, while acknowledging that is what they should have done. Where's
the double standard there? Seems it lies with the USSC.
The Supremes, using the 14th Amendment, brought in the issue of equal
protection in part because each Florida County had slightly different rules
and procedures ...and different election systems...but on the other hand they
criticized the Florida Supreme Court for not setting a common standard...but
then also said that setting a common standard would be legislating from the
bench.
Hello?
Kaiju <you got all that? Talk about nutzo Supreme Behavior...>
Charley Brown and SNOOPY
"David Richardson" <drat...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A94B404...@mindspring.com...
Kaiju
David Richardson wrote:
>
> Kaiju wrote:
>
> > Acrimony? That's putting it lightly. Try outright outrage. The USSC did
> > something that should have not involved judicial activism driven by politics,
> > and this one was high profile and inexcusable. People are more angry because
> > of that, not because of political leanings.
>
> In this country were less and less peole are caring to vote each year, I really think you
> are in the minority of people who have thoughtful examined the issue and are not
> influenced by political leanings. Tho I still am surprised by your " cut off your nose to
> spite your face..." attitude, no disrespect intended. Six months from now you will be in
> the smaller minority of people who this will even be on their radar screens.
I rather doubt it. From a recent report I read, Floridians are pissed off, as
well...to the extent large numbers have switched their party affiliation from
independent and Republican to Democratic. This trend is picking up momentum.
> > And furious because Republicans think is is just okay to usurp the legal process on the
> > highest level for political gains.
>
> I was listening to MSNBC or one of those talking heads channels and saw the ubiquitous
> Republican/Democratic wonks where they were arguing over that very same point, but with
> respect to Clinton lying under oath.
They should have taken up the issue of Reagan lying to the entire country on
an issue that had far more importance than heavy petting in the Oval Office.
> If all things were right Clinton would have resigned from his office (Not because of the
> sex, but because he lied and then obstructed justice).
What "justice"? The entire process was absurd from the outset.
> If all things were right Bush
> would not have accepted the Presidency unless all votes were counted.
That wasn't likely to happen.
> But all things are not right and there will be the next potical schism over the horizon.
>
> > It doesn't take Democrats to be angry at this sort of
> > garbage. I'd have to be stupid and blind to accept that particular decision
> > without anger. I assure you, I am neither.
>
> Well remember that is only the second stage, you've got three more left.
I doubt the other three will ever enter the picture, unless action is one of
them.
> > Do you know that the Supreme Court justices who went along with the party line
> > are receiving thousands of angry letters, faxes, and email messages DAILY.
>
> And that will fall off and be forgotten in short order.
>
> > The Supreme Court is currently in great turmoil and likely split beyond repair
> > to the point that at least one justice has reconsidered retiring, delaying
> > retirement until Shrub is out of office.
>
> And when hasn't that been the case.
Evidently, this time it is more severe and intense.
> > Politics as usual. They did the same thing with Clarence Thomas, who lied
> > throughout his Confirmation Hearings (even before the sexual harassment
> > charges were brought), and was very obviously, through his own words, not the
> > best qualified for the position. I don't have any respect for the Senators
> > involved, but unfortunately, I could not, and still cannot vote for them. Or
> > not. (My Senators voted against confirmation.)
>
> Well, lucky you! You have the only righteous Senators in the country.
No, there are others.
> So do you think that the Florida Supreme Court did not judicial activism?
No. See my response to Trudogg.
> > And don't you dare throw some "Black" angle at me again. It is not
> > appreciated. There are some issues that transcend race.
>
> Don't I dare? Wow and I thought this was supposed to be a civil discussion.
I don't perceive that placing a Black angle on a discussion that is universal
is civil.
> Well be that as that may, as I said before this issue transcended race so much, not even
> one Democratic Senator could rise to speak out against in Congress. If this was so
> universal wrong, why is it that the CBC was trhe group that spoke up?
Probably because that was the group with fewer political stakes at issue. In
essence, not only did the CBC feel a moral obligation to speak out, it had the
luxury of doing so.
Kaiju
Charley Brown and SNOOPY
David Richardson
> well...to the extent large numbers have switched their party affiliation from
> independent and Republican to Democratic. This trend is picking up momentum.
I rather doubt it. Two years is a long time to wait to have to do something and in my
experience people have tendency of being sidetracked by other issues. If the economy tanks or
makes vast improvement, people will not be responding to this issue.
As much as you want to imagine that "large numbers" have switched, i rather doubt it. BTW,
what report was that?
> They should have taken up the issue of Reagan lying to the entire country on
> an issue that had far more importance than heavy petting in the Oval Office.
I thought you were fair-minded enough to realize that this was not about the sex in the office,
but about his lying under oath. Even if it was about sex, how many Presidents have had people
accussed them of rape or sexual misconduct? Where there is smoke...
All in all I think it was a shame because despite my dislike of Clinton for other reasons, it
did a great job for the country.
> What "justice"? The entire process was absurd from the outset.
So sayeth a true believer
> That wasn't likely to happen.
Just as it would not have happened if it was on the other side. Neither the Democrats nor the
Republicans have cornered the market on morality.
> I doubt the other three will ever enter the picture, unless action is one of
> them.
I honestly do not expect to see much movement. I expect there will be a few angry voices over
the next year, but these will wane and things will go on as they always do. IF there is any
trend, it is the growing trend towards apathy.
> Evidently, this time it is more severe and intense.
I don't se where you are getting this from, if it was so , it would be a large news item and I
just don't see that much attention being paid about the USSC. We still too plugged into the
pardons and such.
> No, there are others.
Yes, the very same ones who registered their vehement disdain for what the USSC allowed and
they voted against the Electoral results.
> No. See my response to Trudogg.
Kaiju, I see it as a nonresponse. In other words, "it did not happen becasue I said it did not
happen"
> I don't perceive that placing a Black angle on a discussion that is universal
> is civil.
Again, I made a statement of fact. There was one group in Congress that fought the results, the
CBC. Besides, isn't this the soc.culture.african.american forum?
dratster
David Richardson
Dratster
Charley Brown and SNOOPY wrote:
Rx Prozac for KaiJEW for extreme post-election depression: Prozac 20 mg 3x dailyEflexor 150 mg 1 x dailyZantac 40 mg 1 x daily 3 refills.....Dr. Snoopy ---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Richardson
http://www.blackpolitics.com/default.asp
I make note that this website virtually shutdown after the election. Perhaps there is a ground
swell of discontent. But also note the race.
dratster
Kaiju
David Richardson wrote:
>
> > I rather doubt it. From a recent report I read, Floridians are pissed off, as
> > well...to the extent large numbers have switched their party affiliation from
> > independent and Republican to Democratic. This trend is picking up momentum.
>
> I rather doubt it. Two years is a long time to wait to have to do something and in my
> experience people have tendency of being sidetracked by other issues. If the economy tanks or
> makes vast improvement, people will not be responding to this issue.
You hope.
> As much as you want to imagine that "large numbers" have switched, i rather doubt it. BTW,
> what report was that?
Check The Nation. http://www.thenation.com.
> > They should have taken up the issue of Reagan lying to the entire country on
> > an issue that had far more importance than heavy petting in the Oval Office.
>
> I thought you were fair-minded enough to realize that this was not about the sex in the office,
> but about his lying under oath.
It was exactly about sex. If it hadn't been about sex, there would never have
been a need for the monkey trial. Yes, I am fair-minded, which is why I made
this comment.
> Even if it was about sex, how many Presidents have had people
> accussed them of rape or sexual misconduct? Where there is smoke...
Frankly, I never cared. He could have been schtupping every female in the
White House, and I wouldn't care. I wanted to know how he was doing his job.
Look, from the moment Clinton stepped foot in the White House, the
conservatives hunted high and low for something to hang him on. So they
finally dug out Monica Lewinsky. I was then, and still am, underwhelmed.
> > What "justice"? The entire process was absurd from the outset.
>
> So sayeth a true believer
So sayeth someone who isn't eager to believe the Republican party line. I
don't take well to anyone telling me how to react to situations, and that
includes the Democratic party. I look at the events and come to my own
conclusions.
> > That wasn't likely to happen.
>
> Just as it would not have happened if it was on the other side. Neither the Democrats nor the
> Republicans have cornered the market on morality.
No, they don't. In fact, two of the ones with questionable morals were the
ones instigating the witch hunt. My cynical heart got a chuckle out of that.
It was still not a case of justice, nor was it ever necessary.
> > I doubt the other three will ever enter the picture, unless action is one of
> > them.
>
> I honestly do not expect to see much movement. I expect there will be a few angry voices over
> the next year, but these will wane and things will go on as they always do. IF there is any
> trend, it is the growing trend towards apathy.
Keep hoping. This one isn't going away that easily. From your perspective,
you aren't appreciating just how angry people are. When there are ABC polls
that reveal 40% of the voters still think Shrub's presidency is illegitimate,
this isn't going away. Do you really think improvements in the economy, a
war, whatever, is going to make people forget something like that? Nah.
> > Evidently, this time it is more severe and intense.
>
> I don't se where you are getting this from, if it was so , it would be a large news item and I
> just don't see that much attention being paid about the USSC.
Gee. I get it from news reports. Mostly newspapers and Reuters.
> We still too plugged into the
> pardons and such.
Another ridiculous ploy to distract the public from Shrub and his pals who
sink Japanese boats. There are all sorts of things going on with the Bush
clan that the media isn't reporting. You have to dig to find the articles,
although they are there.
> > No. See my response to Trudogg.
>
> Kaiju, I see it as a nonresponse. In other words, "it did not happen becasue I said it did not
> happen"
Then you should read it again because that is not what I wrote. I provided an
analysis of the judicial decisions. If you find that a "nonresponse", then
you are only willing to accept party line. Disappointing. Why bother to come
here to discuss anything? If you go to The Nation link, check Bugliosi's
analysis. He says pretty much the same thing I have. (Gee. I did learn how
to brief legal decisions when I spent all of those years in law school.)
> > I don't perceive that placing a Black angle on a discussion that is universal
> > is civil.
>
> Again, I made a statement of fact. There was one group in Congress that fought the results, the
> CBC. Besides, isn't this the soc.culture.african.american forum?
And twice you have brought in the Black angle with me when I have not
addressed it at all. I didn't say anything the first time. These events
don't just affect Blacks, and they certainly don't affect Blacks differently
than they do the rest of the citizens. For once it would be a pleasure if we
did not segregate ourselves.
Kaiju
Bushit of the Day...
"She's just trying to make sure Anthony gets a good meal — Antonio."
—On Laura Bush inviting Justice Antonin Scalia to dinner at the White
House. NBC Nightly News With Tom Brokaw, Jan. 14, 2001
Gee. What's with the Republicans and their inability to call the Supremes by
their right names, anyway? Har!
trudogg®
> The Supremes, using the 14th Amendment, brought in the issue of equal
> protection in part because each Florida County had slightly different rules
> and procedures ...and different election systems...but on the other hand they
> criticized the Florida Supreme Court for not setting a common standard...but
> then also said that setting a common standard would be legislating from the
> bench.
...I think the problem down here was trying to navigate a system of
elections that was never meant to cut that fine a margin. Both sides
were looking to change the rules after the race was run. The Florida
Supremes were leaning towards a Democratic positive result and the US
Supremes were leaning towards a Republican positive. There was no clear
winner, there would be acrimony either way. So the Shrub will be
gettin' it in the neck for at least the next four...that is, after they
clear Clinton's stink out...
Spectre
Kaiju wrote:
How you handle the next four to eight years is your business. The simple fact is that
Bush is in power. Gore is not. All the yelling and howling at the moon is not going to
change that fact. If you want to sit on the bench, riding the pine until someone more
favorable to your way of thinking gets into power, feel free.
The smart money is getting in the game.
Kaiju
Spectre wrote:
>
> Kaiju wrote:
>
> > Spectre wrote:
> > >
> > > Kaiju wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is posted especially for DA's edification and education. Let's see how
> > > > well his newly acquired ability to regurgitate party rhetoric works with this
> > > > one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Like who cares? You seem, like most of the losing crew, hung up on this loss by
> > > Gore. You need to take your own advice and 'think before you think'. Its time to
> > > move on. Accept the loss and move on.
> >
> > First, he didn't lose. The Supreme Court did something unprecedented and
> > contradictory to its own prior decisions and the Constitution. I care about
> > things like that. Second, I see no reason to "move on". Fuck that.
> >
>
> How you handle the next four to eight years is your business. The simple fact is that
> Bush is in power. Gore is not.
Not my concern. Trashing Shrub is. And I'm just getting started.
> If you want to sit on the bench, riding the pine until someone more
> favorable to your way of thinking gets into power, feel free.
> The smart money is getting in the game.
I have a better idea. I'm going to have just oodles of fun ridiculing Shrub
and his buddies every chance I get. In fact, I'm going to have a gleeful good
time. The last thing I will do is ever respect him nor acknowledge him as
president. Not to worry. He's providing lots of material to work with. I
figure I won't be running out of material any time soon. Har!
Kaiju
Another Bushit...
"We're concerned about AIDS inside our White House--make no mistake
about it."--Washington, D.C., Feb. 7, 2001
Dayum.
BlackConservative
Kaiju <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>The last thing I will do is ever respect him nor acknowledge him as
>president. Not to worry. He's providing lots of material to work with. I
>figure I won't be running out of material any time soon. Har!
Talking about "Boy" Clinton?
And neither will Jay or Dave.
One would think that the late-night hosts would be ripping Bush. But this is not
the case.
Leno said that "Boy" Clinton just won't go away... sorta like a bad case of
STD's.
"Hey, look at that... I have a 'Clinton' on my lip and it hurts like hell"
Funny stuff... I'll tell ya.
