[US Elections] Does it bother you...
Kent Paul Dolan
lost it bearings, that in a race where it pits a war
hero and experienced politician against an incumbant:
* who dodged the draft by joining the National
guard, in a sweetheart deal where his attendance
was "spotty" at best,
* who gained office by electoral fraud,
* who dragged the country into a war by lying, and
keeps it there by incompetence,
* who has kept the economy remarkably free of
prosperity or job growth,
* who has demonstrated the IQ of a turnip, and we
are not talking about a Rhodes Scholar among
turnips, either,
* who has been successfully and hilariously
ridiculed by a movie that has cleared
USD $100,000,000 at the box office and is still
going strong,
* who has dragged the US reputation in the dirt
his whole first term of office, alienating our
strongest allies,
* who has used his office to impose his religious
beliefs as law, in a country whose basis
document of government forbids such behavior,
* who has set new records in selling rights to
damage the ecology to big business,
* and who only stops lying when his mouth is
closed,
that the best the Democrats can do is be struggling
to achieve a _tie_ for electoral college votes, this
close to the election?
If the Democratic Party had any clue where its
political base was, Bush would be struggling to find
_any_ electoral college votes by this point, and the
Republican Convention would have a strong "dump the
Shrub" subcontext to it other than the obvious Al
Quida one already im place.
xanthian.
ObBizarre: That I live in a one-party "democracy",
where you cannot differentiate the players if they
forget to wear their campaign buttons.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
euclid k.
>Does it bother you that the Democratic party has so
>lost it bearings, that in a race where it pits a war
>hero and experienced politician against an incumbant:
[...]
What bothers me is the knowledge that if i don't vote for Morgoth then
Cthulu will win. Bullwinkle isn't viable as a third party candidate.
>ObBizarre: That I live in a one-party "democracy",
>where you cannot differentiate the players if they
>forget to wear their campaign buttons.
Yep. And for some obscure reason, google couldn't retrieve your
message (even though it's apparently listed and threaded properly) when
i set out to write this reply. Makes me appreciate the alternate news
sources all the more.
euclid
What do we need thousands of an "army of one" for?
your weight on the moon
> that the best the Democrats can do is be struggling
> to achieve a _tie_ for electoral college votes, this
> close to the election?
>
> If the Democratic Party had any clue where its
> political base was, Bush would be struggling to find
> _any_ electoral college votes by this point, and the
> Republican Convention would have a strong "dump the
> Shrub" subcontext to it other than the obvious Al
> Quida one already im place.
Kent, you're a smart guy, so
when you figure out a way to win over the people who like
being lied to, without alienating the people who like to
think for themselves, please let us know where you're
running (or what religion you've founded). I'm not sure the
last ploy, Greed, will work in this new age of Fear
(particularly not since last time Greed sold all of us normal
working stiffs down the Styx, just the blue collared ones first).
your weight on the moon
> Cthulu will win. Bullwinkle isn't viable as a third party candidate.
^^^^^^^^^^ The Moosylvanian Candidate
Kent Paul Dolan
> What do we need thousands of an "army of one" for?
Other questions along the same lines:
If I am recruited to be "an army of one", on what
possible basis can I be asked to follow someone
elses orders? I'm in _my_ army, not the sergeant's
army. He's only allowed to boss _his_ army around,
not _mine_. Frankly, following orders in a battle
zone from a sergeant who talks to himself constantly
in an imperative tone of voice doesn't sound
particularly likely to be life extending, to me.
If I take off in the opposite direction of the
incoming gunfire, how can I be accused of
"desertion"? Everywhere I go, I take my whole army
with me. I'm pretty sure "desertion" somehow
involves the necessity of leaving your army behind.
xanthian, who really, really wants to see that ad
campaign used as an issue in a court of military
law, just for the belly laughs it will create.
edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
we need to hold all the conventions in frostbite falls
arf meow arf
Kent Paul Dolan
<yourweigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> please let us know where you're running (or what
> religion you've founded).
How extremely fleeting, indeed, is fame!
I ran for US President, right here in talk.bizarre,
on the American Birthright Party ticket ["The
birthright of humankind is the stars!"] in the 1988
elections (and got 100 whole write-in votes firmly
promised, based mostly on heavy use of bribery and
overly generous patronage promises). There were
thousands of postings (roughly half of them telling
me to shut up and go away, and employing fairly
creative uses of obscenity (creative uses that have
gone missing in t.b in the years since), the other
half cheering me on), sometimes more than a hundred
postings in a single day, but Google archives are
extremely sparse that far back, only a very few of
those postings survive:
The religion I (co-)founded (with five others) is
called The Reformed Druids of North America, and
despite the name, is supposedly currently active on
three continents. The first sentence here describes
my (fairly minor) part in kicking off the action:
http://www.neopagan.net/RDNA.html
The fun part of that endeavor is that I had no idea
that the religion founded as a lark to tweak the
noses of the (Northfield, Minnesota) Carleton
College chapel-attendance-mandating authorities, had
blossomed into a transcontinental phenomenon, until
1999, thirty seven years after I participated in
getting it started.