<snicker>
The New Black Voice
David Richardson
> You hope.
Actually, I do not hope. I am growing just as tired of the Republican party as I have been of the
Democrats. It would be my hope that people would take the opportunity to use the Internet to educat
themselves on the issues and the candidates . This way they can choose the lesser of what they
believe is "evil"
But the real wish would be to have a candidate who was not interested in the most politically
expedient path.
>
> Check The Nation. http://www.thenation.com.
I'll look.
> It was exactly about sex. If it hadn't been about sex, there would never have
> been a need for the monkey trial. Yes, I am fair-minded, which is why I made
> this comment.
Still, it bothered me (excluding the political hay thgat the Republicans were making of this), that
these type of things are constantly finding there way toward Clinton.
From my perspective it becomes increasingly difficult to tell young men that they have certain
responsibilities and that they need to respect women. And I am not saying that the Republicans have
done any better in that respect, we both can give ample examples.
> Frankly, I never cared. He could have been schtupping every female in the
> White House, and I wouldn't care. I wanted to know how he was doing his job.
I truly think it mattered,
> Look, from the moment Clinton stepped foot in the White House, the
> conservatives hunted high and low for something to hang him on. So they
> finally dug out Monica Lewinsky. I was then, and still am, underwhelmed.
Ok
> So sayeth someone who isn't eager to believe the Republican party line. I
> don't take well to anyone telling me how to react to situations, and that
> includes the Democratic party. I look at the events and come to my own
> conclusions.
Good, and I please don't believe that I am telling you, but these issues are not Black and White; the
Republicans are not all evil and the Democrats are not all righteous.
> Keep hoping. This one isn't going away that easily.
I just don't think ( not hoping) that it is going to happen, I will be truly surprised.
> From your perspective, you aren't appreciating just how angry people are. When there are ABC polls
> that reveal 40% of the voters still think Shrub's preside ncy is illegitimate, this isn't going
> away. Do you really think improvements in the economy, a war, whatever, is going to make people
> forget something like that?
Yes, people seem to forget fast now.
> Gee. I get it from news reports. Mostly newspapers and Reuters.
Well, I will read more because I am not getting sense.
> Another ridiculous ploy to distract the public from Shrub and his pals who
> sink Japanese boats.
Oh, come on! Do you really think that this was deliberate.
> Then you should read it again because that is not what I wrote. I provided an
> analysis of the judicial decisions. If you find that a "nonresponse", then
> you are only willing to accept party line. Disappointing. Why bother to come
> here to discuss anything? If you go to The Nation link, check Bugliosi's
> analysis. He says pretty much the same thing I have. (Gee. I did learn how
> to brief legal decisions when I spent all of those years in law school.)
I will read it again and ask my sister, she is a lawyer
> And twice you have brought in the Black angle with me when I have not
> addressed it at all. I didn't say anything the first time. These events
> don't just affect Blacks, and they certainly don't affect Blacks differently
> than they do the rest of the citizens. For once it would be a pleasure if we
> did not segregate ourselves.
Kaiju, I quite agree that we should not segegate ourselve, but from my LIMITED experience that is
exactly what I am seeing.
dratster
Kaiju
David Richardson wrote:
>
> Kaiju wrote:
> Still, it bothered me (excluding the political hay thgat the Republicans were making of this), that
> these type of things are constantly finding there way toward Clinton.
and...
> > Gee. I get it from news reports. Mostly newspapers and Reuters.
>
> Well, I will read more because I am not getting sense.
>
> > Another ridiculous ploy to distract the public from Shrub and his pals who
> > sink Japanese boats.
>
> Oh, come on! Do you really think that this was deliberate.
Sinking the sub, no. A deliberate ploy to distract the public's notice of how
the sub was sunk...oh, yes. Note:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Most news sites "expire" articles after a specified time. These
citations, however, don't seem to be time-related expirations.]
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=220
Bush's Scrubbers
Richard Nixon was obsessed with leaks from within his administration,
and his secret team of "plumbers" worked to stop these leaks,
breaking the law as they went about their dirty business.
George W. Bush is obsessed with any public record that documents
illegal, unethical, or embarrassing activities. He has a secret team
of "scrubbers" who make sure such records mysteriously "disappear"
from government offices and newspaper websites.
Here are some records that have disappeared. If you find more, please
e-mail mailto:pub...@democrats.com.
[.....]
The London Observer: Best Democracy Money can Buy
Posted 11/26/2000 - Scrubbed 2/21/01 - Unscrubbed here:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=15&row=1
When Papa Bush left the White House, he gave a sweetheart deal to the
Canadian company Barrick Goldstrike. Bush gave them mining rights for
US land with an estimated $10 Billion in gold for only $10 Thousand.
Oh and by the way, the company then hired Papa Bush after he left
office where he was on the payroll till 1999. The company also
donated $148,000 to the Republican Party. Unfortunately, you can't
read this story any more at the Guardian because Barrick Goldstrike
has threatened a lawsuit. But you can still read it here.
MSNBC: The Funeral Home Flap <http://www.msnbc.com/news/479524.asp>
Trouble for a Texas mortician with links to the Bush family
Posted 8/16/99 - Scrubbed 2/9/01 - Unscrubbed here:
http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=1328
This article suddenly disappeared from MSNBC's web site on February
9, 2001 - the day Democrats.com published a major expose on
Funeralgate. This follows the disappearance of several other articles
unfavorable to George W. Bush, most notably: a) the Washington Post
article by Al Kamen identifying the Republican thugs who stopped the
Miami recount (reposted following inquiries by a Democrats.com
member), and b) the CNN Crossfire transcript where Larry Flynt
charged Bush with helping his girlfriend get an abortion in the early
1970's. It took the Watergate scandal to expose Nixon's "plumbers" -
it looks like Funeralgate will expose Bush's "scrubbers".
Washington Post: The Miami-Dade Rioters
<http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/fedpage/columns/intheloop/A30170-2000Dec5.html>
Article by Al Kamen identifying the Republican thugs who stopped the
Miami recount Posted 12/6/00 - Scrubbed circa 12/21/00 - Reposted
circa 1/1/01 (following inquiries from a member of Democrats.com)
Remember the thugs who rioted in the Miami-Dade elections office and
stopped the manual recount of 10,000 undervotes? This one criminal
event probably stole the election for Bush. But please try to forget
it, because the Washington Post doesn't want you to remember this
ominous event. On December 6, the link below showed a photo of the
leaders, current and former Republican Congressional staffers. Now
it's gone - straight out of Orwell. If you don't want this event to
disappear down the memory hole, here's the full list, courtesy of
bushwatch.com:
[snip list of names]
CNN Crossfire: Larry Flynt Discusses Bush's Abortion
<http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0010/20/cf.00.html>
Posted 10/20/00 - Scrubbed 10/21/00 - Unscrubbed here:
http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159
On CNN's Crossfire on October 20, Larry Flynt exploded a bombshell:
that he has evidence that George W. Bush was "involved in an abortion
in Texas" in the early 1970's - when abortions were still illegal.
Amazingly, CNN has censored its own story!!!! This has all the
markings of a cover-up by CNN - just like the cover-ups of Bush's
many other scandals, from going AWOL, to using illegal drugs, to
corruption in Texas government, to lying under oath.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, yes. I definitely believe there is a concerted Republican effort to
destroy Clinton and to manipulate the media reports about Shrub. The
impeachment didn't result in the desired conclusion. In fact, every time and
method the conservatives used to destroy Clinton resulted in failure. So the
witch hunt continues. The problem with this is unless you dig way down in the
news stories, you will miss all of the garbage the Bush clan has been doing
for years. Stories that are less than favorable to Bush are hidden in the back
pages. Those slamming Clinton are on the front pages.
Case in point: The trashing of the White House and the looting of Air Force
One. That one got lots of ink and pixels. The problem is, the story was
planted by Shrub's PR man, Ari Fleisher, first to the Washington Times (owned
by the Moonies, long time pals of Bush I...but that is another post).
Excellent opportunity to prove the evil Clintons are not only liars and
thieves, but are totally morally reprehensible. Right? The problem is, it
never happened. The Clinton staff did remove the "W's" from computer
keyboards, but essentially that was it. So who's lying here? And did you
ever see the stories retracting the allegations? Of course you didn't.
What you see in the media is a benign, inclusive Shrub, bent on moving on.
While in the background, his handlers are actually instituting retro policies
the likes of which have destroyed what progress we've gained in the past 75
years. Smaller government? The conservatives are determined to micromanage
more of our lives than any Democrat ever envisioned. Tax cut? Only if you
are among the 1% of the wealthiest people in the country. But you won't learn
about any of this unless you hunt really hard for it. So if you don't know,
you'll think everything is just fine, and won't complain.
Yarite. Gimme Clinton and his tendency to drop his trousers any day. At
least we knew what he was up to. True or otherwise.
Don't worry. I have hundreds of "hidden" articles saved up. I'll post them
from time to time, as the mood strikes.
Kaiju
David Richardson
feeble-minded genial guy until the public wasn't around, then turned into this manipulative and sneeky
guy. Or the Eddie Murphy skit when he pretended to be White and found out that Whites were acting
different when Blacks were not around.
If we have to be so paranoid about life, then I need to get away from all you crazy folk.
>
> Oh, yes. I definitely believe there is a concerted Republican effort to
> destroy Clinton and to manipulate the media reports about Shrub. The
> impeachment didn't result in the desired conclusion. In fact, every time and
> method the conservatives used to destroy Clinton resulted in failure. So the
> witch hunt continues. The problem with this is unless you dig way down in the
> news stories, you will miss all of the garbage the Bush clan has been doing
> for years. Stories that are less than favorable to Bush are hidden in the back
> pages. Those slamming Clinton are on the front pages.
>
> Case in point: The trashing of the White House and the looting of Air Force
> One. That one got lots of ink and pixels. The problem is, the story was
> planted by Shrub's PR man, Ari Fleisher, first to the Washington Times (owned
> by the Moonies, long time pals of Bush I...but that is another post).
> Excellent opportunity to prove the evil Clintons are not only liars and
> thieves, but are totally morally reprehensible. Right? The problem is, it
> never happened. The Clinton staff did remove the "W's" from computer
> keyboards, but essentially that was it. So who's lying here? And did you
> ever see the stories retracting the allegations? Of course you didn't.
But I also heard Bush say that the stories were all exaggerations and we need to move on.
You are right, so who is lying here and how do YOU know who is telling the truth. I guess Republicans
are evil and Democrats are good.
Yeah right.
> What you see in the media is a benign, inclusive Shrub, bent on moving on.
> While in the background, his handlers are actually instituting retro policies
> the likes of which have destroyed what progress we've gained in the past 75
> years. Smaller government? The conservatives are determined to micromanage
> more of our lives than any Democrat ever envisioned. Tax cut? Only if you
> are among the 1% of the wealthiest people in the country. But you won't learn
> about any of this unless you hunt really hard for it. So if you don't know,
> you'll think everything is just fine, and won't complain.
Damn, if this was all true, I would suggest you be awfully careful because they might
"scrub" you. ( hey guys, I was just talking with her...)
>
> Yarite. Gimme Clinton and his tendency to drop his trousers any day. At
> least we knew what he was up to. True or otherwise.
Or perhaps the trouser were just a distraction from real agenda...
> Before you think, think.
Kaiju, do you honestly believe all of this stuff???
dratster
Kaiju
David Richardson wrote:
>
> Kaiju wrote:
> > So sayeth someone who isn't eager to believe the Republican party line. I
> > don't take well to anyone telling me how to react to situations, and that
> > includes the Democratic party. I look at the events and come to my own
> > conclusions.
>
> Good, and I please don't believe that I am telling you, but these issues are not Black and White; the
> Republicans are not all evil and the Democrats are not all righteous.
I don't think all Republicans are evil. I'm not so sure about the Bush clan,
however. They are smoother than Nixon's clan, but no less sneaky. Watch
closely. They are going to start sneaking in policies that they claimed
during the campaign they'd never pursue. They will be so subtle about it, you
won't know it happened until it's too late.
As for the Democrats, I've never seen such a bunch of wusses. I've always
thought liberals were useless wusses, but much of the Democratic party was
salvageable. I'm wondering about that now that their apparent strategy is
political expediency. They need to get down and dirty like the Bush clan if
they expect to win.
> > Keep hoping. This one isn't going away that easily.
>
> I just don't think ( not hoping) that it is going to happen, I will be truly surprised.
>
> > From your perspective, you aren't appreciating just how angry people are. When there are ABC polls
> > that reveal 40% of the voters still think Shrub's preside ncy is illegitimate, this isn't going
> > away. Do you really think improvements in the economy, a war, whatever, is going to make people
> > forget something like that?
>
> Yes, people seem to forget fast now.
Not in the Internet age. It's a new wrinkle in the business at hand. How
much have people forgotten about Clinton when the Internet is being used as a
tool to slash and burn? Now, if the mail passing through my email box is any
indication, the real battle won't be coming from the Democratic Party. It
will be coming from fed up citizens.
> > And twice you have brought in the Black angle with me when I have not
> > addressed it at all. I didn't say anything the first time. These events
> > don't just affect Blacks, and they certainly don't affect Blacks differently
> > than they do the rest of the citizens. For once it would be a pleasure if we
> > did not segregate ourselves.
>
> Kaiju, I quite agree that we should not segegate ourselve, but from my LIMITED experience that is
> exactly what I am seeing.
And this is one issue that needn't be reduced to segregated viewpoints. As it
is, if you notice, the conservakooks constantly counter with stupid assertions
that I am a leftist, a liberal, a supporter of Sharpton, Jackson, Waters,
etc. It's called marginalizing to distract from the valid points we may
make. Why feed into it? It is as deliberate as constantly demonizing Clinton
to distract from what the Bush clan is actually doing. Or not.