In that year I met a RDNA church member's boyfriend,
with whom I shared many wee-hours b.s. sessions, and
the topic came up in conversation purely by
accident. He was a night security guard where I
worked at eBay. I can say with some measure of
confusion that at least one time in my life, I have
been looked at with the awe usually reserved for
deities, and completely deserved it.
Apparently we six co-founders count as the rough
equivalent of Jesus' apostles, to the RDNA members,
and he seemingly expected that I'd have no trouble
walking on water.
xanthian.
[That still doesn't make me _nearly_ smart enough to
succeed at your challenge, or I'd have been named
"Emperor of the World" by proclaimation long ago.
I'd have the harem of my dreams, too, "The One
Hundred Tons of Fun", with plump lissome volunteers
of every ethnicity and race flocking daily to join
from all corners of a grateful planet.
Rainbow-hued hordes of suckling tiny humans would be
flocking around my knees emitting their shrill
attention-seeking cries "Daddy! DADDY!". My knees
would be turned to rubber from bouncing them thereon
at all hours in some attempt-to-be-fair time-sharing
way.
[After a while, this amount of knee-rubberizing
becomes a 100% successful birth-control mechanism,
lest Polewka achieve orbit sans lift vehicle.]
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a dream
I do not share in any aspect whatever with a certain
local, a Mr. Jeff Vogel, world-renowned anti-kiddist
curmudgeon and child-rearing satirist.]
kevincar
> lost it bearings, that in a race where it pits a war
> hero and experienced politician against an incumbant:
>
> xanthian.
>
I became convinced last election that national elections are rigged.
K.C
--
"A Brother man steals a hubcap or smokes a joint and goes to jail...
But the man who stole America, is not in jail."
-Malcolm X
"You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you
can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does
it or says it."
-Malcolm X
"Power never takes a back step - only in the face of more power.
-Malcolm X
Kent Paul Dolan
> I became convinced last election that national
> elections are rigged.
It took you long enough.
They've been rigged to exclude "the people's choice"
since 1933 and Amendment XX.
Otherwise Bill Clinton would be running for his
fourth term about now, to wild cheering.
They've been rigged to exclude the best qualified
candidate at least since Adlai Stevenson lost his
attempt at the presidency.
[offensive interracial hatemonger quotes snipped]
Sheesh.
You could sure afford to pick a better role model.
xanthian.
kevincar
> "kevincar" <kevin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I became convinced last election that national
> > elections are rigged.
>
> It took you long enough.
>
> They've been rigged to exclude "the people's choice"
> since 1933 and Amendment XX.
>
Suspicion is different from belief.
I suspect many things but hold judgement until
more information comes in.
I also suspect it wasn't Bush that threw the
election but Gore- I think the Iraq takeover
was a foregone conclusion even before the
election and Gore did not want to go into
history as presiding over the event.
> Otherwise Bill Clinton would be running for his
> fourth term about now, to wild cheering.
I respectfully disagree based on my statements
from above.
>
> They've been rigged to exclude the best qualified
> candidate at least since Adlai Stevenson lost his
> attempt at the presidency.
>
> [offensive interracial hatemonger quotes snipped]
>
> Sheesh.
>
> You could sure afford to pick a better role model.
Wow- that itself is a rather myopic viewpoint
coming from an ex-presidential candidate...
You are totally and completely making a personal
judgement based on what? the quoted free speech
viewpoint of a leader of a group of people that
were held in an unconstitutionally enforced plight
in a difficult time in history-
I personally don't advocate separation of races, and as
such, I think what he was advocating was improper
and not doable in the world of realpolitik,
but YOU sir, show more of yourself than you realize;
just because someone says or does something you
don't agree with, you think they're a total moron,
jackass, offensive, hateful, stupid, lackwit - all
words that have come previous postings of yours...
Psychologists call this "splitting"... I won't
go into the details of this because I'm sure you're
familiar with the term; but I now see why you lost
the presidential election.
Anyway, since it seems to upset you so, and I'm interested
to see what you're reaction will be again, here's another
"...offensive interracial hatemonger" quote:
You can't separate peace from freedom because no
one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
-Malcolm X
But on a lighter side of U.S. Elections, some of you
Usenet funsters out there might like this flash file, if
you haven't seen it already;
http://tinyurl.com/3u78w
>
> xanthian.
K.C
your weight on the moon
> "your weight on the moon"
> <yourweigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > please let us know where you're running (or what
> > religion you've founded).
>
> How extremely fleeting, indeed, is fame!
[etc]
Didn't you run for governor last year? (Or was that me...)
> been looked at with the awe usually reserved for
> deities, and completely deserved it.