Kaiju
David McDuffee
> David Richardson wrote:
> Check The Nation. http://www.thenation.com.
You can always tell when someone is shooting blanks - instead of
providing a real reference, they send you on a wild goose chase to
a web site.
Not that a romp through thenation.com isn't entertaining in its own
right - the "What, me President?" caricature, the late-December
editorial calling for electors to defect and throw the election to
Gore in spite of the fact that, to this date, no vote count using ANY
standard has shown that anyone other than Bush won in Florida...
But there is one article of interest on the site, which suggests that
the ongoing recount will probably show that using the "clear intent of
the voter" standard, Gore would get more votes in Florida than Bush.
It seems that most of the OVERVOTES (something the Florida Supreme
Court wouldn't have counted even if they hadn't been overruled by the
USSC) were screwed up by Democrats. Even using the same ballots, in
the same counties, Democrats consistently managed to invalidate their
ballots at a rate which outstripped the Republicans'.
If there's one lesson to come out of Florida, besides the need for
ballot reform, it's the need for voter education. Ah, but there's
the Catch-22. An informed, educated voter tends to be a Republican
voter. If the Democrats stop bussing in the homeless to cast ballots,
and start educating their own voter base, is their fear that once the
wheels of thought start turning, they'll turn Republican?
--
David McDuffee
mcdu...@best.com
trudogg®
> If there's one lesson to come out of Florida, besides the need for
> ballot reform, it's the need for voter education. Ah, but there's
> the Catch-22. An informed, educated voter tends to be a Republican
> voter. If the Democrats stop bussing in the homeless to cast ballots,
> and start educating their own voter base, is their fear that once the
> wheels of thought start turning, they'll turn Republican?
...that's a stretch. Education is a poor benchmark for people turning to
the Republican Party...money is a better one.
Spectre
Kaiju wrote:
What a waste of time! And when the day is done just what do you think that you will have
accomplished with your observations? Bush will shug off your ineffective attacks, the
American people will have moved on to other weighty, more important issues, and you and
your group of sour pusses will still be outside hollering about "we wuz robbed"
Charley Brown and SNOOPY
on Black people. Being White allows us to know who is an alien or not. We
are conducting various test on you and we can watch what you are doing 24
hours a day in our secret spaceships.
"David Richardson" <drichards...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A9646A4...@yahoo.com...
ol...@nospam.com
>Kaiju wrote...
>
>> Look. I don't care what personal political leanings the justices have. I
>> don't want those leanings entering into their judicial decisions. In
other
>> words, I strenuously object to judicial activism. I don't care which
>> political philosophy is involved. If the Court is involved in judicial
>> activism, we are left with two branches of government, and there is no
>> possibility of Constitutional proscribed checks and balances.
>
>federal level? Inquiring minds want to know...
Wonder if Kaiju agreed with Judge Thelton Henderson's granting an injunction
to stop the California Civil Rights Initiative back in "97"? The opponents of
the initiative invoked the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming the initiative
would "impose a special burden on minorities". Henderson's injunction was
basically supporting the idea that a law BANNING racial preferences was a
violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore should be regarded as
unconstitutional.
Certainly seems to smell of judicial activism to me. Of course the Ninth
Circuit Court, in reinstating the initiative, found the position of Henderson
not only wrong, but incoherent. The Ninth Circuit observed: After all, the
"goal" of the Fourteenth Amendment, "to which the Nation continues to aspire"
is "a politicl system in which race no longer matters."
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
The Devil's Advocate©
>...that's a stretch. Education is a poor benchmark for people turning to
>the Republican Party...money is a better one.
I disagree, if you look at a map of the counties that voted across the nation it
basically entirely red on the inside and blue on the coastal cities. Even in
California, the Gore territory is limited to the coast and the entire interior
is conservative. You can't tell me that everyone that voted for Bush from small
town Idaho, to Gore's lost state of Tennessee is rich. The benchmark is those
that have conservative values. I think in the debate we've been seeing here
lately, people act as if there are no major differences between the parties
except economic policies. To many, abortion alone is enough to determine who
gets a vote.
The Devil's Advocate©
>> > A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE > SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE by Mark
>H.
>> Levine, Attorney at Law.
>> >
>> >
>> > Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court
>> decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
>> >
>> > A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore
>got
>> > the most votes.
It's called the Electoral College. We've never had popular presidential
elections, what's everyone huffing and puffing about it for now?
>> > Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason,
>right?
>> >
>> > A: Right!
>> >
>> > Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
>> >
>> > A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the >
>> hand-counts were legal and should be done.
>> >
>> > Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would
>find >
>> any legal ballots? >
>> >
>> > A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine
>> justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an
>> unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete
>way
>> by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't
>>
>> be.
Oh well... It might also help if Democrats hadn't punched so many damned
overvotes.
>> >
>> >
>> > Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't >
>> conservatives love that?
>> >
>> >
>> > A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have
>held >
>> that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state
>> university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is
>> prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business
>> telling > a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal
>> government use the equal protection clause to force states to take
>measures
>> to stop violence against women.
It isn't a matter of state's right, are you aware that this was a *national*
election?
>> >
>> > Q: Is there an exception in this case?
>> >
>> > A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own
>state
>> elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This
>decision
>> is limited to only this situation.
Or perhaps it means counting votes that are legimate. Besides, if the goal is to
"make sure every vote gets counted." Then why not hand count and interpret the
votes of the entire nation's overvotes? Of course we know the real goal wasn't
to make sure "every bote gets counted," but rather to keep re-counting and
changing standards until Gore wins.
>> > Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
>> >
>> > A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
>> circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes
>> generally presents many complexities."
>> >
>> > Q: What complexities?
>> >
>> > A: They don't say.
>> >
>> > Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The
>votes
>> can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of
>the
>> > election after it was held." Right?
>> >
>> > A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida
>Supreme
>> Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court
>> found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.
>> >
>> > Q: Huh?
>> >
>> > A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting
>vote
>> is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not
>> adopting a clearer standard.
>> >
>> > Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the
>Legislature's
>> law after the election.
>> >
>> > A: Right.
>> >
>> > Q: So what's the problem?
>> >
>> > A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme
>Court
>> > should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what
>is
>> > a legal vote"
>> >
>> > Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
>> >
>> > A: Right.
>> >
>> > Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have
>> > been overturned.
>> >
>> > A: Right. You're catching on.
>> >
>> > Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been
>overturned
>> > for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not
>changing the
>> rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did,
>legal
>> votes could never be counted.
>> >
>> > A: Right. Next question.
>> >
>> >
>> > Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that
>some
>> counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
>> >
>> > A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of
>systems.
>> Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties
>> record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely
>> Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So
>approximately
>> > 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.
>> >
>> > Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
>> >
>> > A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of
>> Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity"
>was
>> > not a problem.
What about the complexitiy of all those Democratic overvotes? Or the hundreds of
illegally cast felon votes. Or that the election was called when the
conservative panhandle still had time to go to the polls(no one will ever know
how many people may have stayed home in the panhandle after the election was
prematurely called).
>> >
>> > Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked
>> > more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.
>> >
>> >
>> > A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan
>got his
>> highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home
>with
>> Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.
>> >
>> > Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?
>> >
>> > A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of
>Democrats
>> (largely African-American) disenfranchised.
Disenfranchised, gimme a break. I notice that word "disenfranchised" is so
frequently and inaccurately used by the left that I just glaze over as soon as I
hear the word used.
>The problem is that somewhat
>> less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly
>> different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their
>> best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter"
>> may have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent.
>> >
>> > Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count
>the
>> > votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?
>> >
>> > A: Nope.
>> >
>> > Q: Why not?
>> >
>> > A: No time.
>> >
>> > Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans,
>agree
>> > the intent is clear? Why not?
>> >
>> > A: Because December 12 was yesterday.
>> >
>> > Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
>> >
>> > A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't
>> > counted until January 4.
>> >
>> > Q: So why is December 12 important?
>> >
>> > A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the
>results.
>> >
>> > Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme
>Court?
>> >
>> > A: Nothing.
>> >
>> > Q: But I thought ---
>> >
>> > A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to
>complete its
>> work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States
>> Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing
>the
>> Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.
>> >
>> > Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the
>> > votes counted by December 12.
>> >
>> > A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices
>stopped
>> > the recount last Saturday.
>> >
>> > Q: Why?
>> >
>> > A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.
>> >
>> > Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore,
>hanging
>> chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the
>> other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who
>won?
>> Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the
>> American people will know right away who won Florida.
>> >
>> > A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that
>such
>> counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and
>Gore's
>> > winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast[] a cloud"
>over
>> > Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."
>> >
>> > Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they
>won't
>> > accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
This guy has no idea who would have won those overvotes, nothing but fluff and
speculation. The thing is Gore is simply humiliated that he lost an election
when his administration comes on the heels of prosperity, peace and lower crime
rates. Gore wanted to be president his whole life, and he came within a hair of
it. It was set up for him, and if he couldn't win it by at least 10% as he
should have given the state of the nation(before the economic downturn anyway),
he must have been a lousy candidate.
>> > A: Yes.
>> >
>> > Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
>> >
>> > A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law,
>this
>> reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives
>> from creating new law out of thin air.
>> >
>> > Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
>> >
>> > A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
No matter what reason the Supreme Court had for their decisions, they were going
to be accused of "judicial activism" no matter what. The definition of "judicial
activism" = when judges come to decisions we don't agree with. When they do,
it's called "justice."
>> >
>> > Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count
>the
>> votes?
>> >
>> > A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is
>not
>> > binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December
>12.
>> >
>> > Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for
>> > arbitrarily setting a deadline?
>> >
>> > A: Yes.
>> >
>> > Q: But, but --
>> >
>> > A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws
>it
>> > sets for other courts.
>> >
>> > Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
>> >
>> > A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the
>mob
>> > in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and
>the
>> > US Supreme Court for stopping the recount.
He got his recounts, it didn't work.
>> >
>> > Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
>> >
>> > A: Gore, of course.
>> >
>> > Q: Tell me this: Florida's laws are unconstitutional, right?
>> >
>> > A: Yes
>> >
>> > Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted
>> > differently are unconstitutional?
>> >
>> > A: Yes. And 33 of those states have the "clear intent of the voter"
>> > standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.
>> >
>> > Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
>> >
>> > A: Um. Because...um.....the Supreme Court doesn't say...
For that matter, then maybe we should've hand counted all of these 33 states to
get "the clear intent of the voter." Every vote should count, right? Or is it
just the votes of select Democratic counties? Of course conservative military
votes with no postmark should not count, never mind that the intent of the voter
was very clear.
The Devil's Advocate©
>I rather doubt it. From a recent report I read, Floridians are pissed off, as
>well...to the extent large numbers have switched their party affiliation from
>independent and Republican to Democratic. This trend is picking up momentum.
Au Contraire. Polls confirm what others have told you. That Bush is picking up
popularity. Clinton however, due to his pardon scandals is quickly sliding.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=341
I think rightfully, most Americans will get over being a partisan and start
being an American once again. Bush is in office whether you like it or not, and
if some crises came up in which we need a strong leader in office, bickering
over hanging chads and other bullshit is going to be quite counterproductive.
Kaiju
David Richardson wrote:
>
> Jeez, gimme a break!
David, how else do you explain why I can find all of these news articles about
the Bush clan, and you haven't heard of them?
The Devil's Advocate©
>
>And this is one issue that needn't be reduced to segregated viewpoints. As it
>is, if you notice, the conservakooks constantly counter with stupid assertions
>that I am a leftist, a liberal, a supporter of Sharpton, Jackson, Waters,
>etc. It's called marginalizing to distract from the valid points we may
>make. Why feed into it? It is as deliberate as constantly demonizing Clinton
>to distract from what the Bush clan is actually doing. Or not.
The problem is, all you do is criticize but offer very little solutions
yourself. I recently asked you "what workable solutions" ought to be in place
and you replied with an insult. You say you're not a liberal(and please don't
say, "I'm a progressive"), well then please tell us some major liberal positions
that you are opposed to.
"Bush Clan"? Is emotional rhetoric like this really necessary? Come on, like
Bush is really *that* bad. Even if I were a Democrat opposed to his presidency,
I wouldn't speak so ill of him.
The Devil's Advocate©
>First, he didn't lose. The Supreme Court did something unprecedented and
>contradictory to its own prior decisions and the Constitution. I care about
>things like that. Second, I see no reason to "move on". Fuck that.
Well the rest of the country will, whether you join us or not.
The Devil's Advocate©
<drichards...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Another ridiculous ploy to distract the public from Shrub and his pals who
>> sink Japanese boats.
>
>Oh, come on! Do you really think that this was deliberate.
After that comment, I wonder if Kaiju should even be taken seriously now.
Kaiju
"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
> The problem is, all you do is criticize but offer very little solutions
> yourself. I recently asked you "what workable solutions" ought to be in place
> and you replied with an insult. You say you're not a liberal(and please don't
> say, "I'm a progressive"), well then please tell us some major liberal positions
> that you are opposed to.
>
> "Bush Clan"? Is emotional rhetoric like this really necessary? Come on, like
> Bush is really *that* bad. Even if I were a Democrat opposed to his presidency,
> I wouldn't speak so ill of him.
I told you my groundrules from the beginning.
The Devil's Advocate©
Perhaps you should head to France for 4 years, and take Alek Baldwin and Cher
with you.
Kaiju
"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:11:58 -0800, David Richardson
> <drichards...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Another ridiculous ploy to distract the public from Shrub and his pals who
> >> sink Japanese boats.
> >
> >Oh, come on! Do you really think that this was deliberate.
>
> After that comment, I wonder if Kaiju should even be taken seriously now.