<cough>
> and he seemingly expected that I'd have no trouble
> walking on water.
...
> [That still doesn't make me _nearly_ smart enough to
> succeed at your challenge, or I'd have been named
[etc]
So, not to not shred your lovely prose, reminiscences, and all, but
let me render this thusly (or thus thisly): you deserve the awe
reserved for deities, yet you can't figure out how to convince (or
fool, I don't care) all of the people all of the time? Yet--well, I
might be extrapolating too far in the interests of ranting--you demand
this of the candidates, or rather, their political party(ies)?
Isn't this asking a bit much? The Democratic Party as god? Hey, all
they're asking is $1000 for a rubber chicken dinner (and if he wins,
Christmas cards for the next several years): god's minions usual
demands are 10% of your gross. (Admittedly, for some, this is less,
particularly in these times.) Although god's minions usually promise
some sort of In with the submersibly-challenged guy (or their
equivalent)...I don't think the Democrats are offering salvation for
your soul, not even for four years, although they do wave about
feeling better about yourself to see what's biting.
The Republicans, on the other hand, *are* offering Eternal Damnation,
but that's a sure thing! (Gee, what's my bias?) None of this
wishy-washy waffly stuff
http://jellybelly.com/msib21/SearchResults.aspxkeywords=soap&catalogName=
--and, it will be quick, once we trick god into that Armageddon thing
in the Middle East. (That god, he so dumb!!!)
your weight on the moon
> "euclid k." <eucl...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> > What do we need thousands of an "army of one" for?
>
> Other questions along the same lines:
>
> If I am recruited to be "an army of one", on what
> possible basis can I be asked to follow someone
> elses orders? I'm in _my_ army, not the sergeant's
(You're still required to march to the orders of the pretender in
chief.)
Just think of it as the UDP version of defense: guaranteed to deliver
all of the unit if you can get it there at all (if you can't, oh
well), and (as you point out) connectionless.
Ob. ptlss. cit.: Boiled in Lead, "Army Dream" (_Orb_)
>parr(*>
news:f0feddf2763f06b3c51...@mygate.mailgate.org...
| Does it bother you that the Democratic party has so
| lost it bearings, that in a race where it pits a war
No. What bothers me is that only politicians stand for election.
--
)>==ss$$%PARR(º> Parr
Kent Paul Dolan
>> If I am recruited to be "an army of one", on what
>> possible basis can I be asked to follow someone
>> elses orders? I'm in _my_ army, not the
>> sergeant's
> (You're still required to march to the orders of
> the pretender in chief.)
Okay, that seems fair enough, but like every other
"army of one" on this battlefield, I want my orders
in writing, so there's no "but I told you" nonsense
later, hand written, in explict "point gun <exactly
there>, pull trigger when <specific circumstances>"
mode, in the hand of the pretender in chief, since
s/he is the _only_ one eligible to give me orders,
and delivered at the start of every eight-hour
workday along with the mandatory morning coffee.
All that scribbling should dampen the pretender in
chief's enthusiasm for _large_ wars, at least.
xanthian.
There'd be a lot fewer wars if warlords were still
required to march at the head of the van, and to
offer to meet the enemy chieftan in single combat to
settle the issue without much bloodshed before tha
main forces were required to engage, sez I.
Presidents would look a lot more like Schwarzenegger
once did, and a lot less like Bush does, too, and this
"native born" crud would be long revoked.
Kate Orman
> The religion I (co-)founded
You utter hypocrite* Kent! I'll bet you're a closet feminist too! Take
off that green, violet and white underwear at once!
- Ormazoid
* Word seldom seen on Usenet, due to blatent hypocrasy.
Kate Orman
> RDNA
I can't help reading this as rDNA.
You can take the girl out of the biology degree...
Kent Paul Dolan
> Didn't you run for governor last year? (Or was
> that me...)
I may have mentioned in passing that if nominated I
would not run, but if elected I _would_ serve.
> you deserve the awe reserved for deities,
Well, no, you left out a rather important
disclaimer, "'usually' reserved". I deserved the awe
he gave me, because I really was a co-founder of that
church, and to him, that made me an awesome being.
So, that much was fair enough, but I didn't deserve
to be thought a deity, as he seemed to consider me.
Back when I co-founded that church, by accident as
it were (and a bit of an embarrassing one, I was a
diehard atheist even then), I was just a college kid
indulging in a bit of rebellion against the
constituted authorities in hopes of getting out of a
detested mandatory chapel attendance requirement
(and we did succeed at that tiny part, from end of
winter through the end of spring semester).
> yet you can't figure out how to convince (or fool,
> I don't care) all of the people all of the time?
I'm not even trying; I know when to take advice from
those smarter than me, and Abraham Lincoln was a lot
smarter than I am on that subject and all others
(except play-going choices).