Just can't handle it, can you? Keep watching. Every time Shrub's people
screw up, you can expect to see Clinton or a high-profile Democrat in the
headlines. And watch where the stories break. More often than not, it will
either be from the FOX network or the Washington Times. It will be no
coincidence.
Kaiju
The Devil's Advocate©
I am disappointed that you didn't respond to the first paragraph. If you simply
want ideological privacy, let it be known. But if that is not the case I would
like to hear some form of a reply to:
>The problem is, all you do is criticize but offer very little solutions
>yourself. I recently asked you "what workable solutions" ought to be in place
>and you replied with an insult. You say you're not a liberal(and please don't
>say, "I'm a progressive"), well then please tell us some major liberal positions
>that you are opposed to.
What are the liberal positions you are opposed to? With regards to the Death
Penalty? Affirmative Action? Economics? Military spending? Abortion? If you are
not a liberal, so be it, but if you are not one, then obviously there are
politics you disagree on with liberals. You have failed to mention them.
Kaiju
"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>
> I think your fixation with hating Bush is becoming obsessive if not neurotic.
> Perhaps you should head to France for 4 years, and take Alek Baldwin and Cher
> with you.
Why? To make things more comfortable for you? So you don't have to consider
what I'm writing here might be the truth?
Nah. I'm just getting started.
Kaiju
"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:12:52 -0800, Kaiju <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >I told you my groundrules from the beginning.
>
> I am disappointed that you didn't respond to the first paragraph. If you simply
> want ideological privacy, let it be known. But if that is not the case I would
> like to hear some form of a reply to:
>
> >The problem is, all you do is criticize but offer very little solutions
> >yourself. I recently asked you "what workable solutions" ought to be in place
> >and you replied with an insult. You say you're not a liberal(and please don't
> >say, "I'm a progressive"), well then please tell us some major liberal positions
> >that you are opposed to.
>
> What are the liberal positions you are opposed to? With regards to the Death
> Penalty? Affirmative Action? Economics? Military spending? Abortion? If you are
> not a liberal, so be it, but if you are not one, then obviously there are
> politics you disagree on with liberals. You have failed to mention them.
I am not the issue. Shrub and his people are.
trudogg®
> I disagree, if you look at a map of the counties that voted across the nation it
> basically entirely red on the inside and blue on the coastal cities. Even in
> California, the Gore territory is limited to the coast and the entire interior
> is conservative. You can't tell me that everyone that voted for Bush from small
> town Idaho, to Gore's lost state of Tennessee is rich. The benchmark is those
> that have conservative values. I think in the debate we've been seeing here
> lately, people act as if there are no major differences between the parties
> except economic policies. To many, abortion alone is enough to determine who
> gets a vote.
...first, it was a smartass answer to a smartass comment. If anything
the Dems have more education than the Reps. But the money angle follows
conservative values. Too many, who were liberal thinkers in their youth,
start to draw back and get really conservative when the cash starts to
amass. There's nothing wrong with that, simply an observation.
But the lower income types who gravitate towards the Reps, in my
experience, tend to be strict law and order thinkers...among other
things. It's the other things that tend to bother me...
The Devil's Advocate©
>...first, it was a smartass answer to a smartass comment. If anything
>the Dems have more education than the Reps.
Buf if you looked at the under/over/mis/votes or whatever they're now called,
the Dems were far more likely to not know how to vote than the Reps, even in the
same counties. But then, Academia is liberal, so I don't know.
>But the money angle follows
>conservative values. Too many, who were liberal thinkers in their youth,
>start to draw back and get really conservative when the cash starts to
>amass.
>There's nothing wrong with that, simply an observation.
Maybe so. It's interesting to know though that conservative states give a larger
share of their income to charity than liberal states.
>But the lower income types who gravitate towards the Reps, in my
>experience, tend to be strict law and order thinkers...among other
>things.
Or just plain redneck to be perfectly honest, we can all admit that.
David Richardson
I have always gotten a chuckle from those movies where we see the "government"
working flawlessly in some secret plot. But in reality I was always worried in the
service about how much luck really played in our successes.
It just seems beyond the pale that some news organization would allow something
like that to happen or even make it happen.
Next thing you are going to tell me is that you read the "The Lone Gunmen" and
"Paranoid Times" (X-Files and The First Wave respectively!)
dratster
David Richardson
organization that broke the latest pardon sandal (Hugh Rodham)?
I have to imagine that it must be snowy where you are at and you have been locked
in the house for the past couple of days. In the past year since I've been on this
forum I have always seen your posts as intelligent and logical. It seems to ME that
your frustration of Bush's alleged theft of the election has put you in this mode.
dratster
trudogg®
> Buf if you looked at the under/over/mis/votes or whatever they're now called,
> the Dems were far more likely to not know how to vote than the Reps, even in the
> same counties. But then, Academia is liberal, so I don't know.
...I can't speak for all states, but down here in Florida, Miami
actually, the voter confusion is mostly older voters. And somehow I
don't think even simplistic electronic voting is gonna help them.
> Maybe so. It's interesting to know though that conservative states give a larger
> share of their income to charity than liberal states.
...far be it from me to knock charity endowers. But before we get all
misty eyed about this, how much of what's given is a write-off? And how
much of it is anonymous...
> Or just plain redneck to be perfectly honest, we can all admit that.
...it is always nice to know who you're rubbing shoulders with at the
rallies...
Kaiju
David Richardson wrote:
>
> I don't know, maybe you are right; but god, do we have to be this paranoid.
Due diligence is required of all citizens. Those who trust blindly are fools.
> I have always gotten a chuckle from those movies where we see the "government"
> working flawlessly in some secret plot. But in reality I was always worried in the
> service about how much luck really played in our successes.
Hmmmm...
> It just seems beyond the pale that some news organization would allow something
> like that to happen or even make it happen.
>
> Next thing you are going to tell me is that you read the "The Lone Gunmen" and
> "Paranoid Times" (X-Files and The First Wave respectively!)
No. In fact, I laugh at conspiracists. The thing is, what I'm writing here
appears to be backed by facts. The same, or similar, stories have been
reported in different newspapers. Then, there is the recent conference the
conservatives held where they were making plans to present the "proper" PR to
the media. That is mighty interesting reading.
Be that as it may, I take it you don't know the story of Chiquita Banana,
then? There was an excellent demonstration of how far people in power will go
to maintain that power. (I keep wondering why a movie was never made of that
episode. I caught onto it via a documentary on the History Channel, then did
some further research on my own.)
I also wonder how you can think I'm making this up considering this country's
more recent history with Nixon. I know he has been subject to quite a bit of
curative revisionist history of late, but he did some very interesting things
with the media...until two mavericks caught up with him.
Kaiju <check it out...United Fruit Co., circa early 1950's...>
The Devil's Advocate©
<drichards...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have to imagine that it must be snowy where you are at and you have been locked
>in the house for the past couple of days. In the past year since I've been on this
>forum I have always seen your posts as intelligent and logical. It seems to ME that
>your frustration of Bush's alleged theft of the election has put you in this mode.
I was thinking the same. Even though I disagree w/ Kaiju more often than not, I
would see her opinions as being pretty rational. Since she came back, it's like
she turned rabid or something.
Kaiju
David Richardson wrote:
>
> So is the National Inquirer also apart of this Shrub conspiracy? Weren't they the
> organization that broke the latest pardon sandal (Hugh Rodham)?
Were they the ones who first broke the stories about the pardons at all?
Look, there have been several controversial pardons. The only ones being
questioned are the ones Clinton made. What about the ones Shrub's Daddy made
when he left office? He made fewer pardons than almost any exiting
president. But one was notable. Of a convicted drug trafficker who had 45
years left to his sentence. Investigative reporters seem to think there was
some heavy juice involved there.
What? Never heard this story? Gee. Wonder why.
> I have to imagine that it must be snowy where you are at and you have been locked
> in the house for the past couple of days. In the past year since I've been on this
> forum I have always seen your posts as intelligent and logical. It seems to ME that
> your frustration of Bush's alleged theft of the election has put you in this mode.
The election was just more brick in the wall, and the theft was not
"alleged". I never liked Bush or Shrub, and for years the media has been
curiously soft on both of them...while they both whine about the liberal
media. Har. I simply never said anything. I like less the fawning over
those two that I've been seeing here, as though it is automatic that they
should be accepted as all that is well and good. It isn't. You may not see
it yet, and maybe you won't...since the news you see is limited. But it's out
there, should you just take a close look. I found it easily enough. But then
I have less need than you to protect, support and believe in the Bush clan.
So if you think I'm not being intelligent and logical here, then you are
fooling yourself. There are facts underlying my sarcasm.
Conservative Voice
Kaiju <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A94C142...@mindspring.com...
>
>
>
>
> Another Bushit:
>
> "I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the
> legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the
> difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute
> them."-Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000
>
> And we all know how much Shrub loves executions, lawmakers or otherwise.
>
> --
February 23, 2001
The man has no dignity
WASHINGTON -- Question: Name one thing beneath Bill Clinton's dignity.
Answer: This is a trick question, like asking whether zero is odd or even.
It has no known answer.
The following story dramatizes the point. On the eve of George Washington's
birthday, Bill Clinton acknowledged that his brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham,
had accepted loot from criminals eager to obtain presidential pardons.
Clinton said he learned of the scam from "press inquiries" and professed
shock that anybody would trade on his good name. "Neither Hillary nor I had
any knowledge of such payments," he said of the $400,000 or so that appeared
in Hugh Rodham's bank account on the first business day after the pardons.
"We are deeply disturbed by these reports and have insisted that Hugh return
any monies received."
This alibi has holes. Hugh Rodham lived in the White House during the final
days of the Clinton presidency. Clinton did know his brother-in-law was
pushing a pardon for scam artist Glen Braswell and a commutation for
convicted drug kingpin Carlos Vignali.
Braswell, who is still under investigation for tax evasion and money
laundering, actually hired Rodham on a contingency basis. That's pretty
cheeky, but not surprising considering that Braswell once peddled a compound
he said could a) regrow hair, b) dissolve cellulite and c) create larger,
fuller bosoms for the ladies: Something for everybody in the Rich family!
Horacio Vignali, father of the drug-convict son, similarly embarked on a
well-documented crusade to spring his kid from prison. He donated handsomely
to a lot of politicians, scattered a few greenbacks in the general direction
of the Clinton family and somehow suckered Roger Cardinal Mahoney, the
Catholic prelate of Los Angeles.
So, envision the chain of events: Rodham promises to deliver the legal
goods. He's hanging out in the White House. He has a history of trying to
turn a buck on the basis of family ties -- most famously, by inserting
himself into tobacco-litigation talks in 1996-97 and trying to broker a $118
million deal in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, using as his business
partner a bitter enemy of Georgian President Eduard Schevardnadze, an old
friend of the United States.
So the pardons go through. And who is playing golf with Bill Clinton the day
the checks clear? Hugh Rodham! Past testimony from Vernon Jordan indicates
that no topic is too lewd for discussion when Bill Clinton goes duffing. But
Clinton says the topic never came up, ever.
Fine: Let's turn to the truly important point. In recent days, the nation's
Democratic officeholders have described Clinton's behavior as shocking,
embarrassing, inappropriate, troubling, disturbing, mortifying and so on --
but not one has mustered the moral courage to say: Clinton is a bad man, and
he should leave the Democratic Party alone. Only Jimmy Carter and Hamilton
Jordan, men who left politics two decades ago, have spoken out.
Here's the Democrats' dilemma: Bill Clinton has forced each and every one of
his allies to surrender their souls -- to defend the indefensible, deny the
obvious, proclaim the fallacious; to assault the righteous and protect the
corrupt; to say good is evil and evil is good. Democrats took hits for
Clinton out of party loyalty, persuading themselves that a few lies on
Clinton's behalf were preferable to giving Republicans the satisfaction of
saying, "Told you so!"
The problem is that souls don't grow back as swiftly as crab claws; often,
they don't grow back at all. In saving Bill Clinton, Democrats gutted
themselves -- turned their backs on a proud heritage of standing boldly for
their beliefs. When Richard Nixon wanted to weather the Watergate fury,
Republican elder Barry Goldwater led a delegation to the White House and
told Nixon he had to go.
There is a simple reason why Hugh Rodham, Jack Quinn and others thought they
could secure controversial pardons for fun and profit. They knew nobody in
Casa Clinton would bat an eye. The White House had become a zone freed from
the rule of law, the governance of traditional standards and the restraints
of conscience.
Yet, today's Democratic leaders remain silent -- perhaps afraid of
surrendering the best fund-raiser they have ever seen; perhaps frightful of
what may appear when reporters lift the next rock.
But sooner or later, someone will have to say what's obvious to one and all:
The man made fools of us all -- and in the end, he saved the worst abuses
and humiliations for his fellow Democrats.
©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Conservative Voice
>
>
> Frankly, I never cared. He could have been schtupping every female in the
> White House, and I wouldn't care. I wanted to know how he was doing his
job.
Conservative Voice
>
>
> David Richardson wrote:
> >
> > So is the National Inquirer also apart of this Shrub conspiracy?
Weren't they the
> > organization that broke the latest pardon sandal (Hugh Rodham)?
>
> Were they the ones who first broke the stories about the pardons at all?
> Look, there have been several controversial pardons. The only ones being
> questioned are the ones Clinton made. What about the ones Shrub's Daddy
made
> when he left office? He made fewer pardons than almost any exiting
> president. But one was notable. Of a convicted drug trafficker who had
45
> years left to his sentence. Investigative reporters seem to think there
was
> some heavy juice involved there.
>
February 23, 2001
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>Be that as it may, I take it you don't know the story of Chiquita Banana,
>then? There was an excellent demonstration of how far people in power will go
>to maintain that power. (I keep wondering why a movie was never made of that
>episode. I caught onto it via a documentary on the History Channel, then did
>some further research on my own.)
>
>I also wonder how you can think I'm making this up considering this country's
>more recent history with Nixon. I know he has been subject to quite a bit of
>curative revisionist history of late, but he did some very interesting things
>with the media...until two mavericks caught up with him.
>
>
>Kaiju <check it out...United Fruit Co., circa early 1950's...>
The United Fruit Company was running their stunts clean into the
mid-60's, hand in hand with the CIA, running "banana republics" all
over the Caribbean and Central America.
Even when the Church Commission outed all their lunatic moves in the
mid-Seventies, the operation didn't really die; it just changed modes,
went into transportation instead of plantations, and didn't really
stop functioning until the Iran/Contra nonsense and all of their side
jobs as cocaine runners for the cartels came to light.
Wayne "Some folks just turn a blind eye to it; it's not conspiracy
stuff...it's just yesterday's news" Johnson
*************************************************
Herodotus tells us that in 480 B.C., 300 Spartans
and their allies held off two million Persian
soldiers, under King Xerxes, at the pass of Thermopylae.
They held on for seven days. They fought to the last man.
Five days into the battle, seeing the impossible odds,
Xerxes offered Leonidas, King of the Spartans, the lives
and freedom of his men. The only condition: they must
lay down their arms.
Leonidas answered with two words,which are inscribed on
the modern monument there: "Molon Labe".
Translated from the ancient Greek, it means simply:
"Come and get them."
Wayne Johnson
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>I think your fixation with hating Bush is becoming obsessive if not neurotic.
So far, he hasn't done shit except for miss half the targets in Iraq,
and appoint John Ashcroft.
>Perhaps you should head to France for 4 years, and take Alek Baldwin and Cher
>with you.
Did any of the Clinton haters do that?
Wayne "Even Pepe Le Pew would be grossed out by the Limbaugh types"
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>David McDuffee wrote...
>
>> If there's one lesson to come out of Florida, besides the need for
>> ballot reform, it's the need for voter education. Ah, but there's
>> the Catch-22. An informed, educated voter tends to be a Republican
>> voter. If the Democrats stop bussing in the homeless to cast ballots,
>> and start educating their own voter base, is their fear that once the
>> wheels of thought start turning, they'll turn Republican?
>
>...that's a stretch. Education is a poor benchmark for people turning to
>the Republican Party...money is a better one.
That doesn't explain how the Democrats raised all that money in 2000
though, does it?
It didn't all come from labor unions.
Wayne "Hint: the Confederate Flag issue counts for a lot with the GOP"
Wayne Johnson
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:14:09 -0500, trudogg® <tru...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>...that's a stretch. Education is a poor benchmark for people turning to
>>the Republican Party...money is a better one.
>
>I disagree, if you look at a map of the counties that voted across the nation it
>basically entirely red on the inside and blue on the coastal cities.
Yeah, yeah, and the popular election was a virtual tie. All this
mystical reading of maps is ludicrous, and you know it.
>Even in
>California, the Gore territory is limited to the coast and the entire interior
>is conservative.
That's where the population is massed, for crying out loud.
Name one city with a population of one million that voted Republican
in California...a state with over twenty million citizens.
>You can't tell me that everyone that voted for Bush from small
>town Idaho, to Gore's lost state of Tennessee is rich.
Or that every vote in Marin County for Gore was a homeless ex-convict.
What's your point?
>The benchmark is those that have conservative values.
Like me, I suppose. Get real.
>I think in the debate we've been seeing here
>lately, people act as if there are no major differences between the parties
>except economic policies.
Nope; there's the Confederate Flag, banning the teaching of evolution
in science class, and all that stuff.
>To many, abortion alone is enough to determine who
>gets a vote.
If that was the issue, Gore would be President.
Wayne "Think about it" Johnson
David Richardson
Kaiju wrote:
> Of a convicted drug trafficker who had 45
> years left to his sentence. Investigative reporters seem to think there was
> some heavy juice involved there.
Alsma Adams or some such name, he had less than two years before he was
up for parole.
My take on this is that he was either involved in the CIA or there was
some political
quid pro quo withPakistan. I just doesn;t make sense that he was doing
it for some
self-enrichment. The then czar Bennett was very silent on this issue.
so something must
have gone on.
> What? Never heard this story? Gee. Wonder why.
No I am somewhat familiar with this story and you can easily find it on
the Internet.
Sorry, I guess it wasm't scrubbed enough!
> The election was just more brick in the wall, and the theft was not
> "alleged". I never liked Bush or Shrub, and for years the media has been
> curiously soft on both of them...while they both whine about the liberal
> media.
Well it bothers me because I think that this type of attitude both from
Republicans and
Democrats is hurting the country. I really think we are going to have a
larger economic
down turn than has been predicted. And when we have such a down turn,
the Black community
suffers the most. One other thing I noted to the racists is that during
economic hard
times we see an increasing trend in violence These milestones can be
sen clearly when
viewing the FBI's data on violence.
> Har. I simply never said anything. I like less the fawning over
> those two that I've been seeing here, as though it is automatic that they
> should be accepted as all that is well and good. It isn't.
> You may not see it yet, and maybe you won't...since the news you see is limited. But
> it's out there, should you just take a close look. I found it easily enough. But then
> I have less need than you to protect, support and believe in the Bush clan.
I just cannot believe that the news media is so manipulated that they
have no ability to
get and expose these things.
> So if you think I'm not being intelligent and logical here, then you are
> fooling yourself. There are facts underlying my sarcasm.
Well we shall see how right or wrong you are in the next four years.
One other thing, I spent my spare time today speaking with a lot of
college students and
I just don't se the level of interest that you do. I am out in
California which was
solid Bush country and when we spoke about this in class, I still did
not see the level
of anger and frustration that I see from you. Most of these people are
either NAder or
Gore supporters too.
dratster
The Devil's Advocate©
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:47:08 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
><NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:14:09 -0500, trudogg® <tru...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>...that's a stretch. Education is a poor benchmark for people turning to
>>>the Republican Party...money is a better one.
>>
>>I disagree, if you look at a map of the counties that voted across the nation it
>>basically entirely red on the inside and blue on the coastal cities.
>
>Yeah, yeah, and the popular election was a virtual tie. All this
>mystical reading of maps is ludicrous, and you know it.
Don't know what's mystical about. This map says a lot about the state of the
nation:
http://fs.huntingdon.edu/history/jlewis/Outlines/BushCountyMapMandate.htm
>>Even in
>>California, the Gore territory is limited to the coast and the entire interior
>>is conservative.
>
>That's where the population is massed, for crying out loud.
What difference does that make? There is an obviously an unnatural distribution
of votes in California. Look at the map. Imperial County was the only inland
California country to go for Gore.
>>The benchmark is those that have conservative values.
>
>Like me, I suppose. Get real.
Name some major liberal positions with which you disagree.
>>I think in the debate we've been seeing here
>>lately, people act as if there are no major differences between the parties
>>except economic policies.
>
>Nope; there's the Confederate Flag, banning the teaching of evolution
>in science class, and all that stuff.
>
>>To many, abortion alone is enough to determine who
>>gets a vote.
>
>If that was the issue, Gore would be President.
Huh? Gore didn't even want to ban late-term abortion.
trudogg®
> That doesn't explain how the Democrats raised all that money in 2000
> though, does it?
> It didn't all come from labor unions.
...no it didn't. It's called covering your bets, and anyone inside the
Beltway that's serious spreads the wealth on both sides of the aisle...
> Wayne "Hint: the Confederate Flag issue counts for a lot with the GOP"
> Johnson
...there does seem to be strong addiction to lost causes within that
party...
BlackConservative
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:47:08 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
><NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:14:09 -0500, trudogg® <tru...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>...that's a stretch. Education is a poor benchmark for people turning to
>>>the Republican Party...money is a better one.
>>
>>I disagree, if you look at a map of the counties that voted across the nation it
>>basically entirely red on the inside and blue on the coastal cities.
>
>Yeah, yeah, and the popular election was a virtual tie. All this
>mystical reading of maps is ludicrous, and you know it.
Still re-running the last election, I see. This is a good thing. As long as
leftists keep harking back to "that stolen election", we conservatives can keep
our eye on the ball. 2002, looks like good news. 2004, kinda far off, but it's
looking better every day.
<snip>
>>I think in the debate we've been seeing here
>>lately, people act as if there are no major differences between the parties
>>except economic policies.
>
>Nope; there's the Confederate Flag, banning the teaching of evolution
>in science class, and all that stuff.
And please... let's not forget reparations. Gotta keep the "important" things in
perspective.
>>To many, abortion alone is enough to determine who
>>gets a vote.
>
>If that was the issue, Gore would be President.
If the queen (read: algore) had balls, she would be king (read: Bush).
>Wayne "Think about it" Johnson
OK... thirty seconds wasted... what's next?
The New Black Voice
White
Charley Brown and SNOOPY <pea...@snoopy.net> wrote in message
news:3a96...@usenet.cros.net...
> Actually all of us White people are aliens. We are conducting an
experiment
> on Black people. Being White allows us to know who is an alien or not. We
> are conducting various test on you and we can watch what you are doing 24
> hours a day in our secret spaceships.
>
> "David Richardson" <drichards...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A9646A4...@yahoo.com...
> > Jeez, gimme a break! This reminds me of the two Saturday Night Live
> skits. One was where Regan was this
> > feeble-minded genial guy until the public wasn't around, then turned
into
> this manipulative and sneeky
> > guy. Or the Eddie Murphy skit when he pretended to be White and found
out
> that Whites were acting
> > different when Blacks were not around.
> >
> > If we have to be so paranoid about life, then I need to get away from
all
> you crazy folk.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Oh, yes. I definitely believe there is a concerted Republican effort
to
> > > destroy Clinton and to manipulate the media reports about Shrub. The
> > > impeachment didn't result in the desired conclusion. In fact, every
> time and
> > > method the conservatives used to destroy Clinton resulted in failure.
> So the
> > > witch hunt continues. The problem with this is unless you dig way
down
> in the
> > > news stories, you will miss all of the garbage the Bush clan has been
> doing
> > > for years. Stories that are less than favorable to Bush are hidden in
> the back
> > > pages. Those slamming Clinton are on the front pages.
> > >
> > > Case in point: The trashing of the White House and the looting of Air
> Force
> > > One. That one got lots of ink and pixels. The problem is, the story
> was
> > > planted by Shrub's PR man, Ari Fleisher, first to the Washington Times
> (owned
> > > by the Moonies, long time pals of Bush I...but that is another post).
> > > Excellent opportunity to prove the evil Clintons are not only liars
and
> > > thieves, but are totally morally reprehensible. Right? The problem
is,
> it
> > > never happened. The Clinton staff did remove the "W's" from computer
> > > keyboards, but essentially that was it. So who's lying here? And did
> you
> > > ever see the stories retracting the allegations? Of course you
didn't.
> >
> > But I also heard Bush say that the stories were all exaggerations and we
> need to move on.
> >
> > You are right, so who is lying here and how do YOU know who is telling
the
> truth. I guess Republicans
> > are evil and Democrats are good.
> >
> > Yeah right.
> >
> > > What you see in the media is a benign, inclusive Shrub, bent on moving
> on.
> > > While in the background, his handlers are actually instituting retro
> policies
> > > the likes of which have destroyed what progress we've gained in the
past
> 75
> > > years. Smaller government? The conservatives are determined to
> micromanage
> > > more of our lives than any Democrat ever envisioned. Tax cut? Only
if
> you
> > > are among the 1% of the wealthiest people in the country. But you
won't
> learn
> > > about any of this unless you hunt really hard for it. So if you don't
> know,
> > > you'll think everything is just fine, and won't complain.
> >
> > Damn, if this was all true, I would suggest you be awfully careful
because
> they might
> > "scrub" you. ( hey guys, I was just talking with her...)
> >
> > >
> > > Yarite. Gimme Clinton and his tendency to drop his trousers any day.
> At
> > > least we knew what he was up to. True or otherwise.
> >
> > Or perhaps the trouser were just a distraction from real agenda...
> >
> > > Before you think, think.
> >
> > Kaiju, do you honestly believe all of this stuff???
> >
> > dratster
> >
> >
>
>
Charley Brown and SNOOPY
"Wayne Johnson" <ciac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a974a7d...@nntp.we.mediaone.net...
Spectre
"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:18:00 -0800, David Richardson
> <drichards...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I have to imagine that it must be snowy where you are at and you have been locked
> >in the house for the past couple of days. In the past year since I've been on this
> >forum I have always seen your posts as intelligent and logical. It seems to ME that
> >your frustration of Bush's alleged theft of the election has put you in this mode.
>
> I was thinking the same. Even though I disagree w/ Kaiju more often than not, I
> would see her opinions as being pretty rational. Since she came back, it's like
> she turned rabid or something.
>
She needs a man. That's all. A weekend with a man would have her purring. Look at what
it did for Black Beauty.
The Devil's Advocate©
>She needs a man. That's all. A weekend with a man would have her purring. Look at what
>it did for Black Beauty.
I'd love to hear an explanation from BB. Maybe that is why she disappeared. But
then she said she was on some web-based black woman's forums too.
Charley Brown and SNOOPY
"Spectre" <spe...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3A985392...@pacbell.net...
Charley Brown and SNOOPY
"The Devil's Advocate©" <NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:tvkg9tc54evq87amn...@4ax.com...
Kaiju
Spectre wrote:
> She needs a man. That's all. A weekend with a man would have her purring.
Let's see. You don't like what I'm saying about Shrub and his Daddy, so you
fantasize about my personal life. I guess you have nothing salient to add to
these discussions. So why bother trying?