> Yet--well, I might be extrapolating too far in the
> interests of ranting
Yep.
> you demand this of the candidates, or rather,
> their political party(ies)?
I'm just a bit dismayed that the Democrats, who, one
would surmise, should have been able to pick some
random inner-city third-grade-graduate "professional
cleaner of other peoples houses" to run against
Bush, and win, instead have a moderately presentable
candidate with genuine war-hero chops, and are
struggling to do as well as they did in 2000 against
Bush, not yet even guaranteed to do as well as a tie
in electoral college votes, despite that Bush's
record as president is there for all the voters to
see, this time. He's no pig in a poke, more of a
poke in the eye.
Recent online news notes that for the first time
ever in American history, the Bush presidency
featured TWO YEARS IN A ROW of _decreased_ real
wages for American workers, and that this was
the first time since somewhere in the 1950's
there'd even been _one_ such year.
What just kills me is Chaney warning, yesterday
was it, that a Kerry presidency would mean
"increased taxes".
Right. Balancing the federal budget to clean up
the mess Bush made of the balanced budget he was
blessed with on acceeding to the presidency is
sure going to require some tax increases
_somewhere_.
I'll contend you cannot run a deficit this large and
have your form of government survive, and I point to
the collapse of the Soviet Union as evidence of what
happens when you try.
Notice who ended up starving in that fiasco? The
common man, not the plutocrats of the former
economy there. Now who do you surmise that gives
a vested interest in cleaning up the federal budget
mess, even if that takes a tax increase?
Now since Bush went so far out of his way to
decrease taxes on the _rich_, affecting yours very
little and mine not at all, while also decreasing
the real wage of the working class, just whose taxes
do you suppose Chaney is warning us are about to be
raised, your taxes and my taxes, or Bill Gates'
taxes and Paul Allen's taxes and Dick Chaney's taxes
and George W. Bush's taxes?
Frankly, I'm willing to let the rich suffer a little
to stop the steady loss of lives in Bush's little
"War in Iraq: The Neverending Story".
I'm betting Kerry, at no risk of losing face for his
daddy by bring the troops home and letting the
locals fight it out without us in between, can find
that ol' "exit strategy" thingie Bush came up so
sorely lacking.
Truth to tell, I'm willing to let the rich suffer a
_lot_. It seems to me their turn in the barrel is
way overdue. We've been listening to "let them eat
cake" longer than is really sufferable even by a
very patient body politic, the wage-ratio spread
from janitor to CEO has grown twentyfold larger
[Or was it thirtyfold? I'm too lazy to go look it
up again] than it was a few decades ago, and the
fat-wallet-guillotines are getting much too rusty
with disuse. The rich are surely patriots, let's
water the tree of liberty with copious amounts of
_their_ money-as-a-surrogate-for-blood for a change.
xanthian, contending as before that eligibility to
be in the forefront of battle should be "wealthiest
first", and by draft, thus putting a damper on
big-buck political contributions to war-mongers.
We don't need a constitutional amendment against gay
marriage, which frankly doesn't seem that big a
threat to "life as we know it in America", just to
the religious right control freaks'
freakoid-controlist behaviors and urge to batter
people about private choices exercised in private.
How about if instead, we go with a constitutional
amendment against sneaking the body bags and boxes of
assorted parts from your nasty little war back via a
restricted airbase where media coverage is forbidden?
That "lack of transparency" does seem to be a pretty
big threat to democracy, a free press being about
the only thing that prevents despots like Bush from
taking over the place; hmmmm, speaking of which...
Drafting such an amendment shouldn't be too
challenging. We could just copy the first amendment
unchanged to the end of the list of amendments
again, to let the courts know that THIS time we
_really_, _really_ mean it, when we say "freedom of
the press", "freedom of speech", "freedom of
association", "freedom from government imposed
religious values taking on the force of law".
Aldo Pignotti
> Does it bother you that the Democratic party has so
> lost it bearings, that in a race where it pits a war
> hero and experienced politician against an incumbant:
>
> * who dodged the draft by joining the National
> guard, in a sweetheart deal where his attendance
> was "spotty" at best,
My best friend from high school died in Vietnam in a National Guard
uniform. Besides, while Clinton was in office, we heard over and over
again from the Democrats that it was OK to be a fraft dodger. Now the
Democrats want us to believe that we need a war hero in the Oval
office? You don't smell the stench of hypocrisy and PR flacks around
the Kerry campaign?
>
> * who gained office by electoral fraud,
That's Electoral College, my dear friend and I see there's been no
attempt to get rid of it.
>
> * who dragged the country into a war by lying, and
> keeps it there by incompetence,
The world is a very different place than it was before 9/11. Who says
we have to sit back and let Pearl Harbors and World Trade Center
attacks occur. The Germans and the Russians both warned the US that
Iraq was plotting attacks against us, that's documented. Besides,
Hussein was an evil fuck. You want to defend his regieme?
>
> * who has kept the economy remarkably free of
> prosperity or job growth,
Ahh, the Clinton years unfortunately began to fade while Clinton was
still in office. Eight years of greed, lies and overhyped IPOs had to
fade sometime.
>
> * who has demonstrated the IQ of a turnip, and we
> are not talking about a Rhodes Scholar among
> turnips, either,
What has John Kerry ever done or said? I live in Massachusetts and I
don't even know what Senate commititees he sits on. He's no war hero
either. He was one of the antiwar activists who prolonged the war for
five years. From 1968 on, the North Vietnamese knew that with a
strong antiwar movement, they didn't have to negoatate, they could sit
back and let Jane Fonda and John Kerry win their war.
>
> * who has been successfully and hilariously
> ridiculed by a movie that has cleared
> USD $100,000,000 at the box office and is still
> going strong,
Lies make money in this country. Look at the money that "JFK" made.
Did you ever see that piece of trash? According to that film, the
only surprise in Dallas was that more people weren't killed in the
crossfire of CIA agents, Cuban terrorists, FBI agents and right wing
nuts. Michael Moore is a big fat lying piece of shit. All of his
alegations have been disproved.
>
> * who has dragged the US reputation in the dirt
> his whole first term of office, alienating our
> strongest allies,
The French wanted to make money selling nuclear reactors to Hussein.
They didn't give a fuck if he was going to make nuclear bombs. The UN
has proven itself to be a debating society.
>
> * who has used his office to impose his religious
> beliefs as law, in a country whose basis
> document of government forbids such behavior,
you'd rather have a man in office who conducts vetern affairs while
getting a blow job?
>
> * who has set new records in selling rights to
> damage the ecology to big business,
The environmentalists are a nutty bunch of single issue wackers.
>
> * and who only stops lying when his mouth is
> closed,
I think we've established that the Clinton presidency was based on
lies and deception. Compared to Clinton and the rest of the
Democrats, GW has been a breath of fresh air.
>
> that the best the Democrats can do is be struggling
> to achieve a _tie_ for electoral college votes, this
> close to the election?
They have no cause to rally around. Did you watch Kerry's acceptance
speech last night? They're trying to sell Kerry as a Republican war
hero. They're trying to be more Republican than the Republicans.
George Bush is too weak to be President! He should have overthrown
more governments!
>
> If the Democratic Party had any clue where its
> political base was, Bush would be struggling to find
> _any_ electoral college votes by this point, and the
> Republican Convention would have a strong "dump the
> Shrub" subcontext to it other than the obvious Al
> Quida one already im place.
The Democrats have spit of the feet of their liberal members. Howard
Dean must have needed CPR last night.
>
> xanthian.
>
> ObBizarre: That I live in a one-party "democracy",
> where you cannot differentiate the players if they
> forget to wear their campaign buttons.
That great sucking sound you heard last night was the Democratic Party
moving to the right of the Republican Party.
edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
aldopi...@yahoo.com (Aldo Pignotti) wrote:
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
> news:<f0feddf2763f06b3c51...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> > Does it bother you that the Democratic party has so
> > lost it bearings, that in a race where it pits a war
> > hero and experienced politician against an incumbant:
> >
> > * who dodged the draft by joining the National
> > guard, in a sweetheart deal where his attendance
> > was "spotty" at best,
>
> My best friend from high school died in Vietnam in a National Guard
> uniform. Besides, while Clinton was in office, we heard over and over
> again from the Democrats that it was OK to be a fraft dodger. Now the
> Democrats want us to believe that we need a war hero in the Oval
> office? You don't smell the stench of hypocrisy and PR flacks around
> the Kerry campaign?
start from the beginning
in 1990 politics was still being dominated by old guys
who had been in world war 2 (or at least ww2 movies)
and so bush the elder and dole and mccain
and other republicans were making a big deal
about having been soldiers
and insisting that only former soldiers were qualified to be president
clinton was the first politician in a long time (since 1988)
that had never been a soldier
so a big deal was made about in 1992 and 1996
that a draft evader could not be president
even in 2000 republicans were busy making light of gores vietnam adventures
ignoring the fact that being in country anywhere
was still more dangerous than hanging out in austin
for the last few years republicans have been silent on the fact
that the iraq adventure has been trumpeted and plotted
by people who by and large closest experience to combat
has been giving lectures in the pentagon
and since then the old republican guard has been retiring and dying off
and the national level republicans were just as interested
in evading combat as everyone else
it is now republican hypocrisy that military service doesnt matter
given shrubs intermittent service defending us against mexico
and cheney being too busy for even that
it is especially in the last six months when it became clear the kerry would run
that republicans first attacked kerrys combat experience
accusing him variously of cowardice and war crimes
and that they finally settled on the theme that combat experience doesnt matter
that everybody (including apparently kerry) was evading combat
so lets just call the whole thing off
if you want to talk about hypocrisy
that has been the republican strong point ever since gingrich
> > * who gained office by electoral fraud,
>
> That's Electoral College, my dear friend and I see there's been no
> attempt to get rid of it.