Judging by your behavior here, and holding you to the same sort of specious
standards, you must not have convinced some poor woman to give you any for 20+
years.
Speaks volumes about your toxic nature.
Charley Brown and SNOOPY
in the military. Some of them had beards too. A good example of a Kaijuweian
she-male is that loud-mouth liberal pundit Julliane Malveoux who appears on
MSNBC.
"Kaiju" <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A989A3D...@mindspring.com...
Wayne Johnson
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>Name some major liberal positions with which you disagree.
-Social promotion in schools.
-Tolerance for dope (both liberals and conservatives are screwing up
on this one)
-Unions Are Always A Good Thing
-Dismantling the military
-Dismantling the police (shared by the Far Right)
-The right of the homeless to take over public property
Just for starters.
Wayne "I'm far more conservative than most folks" Johnson
Wayne Johnson
<BlackCon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Still re-running the last election, I see. This is a good thing. As long as
>leftists keep harking back to "that stolen election", we conservatives can keep
>our eye on the ball. 2002, looks like good news. 2004, kinda far off, but it's
>looking better every day.
Laser eye surgery is down to $450 a peeper; look into it soon.
>And please... let's not forget reparations. Gotta keep the "important" things in
>perspective.
Important to who?
>If the queen (read: algore) had balls, she would be king (read: Bush).
To quote the estimable Art Clemons: You should try taking English 101
just one last time.
>OK... thirty seconds wasted... what's next?
Stealing my material, eh? Well, it's free...
>The New Black Voice
Not new...not Black...and 33 seconds.
Wayne "I need to get back in shape" Johnson
Christopher Kerr
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:11:40 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
> <NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >Name some major liberal positions with which you disagree.
>
> -Social promotion in schools.
> -Tolerance for dope (both liberals and conservatives are screwing up
> on this one)
> -Unions Are Always A Good Thing
> -Dismantling the military
> -Dismantling the police (shared by the Far Right)
> -The right of the homeless to take over public property
>
> Just for starters.
Interesting. Here's another topic for you: Do you believe that any
citizen should have to give up more than one-third of his or her income
in the form of federal taxes (this, not even counting the additional tax
burden of state, local, sales, property, capital gains, etc.)? Do you
think it good public policy that taxes as a percentage of GDP are the
highest they have been since World War II?
> Wayne "I'm far more conservative than most folks" Johnson
And yet, if I recall your previous commentary (correct me if I am
wrong), you have only voted GOP once or twice and wound up regretting
it. And your position is, so long as somebody like Bob Barr is a
congressional representative--even though you are galaxies away from his
district--you have no use for the GOP?
Christopher
The Devil's Advocate©
>>Name some major liberal positions with which you disagree.
>
>-Social promotion in schools.
>-Tolerance for dope (both liberals and conservatives are screwing up
>on this one)
>-Unions Are Always A Good Thing
>-Dismantling the military
>-Dismantling the police (shared by the Far Right)
>-The right of the homeless to take over public property
>
>Just for starters.
>
>Wayne "I'm far more conservative than most folks" Johnson
Ok, fair enough. It seems though that most the people you take issue with both
on usenet and pubic figures are conservatives, which is what makes it sound
strange when you say are one.
Christopher Kerr
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:33:03 -0800, Kaiju <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I rather doubt it. From a recent report I read, Floridians are pissed off, as
> >well...to the extent large numbers have switched their party affiliation from
> >independent and Republican to Democratic. This trend is picking up momentum.
>
> Au Contraire. Polls confirm what others have told you. That Bush is picking up
> popularity. Clinton however, due to his pardon scandals is quickly sliding.
>
> http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=341
>
> I think rightfully, most Americans will get over being a partisan and start
> being an American once again. Bush is in office whether you like it or not, and
> if some crises came up in which we need a strong leader in office, bickering
> over hanging chads and other bullshit is going to be quite counterproductive.
Indeed. Bush may have received only 48-49% of the popular vote, but he
got 100% of the presidency. There was an article in the NY Times the
other day that described Democrats as angry, frustrated, and near
apoplectic...but not due to the presidential election. Rather, the ugly
exit from office of the former president.
Just two months ago there were hopes in Democratic circles that Bill
Clinton would be the national leader for the party. Everyone in the
party bowed when Clinton installed his Personal Money Tree (Terry
McAuliffe) as DNC chairman (over a highly-qualified black man, I might
add).
Clinton played his supporters for fools--his only use for them was their
use for him. Like Elmer Gantry, he is entirely comfortable playing on a
whites-only golf course in Florida one day, and strutting through Harlem
the next, basking in the glow of credulous--nay, moronic--enthusiasts.
We see countless numbers of African Americans rotting in jail as I type,
for low-level nonviolent drug offenses, while many wealthy non-blacks,
including dealers, got pardons. Wayne said something about why don't
you guys let this Clinton-bashing go, but it is the Democrats in the
House and Senate, former Democratic presidents, Clinton Cabinet members,
and liberal newspapers like the NY Times and Washington Post, that are
elbowing each other in their efforts to get to the front of the line to
trash Clinton--now that he is out of power. As a longtime Clinton
critic, it would be ungracious of me to say I told them so.
Certain fringe elements--unfortunately dramatically overly represented
in the African American community--like Maxine Waters (and her
communications director, Kaiju) are frothing at the mouth, wailing and
moaning over the present reality. It was bad enough when they woke up
to a Republican president, Congress, Senate, and conservative majority
on the Supreme Court...now they see the Bill and Hill and Roger and Hugh
show living up to, in the words of the liberal e-zine Salon.com, "The
worst things their right-wing enemies ever said about them".
So now we find the likes of Kaiju in extreme anguish, curled up in the
fetal position, thrashing this way and that, looking for an angle of
attack. On public policy, instead of creating incentives for
production, they seek to expand the entitlement state. Instead of
encouraging limited government and more individual freedom, they wish to
see the federal leviathan grow larger yet. They wish to punish
successful Americans through redistribution of income, rather than allow
people to keep more of their hard-earned money.
How to attack President Bush? Obsessing over matters syntax, Kaiju and
her left-wing cohorts (oops, I forgot, she's no liberal, she says) are
up on their hindlegs, panting in anticipation of Bush's next
malapropism. Meanwhile, he is pushing his agenda of tax cuts,
educational accountablity, etc.
And as you say, out there in mainstream America polls indicate the
citizenry is growing ever more enamored of the unpretentious President,
with all his grammatical shortcomings. Maybe they put a premium on
down-to-earth values, and wish for a change from the last eight years of
sophisticated and articulate corruption.
Christopher
BlackConservative
ciac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:03:29 -0500, BlackConservative
><BlackCon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>Still re-running the last election, I see. This is a good thing. As long as
>>leftists keep harking back to "that stolen election", we conservatives can keep
>>our eye on the ball. 2002, looks like good news. 2004, kinda far off, but it's
>>looking better every day.
>
>Laser eye surgery is down to $450 a peeper; look into it soon.
Just started wearing reading glasses recently. They've been a lot of help too...
damn if I didn't know what I was missing. But thanks for the tip.
>>And please... let's not forget reparations. Gotta keep the "important" things in
>>perspective.
>
>Important to who?
Jeez... see that? Given your next statement, this line is kinda ironic.
Something about stones and glass houses.
>>If the queen (read: algore) had balls, she would be king (read: Bush).
>
>To quote the estimable Art Clemons: You should try taking English 101
>just one last time.
OK, here goes: ENGLISH 601
I was taught that the way you know if to use "who" or "whom" is to substitute
"he" or "him". Therefore, your above statement (the question) is not quite
correct.
Roll it over in your mind and stay away from the window.
>>OK... thirty seconds wasted... what's next?
>
>Stealing my material, eh? Well, it's free...
Jeez... and I'm serious (read: sincere)... I've never read that you wrote that
b4. Not that it's not a standard "smartass" retort... just didn't know. Glad
there was no charge tho. Watta pal.
>>The New Black Voice
>
>Not new...not Black...and 33 seconds.
First one - right; second one - bzzzzzt, try again; third one - scratching my
head.
>Wayne "I need to get back in shape" Johnson
In the 80's, I was a Leftist. Clarence Pendleton was anathema to me. I also
remember Justice Thomas when he was at the EEOC... despised him then. Black
conservatism was more like "monkey see, monkey do" (no racist pun intended)
during the reign of Reagan. The reason why I lambast certain Black "leaders"
these days is b/c these were the folks that "turned me"... for lack of a better
term.
Among David Dinkins (man, what a failure), Maxine Waters (shrill and not too
bright) and Jesse Jackson (he went from SOMEBODY with SOMETHING to say - to
NOBODY singing the SAME song), I was convinced there had to be another way. I'm
rolling my dice with the Right... who knows, I could be "dead wrong".
GWBush might not be as smart as I think he is... the proof will be in the
pudding... but he is an Anglo White guy who's mastered another language (Spanish
- he gets high marks in my book for that one). Can anyone name ONE Black
"leader" who is able to communicate in another language? And he also was able to
compromise with Democrats.
My God... I just sounded like a dork there. I mean... no one asked me for an
explanation. But I posted one nonetheless.
The New Black Voice
Wayne Johnson
<ckho...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:11:40 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
>> <NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Name some major liberal positions with which you disagree.
>>
>> -Social promotion in schools.
>> -Tolerance for dope (both liberals and conservatives are screwing up
>> on this one)
>> -Unions Are Always A Good Thing
>> -Dismantling the military
>> -Dismantling the police (shared by the Far Right)
>> -The right of the homeless to take over public property
>>
>> Just for starters.
>
>Interesting. Here's another topic for you: Do you believe that any
>citizen should have to give up more than one-third of his or her income
>in the form of federal taxes (this, not even counting the additional tax
>burden of state, local, sales, property, capital gains, etc.)?
Kerr, I believe that any citizen should be ready to give up their
LIVES if it is in to protect the Constitution of the United States of
America.
As far as the fantasy of "income" goes, I am completely uninterested
in the "tax game"; I have goals for my life, which I will achieve by
getting a sufficient income to reach them, and all I need to know is
how much I need to make AFTER taxes. No matter how you slice it,
everything else is bullshit, and we both know it.
If I want to buy $70,000 worth of stuff and services this year, I need
to make $100,000. The government - that's the thing that you and I
use to keep us from killing each other - the government will pay
certain folks to supply goods and services that we refuse to supply
ourselves, unless we're feeling generous that day.
So, I will go out and make $100,000. No need to piss and moan about
it; in fact, if we're fairly industrious and intelligent, it really
isn't all that difficult, now is it?
>Do you
>think it good public policy that taxes as a percentage of GDP are the
>highest they have been since World War II?
I'm honestly not that concerned about it, since it's obvious to me
that the things I'm most concerned about - national defense, and
national infrastructure of energy, transportation, and justice - are
things that don't seem to be able to be handled by the private sector
very well.
These are the big ticket items that are paid for by taxes; I'd prefer
to see these expenses lowered, but not to the point of taking more
money out of my pocket to hand to a private corporation looking to
make a profit from these things.
>> Wayne "I'm far more conservative than most folks" Johnson
>
>And yet, if I recall your previous commentary (correct me if I am
>wrong), you have only voted GOP once or twice and wound up regretting
>it.
Yep. Once was for Pete Wilson, architect of the California energy
deregulation policy we're enjoying so much right now.
>And your position is, so long as somebody like Bob Barr is a
>congressional representative--even though you are galaxies away from his
>district--you have no use for the GOP?
Well, he's not alone, and he is still held up as some kind of GOP
icon.
Wayne "There are plenty more like him, which is keeping Black folks
away in droves" Johnson
Wayne Johnson
<NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:41:02 GMT, ciac...@hotmail.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>
>>>Name some major liberal positions with which you disagree.
>>
>>-Social promotion in schools.
>>-Tolerance for dope (both liberals and conservatives are screwing up
>>on this one)
>>-Unions Are Always A Good Thing
>>-Dismantling the military
>>-Dismantling the police (shared by the Far Right)
>>-The right of the homeless to take over public property
>>
>>Just for starters.
>>
>>Wayne "I'm far more conservative than most folks" Johnson
>
>Ok, fair enough. It seems though that most the people you take issue with both
>on usenet and pubic figures are conservatives, which is what makes it sound
>strange when you say are one.
Oh, they claim to be conservative in one way or another, but
invariably they wind up supporting elitist bastions like the GOP, or
supporting institutions that only lightly veil their racism.
Most folks are pretty conservative, when you get down to it.
Wayne "At least, it seems that way to me" Johnson
BlackConservative
ciac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:50:23 GMT, The Devil's Advocate©
><NOJUNKsh...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:41:02 GMT, ciac...@hotmail.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>>
>>>>Name some major liberal positions with which you disagree.
>>>
>>>-Social promotion in schools.
>>>-Tolerance for dope (both liberals and conservatives are screwing up
>>>on this one)
>>>-Unions Are Always A Good Thing
>>>-Dismantling the military
>>>-Dismantling the police (shared by the Far Right)
>>>-The right of the homeless to take over public property
>>>
>>>Just for starters.
>>>
>>>Wayne "I'm far more conservative than most folks" Johnson
>>
>>Ok, fair enough. It seems though that most the people you take issue with both
>>on usenet and pubic figures are conservatives, which is what makes it sound
>>strange when you say are one.
>
>Oh, they claim to be conservative in one way or another, but
>invariably they wind up supporting elitist bastions like the GOP, or
>supporting institutions that only lightly veil their racism.
>
>Most folks are pretty conservative, when you get down to it.
>
>Wayne "At least, it seems that way to me" Johnson
Excellent thread... very enlightening.
From Wayne's list, I agree with everything except for #2. I'm not a druggie, but
I do think that some serious re-thinking needs to be done regarding our drug
policies (or lack thereof). BTW... there are both liberals and conservatives who
are saying similar things too. And I know you know this.