electoral college has nothing to do with
a crooked supreme court inventing new constutional clauses from the bench does
> > * who dragged the country into a war by lying, and
> > keeps it there by incompetence,
>
> The world is a very different place than it was before 9/11. Who says
bullshit
the only difference is us citizens are now subject to the same carnage
the us governemnt has delivered in their name on rest of the world
> we have to sit back and let Pearl Harbors and World Trade Center
> attacks occur. The Germans and the Russians both warned the US that
> Iraq was plotting attacks against us, that's documented. Besides,
the usa had contingency plans to invade canada up to about 1940
so what?
the real issue is whether he was taking material steps to attack the usa?
no evidence now and no evidence two years ago
and the investigation that was looking for evidence was stopped by shrub
> Hussein was an evil fuck. You want to defend his regieme?
hypocrisy again
shrub has again and again and again said the usa can do whatever it wants
because it has national sovereignity
do you know what national sovereignity means?
it means the usa nor any other governemtn has the right to stand judgement
on the internal affairs of iraq or sudan
shrubs own claims of national sovereignity
invalidate any rationale that ignores iraqs national sovereignity
for fifty years the usa was trying to establish an international system
that would allow other countries to intervene in the internal affairs of others
but 2001 shrub and his puppeteers knew that a un that could intervene in iraq
was a un that could intervene in the usa
so shrub has been actively attacking the un and destroying international systems
in order to preserve the usas ability to wreak havoc on the world
without fear of retribution
> > * who has kept the economy remarkably free of
> > prosperity or job growth,
>
> Ahh, the Clinton years unfortunately began to fade while Clinton was
> still in office. Eight years of greed, lies and overhyped IPOs had to
> fade sometime.
will the -clinton- recession end before shrub is gone?
> > * who has demonstrated the IQ of a turnip, and we
> > are not talking about a Rhodes Scholar among
> > turnips, either,
>
> What has John Kerry ever done or said? I live in Massachusetts and I
> don't even know what Senate commititees he sits on. He's no war hero
> either. He was one of the antiwar activists who prolonged the war for
> five years. From 1968 on, the North Vietnamese knew that with a
> strong antiwar movement, they didn't have to negoatate, they could sit
> back and let Jane Fonda and John Kerry win their war.
sorry kid but the war was lost in 1955
and it took until 1968 before that fact became so obvious
it could no longer be hidden from the public
the elections in 1954 wouldve elected ho chi minh
that champion of democracy the usa could not accept free and fair elections
so they intervened to prevent them
and then installed a puppet government in saigon
the rvn never had widespread support even in its won country (or its own capital)
and was only kept in place by usa force of arms
the fall of rvn was inevitable
and it was only twenty years of usa intervention and paranoia that slowed it
and resulted in millions more dead than was necessary
> > * who has dragged the US reputation in the dirt
> > his whole first term of office, alienating our
> > strongest allies,
>
> The French wanted to make money selling nuclear reactors to Hussein.
> They didn't give a fuck if he was going to make nuclear bombs. The UN
> has proven itself to be a debating society.
france agreed very early on that it would send troops
if evidence of chemical weapons was found
it was shrub that stopped that investigation
btw france and germany are still in afghanistan
depending on troop rotations there are sometimes more french and germans there
than americans
maybe its about time you stopped attack france just because they were right
the un is a debating society
because thats what the usa and russia want it to be
they are so jealous of their own sovereignity
they starve the un of any real authority
and then hypocritically shrub attacks the un
for not having the authority that shrub does not permit it to have
> > * who has used his office to impose his religious
> > beliefs as law, in a country whose basis
> > document of government forbids such behavior,
>
> you'd rather have a man in office who conducts vetern affairs while
> getting a blow job?
if you really want to go on about morality
jesus taught many times against killing and judgeing others
he also taught you cannot serve god and mammon
given the delight shrub has in the death and suffering of his enemies
(you will know it by its fruit)
its clear that shrub might very well worship a god
but its not the same one that sent us jesus
> > * who has set new records in selling rights to
> > damage the ecology to big business,
>
> The environmentalists are a nutty bunch of single issue wackers.
more people will die on the atlantic coast due to power plant pollution
than have been killed by terrorists
> > * and who only stops lying when his mouth is
> > closed,
>
> I think we've established that the Clinton presidency was based on
> lies and deception. Compared to Clinton and the rest of the
> Democrats, GW has been a breath of fresh air.
what exactly have you been breathing? cocaine?
> The Democrats have spit of the feet of their liberal members. Howard
> Dean must have needed CPR last night.
nader
arf meow arf
Marc Goodman
> From 1968 on, the North Vietnamese knew that with a
> strong antiwar movement, they didn't have to negoatate, they could sit
> back and let Jane Fonda and John Kerry win their war.
Refresh my memory, I was only 6 at the time. Why were we
in Vietnam again? Something about dominos, or Southeast Asia
turning Chinese, or communist, or Chinese Communist or something?
I studied some Vietnamese, and have found everyone from that
culture to be warm and friendly. The food is pretty good,
too. And you can buy a bowl of noodles for the around .50 cents.
The Chinese Communists are our beloved super premier
trading partners. North Vietnam stayed communist in spite
of our efforts to the contrary, and as far as I can tell
not much bad happened because of that.
If we had won, maybe we'd now be buying cheap Hello Kitty
knockoffs made in Saigon instead of Taiwan. Big fucking deal.
So, it looks like the antiwar movement was right, after all.
Kent Paul Dolan
You know, it always baffles me how _anyone_ could be
brainwashed enough to fall for the Republican Party
line (a line used by the rich to make sure that the
rich are _not_ the ones bearing the cash costs of
running a nation in proportion to their wealth),
much less a majority of the electorate prove to be
that stupid and ignorant, and then, just as I
despair ever to understand the causes, some such
True Believer decides to contribute to my education,
in a posting very much like yours, and I become
enlightened.
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote:
>> Does it bother you that the Democratic party has so
>> lost it bearings, that in a race where it pits a war
>> hero and experienced politician against an incumbant:
Notice here that my posting was a criticism of _the
Democrats_ as a crowd of incompetent bozos unable to
find their butts with both hands, and so failing to
seize the Bush presidency as a chance to regain
power from the Republicans by mobilizing an enraged
electorate. Instead, the Democrats are content to
permit the electorate to remain brainwashed docile
sheep, fleeced by the Republican's real faithful,
the rich campaign contributors.
>> * who dodged the draft by joining the National
>> guard, in a sweetheart deal where his attendance
>> was "spotty" at best,
> My best friend from high school died in Vietnam in a National Guard
> uniform.
And this places George W. Bush and his sweetheart
deal into the line of fire, exactly how? My HS
class were the early draftees to Vietnam, and
frankly, I've always been too much of a coward to go
back and read the plaque containing the names of
those of my classmates lost in combat, since by pure
luck I ended up in the comparitively safe submarine
service just before Vietnam went from page three to
page one of the US newspapers, and missed out on all
that flying lead and a chance to interpose my body
in front of it.
> Besides, while Clinton was in office, we heard
> over and over again from the Democrats that it was
> OK to be a [d]raft dodger.
This makes George W. Bush's sweetheart deal to evade
the Vietnam war while also avioding showing up for
National Guard muster, because his rich daddy could
call in favors, more acceptable exactly how, again?
> Now the Democrats want us to believe that we need
> a war hero in the Oval office?
I wouldn't know, not being a Democrat, but
personally I, as a retired serviceman, have a
natural preference for someone who accepted his duty
rather than dodging it. That Kerry has turned out to
be a genuine hero who was wounded in combat while
rescuing one of his troops from a river is a nice
bonus, but heroism is mostly a matter of
opportunity. Only if one has the more pedestrian
virtue of courage, to put oneself in the path of
such opportunities, is heroism likely to be
demonstrated, but then it happens pretty much by
chance, not conveying anything negative about the
person to whom that chance doesn't occur. George W.
Bush so obviously lacks courage, heroism was never a
realistic possibility for him. His record on
granting pardons to Texas death row inmates is more
than sufficient demonstration of his personal
cowardice, he didn't need to turn tail and run in
battle to make the point.
> You don't smell the stench of hypocrisy and PR
> flacks around the Kerry campaign?
I don't watch television, I don't subscribe to a
newspaper, so I rather miss all input from the PR
flacks around the Kerry campaign. However, so far
as I can detect, Kerry _is_ a war hero, several
times over, so it is only the True Believer who
could describe making political currency of that
heroism as "hypocrisy". A saner person would just
call that "politics, business as usual" and heave a
huge sigh of disgust.
> > * who gained office by electoral fraud,
> That's Electoral College, my dear friend and I see
> there's been no attempt to get rid of it.
The electoral fraud was the sending of masses of
Republicans into the field to turn away Black voters
in Florida with "the election's been rescheduled to
tomorrow" on the valid guess that most of those
voters would vote for Gore. The electoral fraud was
the sending of multiple absentee ballots to
servicemen serving oversees, a constituancy that
seems to be heavily Republican supporters.
> >
> > * who dragged the country into a war by lying, and
> > keeps it there by incompetence,
> The world is a very different place than it was before 9/11.
This responds to the charge that Bush dragged the
country into war in Iraq by lying, exactly how,
again?