Is the GOP elitist? Yep. But so are the Democrats. The dilemma is... these are
REALLY the only two horses in the race. So... what's a voter to do? Nader? I
don't think so. I guess the Libertarians are one way to go... but those folks
don't seem to be getting any traction.
To The Right, But No Wacko
Wayne Johnson
<BlackCon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In the 80's, I was a Leftist. Clarence Pendleton was anathema to me. I also
>remember Justice Thomas when he was at the EEOC... despised him then. Black
>conservatism was more like "monkey see, monkey do" (no racist pun intended)
>during the reign of Reagan. The reason why I lambast certain Black "leaders"
>these days is b/c these were the folks that "turned me"... for lack of a better
>term.
Well, I notice that this discussion is not being shared with the
right-wing newsgroups you usually group with your posts; that's fine
with me.
What's interesting is this archaic use of the term, "leaders".
Which of these Black folks EVER "led" you anyplace? You let someone
simply declare that they were your leader, ever?
>Among David Dinkins (man, what a failure),
At least he was elected. Someone actually chose him to lead - not to
lead Black people; to lead New York - and it's not a lifetime tenure.
>Maxine Waters (shrill and not too bright)
Since I've gone off on Maxine for her idiotic comments during the Los
Angeles riots, and lauded her accurate comments regarding the American
intelligence community's complicity with the dope trade, she is a
mixed bag for me. Overall? She gets on my nerves, but doesn't
represent my district.
>...and Jesse Jackson (he went from SOMEBODY with SOMETHING to say - to
>NOBODY singing the SAME song),
He'll always be somebody, which is his point; it's true of everyone.
If his priorities aren't yours, fine. I think he's been pretty
careful of late not to claim to speak for Black Americans en masse,
which is wise.
>I was convinced there had to be another way. I'm
>rolling my dice with the Right... who knows, I could be "dead wrong".
You're automatically dead wrong, since you're painting yourself into a
corner by letting ANYONE lead you ANYWHERE. To hell with the Right,
the Left, or the Center; stand up on your own, dammit!
Look at an issue, and stop kissing someone's ass on the editorial
staff of whatever magazine/network/radio show decides will be the
Right's take on it.
You're looking to be led, and you don't like the "leaders" appointed
by some dumbass anchorman on the Big Three Networks, who finds it
simplest to introduce some Black person as a "leader" for lack of any
other impressive term to bestow on them. That, coupled with every
half-educated preacher running around out there calling themselves
"Dr." whatever and claiming to be a leader, is trying in the extreme.
It appears, however, that like the flocks that crowd behind such
"leaders" grinning and hoping to imply that they really have power,
you've decided the safest course is to flock to the so-called Right,
so you can claim to be a winner, too. That is some sad shit, man.
>GWBush might not be as smart as I think he is... the proof will be in the
>pudding... but he is an Anglo White guy who's mastered another language (Spanish
>- he gets high marks in my book for that one).
Are you serious? Is this a serious comment?
>Can anyone name ONE Black
>"leader" who is able to communicate in another language?
I can't name one Black "leader", period. There are no elections for
"Black Leader" in this country, and I'd like for you to name someone
who "leads" you, simply because you share the same ethnic grouping.
Name one person who can be called your "leader", please.
>And he also was able to compromise with Democrats.
What of it?
>My God... I just sounded like a dork there. I mean... no one asked me for an
>explanation. But I posted one nonetheless.
The guy speaks Spanish, and you're impressed?
Wayne "I'm from Southern California; a hell of a lot of people are
bilingual, including my kids, and some waiters...what's the big deal?"
Wayne Johnson
<BlackCon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Most folks are pretty conservative, when you get down to it.
>>
>>Wayne "At least, it seems that way to me" Johnson
>
>Excellent thread... very enlightening.
>
>From Wayne's list, I agree with everything except for #2. I'm not a druggie, but
>I do think that some serious re-thinking needs to be done regarding our drug
>policies (or lack thereof). BTW... there are both liberals and conservatives who
>are saying similar things too. And I know you know this.
Yeah, the "liberals" are saying that no one should be condemned for
being a knee-walking street bum hooked on dope, and the conservatives
are saying that the dope-addled should either be left to rot, or shot
for doing something crazy; either way, don't make me pay for more than
the bullet.
I'm disgusted by both sentiments. I'm a true conservative; I say,
people should be responsible for their own behavior, and if someone
takes that away with dope, they need to go down for it. Hard. All
this other armchair bullshit comes from people who don't deal with
this shit first hand.
>Is the GOP elitist? Yep. But so are the Democrats.
It's not that simple, and if you think it is, you're not looking at
it.
>The dilemma is... these are REALLY the only two horses in the race.
Nonsense. Both parties have people in them who aren't completely
crazy; it's just that both parties have smothered these people
repeatedly, and we're left with the half-wits like Bush.
What the hell caused the GOP to dump McCain, for a Vietnam dodging,
drunk driving alcoholic pair of assholes like Bush and Cheney? As
governors (Bush) and administrators (Cheney), they're fine; no
problem.
As President and Vice President? This is supposed to be the
Conservative Choice? Damn, man. Do you have standards, or not?
>So... what's a voter to do? Nader?
Jesus.
>I don't think so.
Neither does anyone with a lick of sense.
>I guess the Libertarians are one way to go... but those folks
>don't seem to be getting any traction.
The Libertarians are also committed to not getting off their dead
asses for the sake of their fellow citizens, which is why I have
absolutely no use for them.
Wayne "It's these Libertarian sons of bitches that piss and moan about
paying dues to the volunteer fire departments...I can't stand those
people" Johnson
BlackConservative
ciac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:48:41 -0500, BlackConservative
><BlackCon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In the 80's, I was a Leftist. Clarence Pendleton was anathema to me. I also
>>remember Justice Thomas when he was at the EEOC... despised him then. Black
>>conservatism was more like "monkey see, monkey do" (no racist pun intended)
>>during the reign of Reagan. The reason why I lambast certain Black "leaders"
>>these days is b/c these were the folks that "turned me"... for lack of a better
>>term.
>
>Well, I notice that this discussion is not being shared with the
>right-wing newsgroups you usually group with your posts; that's fine
>with me.
I thought about doing just this... but decided otherwise. Not that I was ashamed
or anything like that about what I wrote... but Kaiju's "spamming" comments do
have merit.
>What's interesting is this archaic use of the term, "leaders".
You see that I used the term carefully.
>Which of these Black folks EVER "led" you anyplace? You let someone
>simply declare that they were your leader, ever?
Point taken... indeed t'was my point exactly.
>>Among David Dinkins (man, what a failure),
>
>At least he was elected. Someone actually chose him to lead - not to
>lead Black people; to lead New York - and it's not a lifetime tenure.
You're right... I vote and voted for the man. This was my "turning point".
>>Maxine Waters (shrill and not too bright)
>
>Since I've gone off on Maxine for her idiotic comments during the Los
>Angeles riots, and lauded her accurate comments regarding the American
>intelligence community's complicity with the dope trade, she is a
>mixed bag for me. Overall? She gets on my nerves, but doesn't
>represent my district.
Mine either. But was there REALLY any proof about the government and the drug
trade? Not to say that this couldn't be true... probably is... but it would've
been nice to have had some independent proof besides some Leftist journalist
with an ax to grind.
>>...and Jesse Jackson (he went from SOMEBODY with SOMETHING to say - to
>>NOBODY singing the SAME song),
>
>He'll always be somebody, which is his point; it's true of everyone.
>If his priorities aren't yours, fine. I think he's been pretty
>careful of late not to claim to speak for Black Americans en masse,
>which is wise.
Just guessing here, but I think his "careful of late" approach has more to do
with personal things. Who really knows?
>>I was convinced there had to be another way. I'm
>>rolling my dice with the Right... who knows, I could be "dead wrong".
>
>You're automatically dead wrong, since you're painting yourself into a
>corner by letting ANYONE lead you ANYWHERE. To hell with the Right,
>the Left, or the Center; stand up on your own, dammit!
Can't argue with that. This is my SOP. But I do get frustrated by so many of us
"who are willing to be led".
>Look at an issue, and stop kissing someone's ass on the editorial
>staff of whatever magazine/network/radio show decides will be the
>Right's take on it.
My reading, viewing and listening habits are quite varied. No "one-trick pony"
this guy is.
>You're looking to be led, and you don't like the "leaders" appointed
>by some dumbass anchorman on the Big Three Networks, who finds it
>simplest to introduce some Black person as a "leader" for lack of any
>other impressive term to bestow on them. That, coupled with every
>half-educated preacher running around out there calling themselves
>"Dr." whatever and claiming to be a leader, is trying in the extreme.
On this, you're wrong; not looking to be led. Don't have much faith in most
things I read either. My approach is like the old Chinese menu joke -- some from
Column A, some from Column B.
>It appears, however, that like the flocks that crowd behind such
>"leaders" grinning and hoping to imply that they really have power,
>you've decided the safest course is to flock to the so-called Right,
>so you can claim to be a winner, too. That is some sad shit, man.
Like many here, I let loose with lots of exaggeration and bombast. I can get
behind some of what you're saying though.
>>GWBush might not be as smart as I think he is... the proof will be in the
>>pudding... but he is an Anglo White guy who's mastered another language (Spanish
>>- he gets high marks in my book for that one).
>
>Are you serious? Is this a serious comment?
Sure, why not. I think that ANYONE who's able to learn and master another
language has opened his/her mind to other possibilities.
>>Can anyone name ONE Black
>>"leader" who is able to communicate in another language?
>
>I can't name one Black "leader", period. There are no elections for
>"Black Leader" in this country, and I'd like for you to name someone
>who "leads" you, simply because you share the same ethnic grouping.
OK... forget about the "leader" part of the question... then can you come up
with an answer?
>Name one person who can be called your "leader", please.
See above.
>>And he also was able to compromise with Democrats.
>
>What of it?
Someone's gotta be president. This is the guy (or gal) who'll send off the youth
to some God-forsaken war if it's called for. Although it's yet to be proven, it
is kinda good to think that GWBush is not a idealogue.
>>My God... I just sounded like a dork there. I mean... no one asked me for an
>>explanation. But I posted one nonetheless.
>
>The guy speaks Spanish, and you're impressed?
Yep... communicating in different languages is one of the things that "floats my
boat".
>Wayne "I'm from Southern California; a hell of a lot of people are
>bilingual, including my kids, and some waiters...what's the big deal?"
>Johnson
Good to know that your kids will be able to eat... now, and in the future.
BC
Wayne Johnson
<BlackCon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:37:19 GMT,
>ciac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Since I've gone off on Maxine for her idiotic comments during the Los
>>Angeles riots, and lauded her accurate comments regarding the American
>>intelligence community's complicity with the dope trade, she is a
>>mixed bag for me. Overall? She gets on my nerves, but doesn't
>>represent my district.
>
>Mine either. But was there REALLY any proof about the government and the drug
>trade? Not to say that this couldn't be true... probably is... but it would've
>been nice to have had some independent proof besides some Leftist journalist
>with an ax to grind.
You may have missed her press conference in Los Angeles, where she
shared the podium with the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency; he did discuss the fact that several CIA "assets" had also run
hog-wild in the dope market, without being stopped by Agency folks who
knew what they were up to.
This is old news. The government doesn't admit (and never would) that
any government agency actually was complicit in the dope trade, but
it's clear that plenty of people who were hooked up in the arms trade
to Reagan's "freedom fighters" in Central and South America didn't use
their boats and airplanes just to smuggle ammo to the gangsters down
there.
>>[On Jackson] He'll always be somebody, which is his point; it's true of everyone.
>>If his priorities aren't yours, fine. I think he's been pretty
>>careful of late not to claim to speak for Black Americans en masse,
>>which is wise.
>
>Just guessing here, but I think his "careful of late" approach has more to do
>with personal things. Who really knows?
When I say "of late", I'm talking about the last eight years or so.
He knows he can't claim any leadership mantle; he turned down the
chance to run for office from his native Chicago, and also turned down
the chance to run for mayor of Washington DC - two moves which show
that he's not interested in becoming someone who will be subjected to
laws concerning personal finances.
As such, he even had to give up the "spokesman" hat bestowed on anyone
who manages to get in front of some jerk's microphone and squeeze the
phrase "Black folks" into a sentence. It created political
liabilities for his connections to the Clinton White House; think
back, and you'll realize that he's eschewed this characterization for
years. He prefers to present himself as the spokesman for the
downtrodden, weak, underrepresented, yada yada, not for Black people.
Considering that his actions over the last few years have benefitted
more than just Black folks, such as his mission to get the soldiers
captured in Macedonia and held in Yugoslavia back to this country,
it's worked out for him.
>>You're looking to be led, and you don't like the "leaders" appointed
>>by some dumbass anchorman on the Big Three Networks, who finds it
>>simplest to introduce some Black person as a "leader" for lack of any
>>other impressive term to bestow on them. That, coupled with every
>>half-educated preacher running around out there calling themselves
>>"Dr." whatever and claiming to be a leader, is trying in the extreme.
>
>On this, you're wrong; not looking to be led. Don't have much faith in most
>things I read either. My approach is like the old Chinese menu joke -- some from
>Column A, some from Column B.
Fine, but you seem to be running the same old cheerleader lines from
the Limbaugh types about who is currently in the catbird seat in the
White House, Congress, and so on. It sure looks knee-jerk to me.
>>It appears, however, that like the flocks that crowd behind such
>>"leaders" grinning and hoping to imply that they really have power,
>>you've decided the safest course is to flock to the so-called Right,
>>so you can claim to be a winner, too. That is some sad shit, man.
>
>Like many here, I let loose with lots of exaggeration and bombast. I can get
>behind some of what you're saying though.
Well, the bombast clouds whatever it is you're trying to present as a
coherent case.
>>>Can anyone name ONE Black
>>>"leader" who is able to communicate in another language?
>>
>>I can't name one Black "leader", period. There are no elections for
>>"Black Leader" in this country, and I'd like for you to name someone
>>who "leads" you, simply because you share the same ethnic grouping.
>
>OK... forget about the "leader" part of the question... then can you come up
>with an answer?
Before either Bush or Gore started yammering away in terrible Spanish
(on the level of the Taco Bell Chihuaha) I couldn't name a leader of
ANY ethnicity who spoke a second language, other than Hispanic and
Asian types, and precious few of those.
Just for the hell of it, come up with some names of people of whatever
political persuasion you care to name, who are multilingual, and that
it's common knowledge that they're multilingual.
>>>And he also was able to compromise with Democrats.
>>
>>What of it?
>
>Someone's gotta be president. This is the guy (or gal) who'll send off the youth
>to some God-forsaken war if it's called for. Although it's yet to be proven, it
>is kinda good to think that GWBush is not a idealogue.
I have two very good reasons for having a great deal of interest in
who is going to be Commander In Chief; they are my sons, who will be
military officers once they complete their education. The idea that
Bush, who never completed his full term of military obligation (and
who never went to Asia, despite serving for several years during the
height of the Vietnam conflict) and Cheney (who milked deferments
throughout the conflict, and successfully ducked the obligation as
well) are the ones who are running the show is absolutely disgusting.
At least Clinton, who has a history of being completely on the side of
his own self-interest, never sent a single person off to die in a
foreign conflict, in eight years. I have little confidence that
poseurs like Bush and Cheney will show the same wisdom.
Wayne "We need better choices to pick from that yahoos like those"
Chris
>Since I've gone off on Maxine for her idiotic comments during the Los
>Angeles riots, and lauded her accurate comments regarding the American
>intelligence community's complicity with the dope trade,
Speaking of the crack issue, anyone know why did she decided to drop the bag on
that one and move on?
The Devil's Advocate©
>You may have missed her press conference in Los Angeles, where she
>shared the podium with the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence
>Agency; he did discuss the fact that several CIA "assets" had also run
>hog-wild in the dope market, without being stopped by Agency folks who
>knew what they were up to.
>
>This is old news. The government doesn't admit (and never would) that
>any government agency actually was complicit in the dope trade, but
>it's clear that plenty of people who were hooked up in the arms trade
>to Reagan's "freedom fighters" in Central and South America didn't use
>their boats and airplanes just to smuggle ammo to the gangsters down
>there.
To me, besides simply being evil and treasonous against one's own citizens, such
actions would just seem to be a stupid way to raise money. As to whether Reagan
knew about it. I don't know. I was involved in a discussion on the subject
recently and one of the Nicuaraguan officials said that the drug trade stopped
after the contras got official taxpayer backed funding from Reagan. I'll dig up
the quote on this if necessary, I'm just paraphrasing.
>As such, he even had to give up the "spokesman" hat bestowed on anyone
>who manages to get in front of some jerk's microphone and squeeze the
>phrase "Black folks" into a sentence. It created political
>liabilities for his connections to the Clinton White House; think
>back, and you'll realize that he's eschewed this characterization for
>years. He prefers to present himself as the spokesman for the
>downtrodden, weak, underrepresented, yada yada, not for Black people.
So he says. He couldn't publically say he only fights in the interest of black
people as it may put him in the same category as Farakhan in the public eye, and
may get some of his corporate funding yanked.
>Considering that his actions over the last few years have benefitted
>more than just Black folks, such as his mission to get the soldiers
>captured in Macedonia and held in Yugoslavia back to this country,
>it's worked out for him.
Doesn't change the fact that he spends 90% of his time making racial issues out
of thin air, e.g. Kokomo and Decatur.
>I have two very good reasons for having a great deal of interest in
>who is going to be Commander In Chief; they are my sons, who will be
>military officers once they complete their education. The idea that
>Bush, who never completed his full term of military obligation (and
>who never went to Asia, despite serving for several years during the
>height of the Vietnam conflict)
So maybe that just happened to be where he was stationed. Why are you taking it
out on him?
>and Cheney (who milked deferments
>throughout the conflict, and successfully ducked the obligation as
>well) are the ones who are running the show is absolutely disgusting.
>
>At least Clinton, who has a history of being completely on the side of
>his own self-interest, never sent a single person off to die in a
>foreign conflict, in eight years.
Somalia? Kosovo? Now here we have a man that *dodged* the draft and you come
down on Bush even harder despite that he at least served. Gore gives a
eye-tearing account of enrolling so that somebody else in his small town didn't
have to go. Of course he went....as a bodyguarded journalist. Now if Bush had
done the same thing as Gore or Clinton, you'd be nailing them to the wall.
Wayne Johnson
Drop what bag? She got the CIA to actually come down to the ghetto
and talk to people about what happened; I don't understand your
comment.
Wayne "Tell us what else she, or the GOP for that matter, should be
doing" Johnson
Wayne Johnson
<DELETETHIS...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:34:33 GMT, ciac...@hotmail.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>>This is old news. The government doesn't admit (and never would) that
>>any government agency actually was complicit in the dope trade, but
>>it's clear that plenty of people who were hooked up in the arms trade
>>to Reagan's "freedom fighters" in Central and South America didn't use
>>their boats and airplanes just to smuggle ammo to the gangsters down
>>there.
>
>To me, besides simply being evil and treasonous against one's own citizens, such
>actions would just seem to be a stupid way to raise money. As to whether Reagan
>knew about it. I don't know. I was involved in a discussion on the subject
>recently and one of the Nicuaraguan officials said that the drug trade stopped
>after the contras got official taxpayer backed funding from Reagan. I'll dig up
>the quote on this if necessary, I'm just paraphrasing.
No need. The CIA had to go to the bad boys for their hi-jinks; they
weren't going to get gun-runners from some church choir. I'm sure
Reagan didn't know diddly, as he didn't have enough interest in
details to get involved in what his henchmen were doing.
He delegated everything, which is how a government could get out of
hand as it did with Iran-Contra.
>>As such, he [Jackson] even had to give up the "spokesman" hat bestowed on anyone
>>who manages to get in front of some jerk's microphone and squeeze the
>>phrase "Black folks" into a sentence. It created political
>>liabilities for his connections to the Clinton White House; think
>>back, and you'll realize that he's eschewed this characterization for
>>years. He prefers to present himself as the spokesman for the
>>downtrodden, weak, underrepresented, yada yada, not for Black people.
>
>So he says. He couldn't publically say he only fights in the interest of black
>people as it may put him in the same category as Farakhan in the public eye, and
>may get some of his corporate funding yanked.
Whatever reasons he has for doing it doesn't really matter.
>>Considering that his actions over the last few years have benefitted
>>more than just Black folks, such as his mission to get the soldiers
>>captured in Macedonia and held in Yugoslavia back to this country,
>>it's worked out for him.
>Doesn't change the fact that he spends 90% of his time making racial issues out
>of thin air, e.g. Kokomo and Decatur.
I watch the Right doing the same thing, turning Affirmative Action
(which the preponderence of benefits going to women, not minorities)
into a racial issue.
>>I have two very good reasons for having a great deal of interest in
>>who is going to be Commander In Chief; they are my sons, who will be
>>military officers once they complete their education. The idea that
>>Bush, who never completed his full term of military obligation (and
>>who never went to Asia, despite serving for several years during the
>>height of the Vietnam conflict)
>
>So maybe that just happened to be where he was stationed. Why are you taking it
>out on him?
What "maybe"? The Texas Air National Guard was no accidental
assignment; it also didn't preclude volunteering for an overseas
assignment.
>>At least Clinton, who has a history of being completely on the side of
>>his own self-interest, never sent a single person off to die in a
>>foreign conflict, in eight years.
>
>Somalia?
Clinton did not send troops to Somalia. Tell us which President did
that.
>Kosovo?
Name the people who died in combat there. Or just give us the number.
Hint: the number rhymes with "hero".
>Now here we have a man that *dodged* the draft and you come
>down on Bush even harder despite that he at least served.
I say he, too, dodged the draft. I was around back then, in case you
aren't familiar with the way the system worked; joining the National
Guard was a safe way of staying away from Vietnam.
>Gore gives a
>eye-tearing account of enrolling so that somebody else in his small town didn't
>have to go.
Yeah, he actually volunteered...and actually went to Vietnam.
>Of course he went....as a bodyguarded journalist.
That's how it worked for people who could be kidnapped and ransomed,
DA.
>Now if Bush had
>done the same thing as Gore or Clinton, you'd be nailing them to the wall.
That's odd. I don't do it to McCain. Or Dole. Or Bush Sr.
Why do you think I don't criticize them for their national service
record?
Wayne "I await your response with great interest" Johnson
DarkStar
Wayne Johnson <ciac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:09:38 GMT, Chris
><DELETETHIS...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:37:19 GMT, ciac...@hotmail.com (Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>>
>>>Since I've gone off on Maxine for her idiotic comments during the Los
>>>Angeles riots, and lauded her accurate comments regarding the American
>>>intelligence community's complicity with the dope trade,
>>
>>Speaking of the crack issue, anyone know why did she decided to drop the
>>bag on
>>that one and move on?
>
>Drop what bag? She got the CIA to actually come down to the ghetto
>and talk to people about what happened; I don't understand your
>comment.
Well, the CIA admitted to what it did, but for some reason, the so-called
liberal Washington Post and NY Times, buried that information. I guess they
had to, considering they did a great hachet job on the guy who wrote the
Contra/Cocaine story for the S.J. Mecury. I wonder what pay off the
so-called liberal Washington Post and NY Times got for that one.
--
Ed Brown dark...@toad.net
http://www.toad.net/~darkstar
The Devil's Advocate©
>Drop what bag? She got the CIA to actually come down to the ghetto
>and talk to people about what happened; I don't understand your
>comment.
She said, "I'm going to make the CIA pay for what it did to my people." However,
last I read, she was in Texas trying to get the DEA off some gangsta rapper's
ass. Have any heads rolled because of Maxine Waters?
DarkStar
What heads rolled when the CIA was found to be behind heroine trafficing
during Vietnam?
What heads rolled for Iran/Contra? Oliver North is a radio host, hosts a
talk show, and will run again for the senate in < 10 years.
But your lame ass shoots shit on Maxine Waters.
The last time, you wanted to claim she was full of shit about the drug
stuff, until I posted a *LOT* of stuff that showed you had your head up
your ass. Then you claimed you were "just joking".
The reason ou smell shit when you breathe is because you have your head
up your ass.
Kaiju
"The Devil's AdvocateŠ" wrote:
>
No. The conservatives, in typical fashion, have sought to demonize her in
effort to discredit her message and influence. Particularly since she has
been able to nail the conservatives on their hypocrisy and cynical methods.
They have turned her name into an epithet, just like "liberal", "left",
"ACLU", "Clinton", "Hillary", and "Sharpton". Mostly it is done to distract
attention from the shallow, one-note conservative platform or to shelter
people like Shrub.
Gee. You do that, as well. Without thought, it would appear. You aren't the
only one.
The Devil's Advocate©
>>Doesn't change the fact that he spends 90% of his time making racial issues out
>>of thin air, e.g. Kokomo and Decatur.
>
>I watch the Right doing the same thing, turning Affirmative Action
>(which the preponderence of benefits going to women, not minorities)
>into a racial issue.
Given that affirmative action was originally devised for blacks, of course it is
going to have a racial connotation. And being a minority woman is obviously
prefarable to being a white woman.
>>>At least Clinton, who has a history of being completely on the side of
>>>his own self-interest, never sent a single person off to die in a
>>>foreign conflict, in eight years.
>>
>>Somalia?
>
>Clinton did not send troops to Somalia. Tell us which President did
>that.
Clinton kept them there for a year and half before ordering them back. What's
the difference?
>>Now here we have a man that *dodged* the draft and you come
>>down on Bush even harder despite that he at least served.
>
>I say he, too, dodged the draft. I was around back then, in case you
>aren't familiar with the way the system worked; joining the National
>Guard was a safe way of staying away from Vietnam.
Clinton's case is more provable, but you don't seem to attack him even a
fraction as much.
>>Gore gives a
>>eye-tearing account of enrolling so that somebody else in his small town didn't
>>have to go.
>
>Yeah, he actually volunteered...and actually went to Vietnam.
>
>>Of course he went....as a bodyguarded journalist.
>
>That's how it worked for people who could be kidnapped and ransomed,
>DA.
And if Bush boasted about being a bodyguarded journalist, we can be sure you'd
be calling him a coward for not getting into the real action.
>>Now if Bush had
>>done the same thing as Gore or Clinton, you'd be nailing them to the wall.
>
>That's odd. I don't do it to McCain. Or Dole. Or Bush Sr.
Doesn't matter. I'm still seeing a double-standard in your anger towards Bush
vs. your anger towards Clinton.
The Devil's Advocate©
>No. The conservatives, in typical fashion, have sought to demonize her in
>effort to discredit her message and influence.
E.g., perpetuating victomology.
>They have turned her name into an epithet, just like "liberal", "left",
>"ACLU", "Clinton", "Hillary", and "Sharpton".
Good.
>Mostly it is done to distract
>attention from the shallow, one-note conservative platform or to shelter
>people like Shrub.
Let's at least try to hide that partisan bias there, Kaiju(a non-partisan of
course who is neither liberal nor conservative).
The Devil's Advocate©
>But your lame ass shoots shit on Maxine Waters.
Maxine Waters was the topic of discussion, who the hell was discussing Oli
North, idiot.