And again you suffer from the blindness of the True
Believer. A person of normal intelligence would have
noticed that 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's _second_
attack on The World Trade Center, that ObL's
intention to revisit that exact building for that
exact purpose could not possibly have been more
obviously demonstrated, that 9/11 occurred
on the watch of one George W. Bush, that some 3000
people died because Bush was and is an incompetent
head of the executive branch of the US government.
Bush's moral character is every bit as questionable
as FDR's at the start of WWII, so that Bush's choice
to ignore the intelligence evidence he had well in
advance of 9/11 predicting 9/11 may very well have
been done with malice aforethought, just as FDR was
widely believed to have done in ignoring the obvious
signs of an imminent Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor. Bush, as governor of Texas, proved beyond a
doubt that he had no concern for loss of innocent
lives; the Illinois experience documents that
roughly half the death row inmates Bush let go to
execution were utterly innocent of the crimes for
which they were executed. As a sidelight, that means
the real criminals are still running around scott
free, and very likely vote the straight Republican
ticket, just like you do, out of gratitude for
services rendered.
> Who says we have to sit back and let Pearl Harbors
> and World Trade Center attacks occur.
Well, George W. Bush is one example that springs to
mind for some totally incomprehensible reason, since
he did just that.
And again, what does this bit of rhetoric by you
have to do with responding to the charge that Bush
dragged the US into war in Iraq by lies and
deception, and keeps us there the very same way?
Do you really feel, and will you contend with a
straight face, that US soldiers dying in Iraq,
right now, is contributing to making the replacement
for the World Trade Center one bit safer from
terrorism, considering that the terrorists are not
now and never were headquartered in Iraq?
> The Germans and the Russians both warned the US
> that Iraq was plotting attacks against us, that's
> documented.
How sad that both warnings seem to have been
entirely meritless, but I'm sure you think that has
some content defending George W. Bush for dragging
the US into a war in Iraq using lies as his means of
doing so?
> Besides, Hussein was an evil fuck.
Yes, and he still is, now he's just an evil fuck
with a prostate infection that will give him the
sympathy vote from unrinary tract infection
sufferers around the world. By some astonishing
failure of fully participative democracy to take
root unassisted in every nation of the world, there
are a _lot_ of evil fucks running countries from
Sudan to Cuba to Nigeria to North Korea and more
beyond my knowledge or caring. How does this make
dragging the US into war with one of them by the
President of the US lying to the US population more
acceptable, once again?
> You want to defend his regieme?
I'm hoping I'd have better luck spelling the word,
at least but as I may not, I won't try. I'm on
record dozens of times in this very newsgroup,
saying "right war, wrong president". Iraq very
much needed to be cleansed of Saddam Hussein. A
president somewhat less of a cowboy and more of a
competent executive branch head might have managed
not to go in there as "the US" at all, but instead
contribute troops to a UN mission to swamp out that
particular stable. Bush, room temperature IQ heavily
on display, decided the US should play hero, at a
cost so far of just under a thousand lives and about
an eighth of a billion dollars expended per
serviceperson lost in the war.
So, again, how does the indefensibility of Saddam's
regime make it acceptable for Bush to drag the US
into war in Iraq by lying to the US public? I'd
suggest that's slightly better grounds for
impeachment than Clinton's office trysts; Bush's
crimes have not been victimless ones.
>> * who has kept the economy remarkably free of
>> prosperity or job growth,
> Ahh, the Clinton years unfortunately began to fade
> while Clinton was still in office. Eight years of
> greed, lies and overhyped IPOs had to fade
> sometime.
Well, an intelligent person might suggest that they
faded mostly when it became obvious that the Clinton
"balanced budgets make for happy stockmarkets" years
were going to be replace by a reprise of the "huge
deficits destroy economies" years made so popular by
our latest Alzheimer's Syndrome poster boy to die in
bed instead of in battle.
>> * who has demonstrated the IQ of a turnip, and we
>> are not talking about a Rhodes Scholar among
>> turnips, either,
> What has John Kerry ever done or said?
I wouldn't know, I'm not a member of his fan club.
> I live in Massachusetts and I don't even know what
> Senate commititees he sits on.
So we are supposed to accept your guidance on
political matters based on your ignorance of
politics even local to your own dwelling place?
I guess this goes along pretty well with the
Republican plan of seeking out people stupid
and uninformed enough to vote in politicians whose
entire terms of office will be spent making their
rich cronies even richer, while visiting ever more
misery on the folks whose votes put them in office.
> He's no war hero either.
Well, there at least the documentary evidence that
you are lying is clear and direct.
> He was one of the antiwar activists who prolonged
> the war for five years.
Funny how even to this day he is a forthright
proponent that fighting senseless wars in which the
US has no demonstrated national interest is profound
stupidity. That the US had no business trying to
prop up the corrupt regime in South Vietnam is a
lesson of history. That Kerry was willing to learn
that lesson as ground truth, by heeding his nation's
call to service and serving where the fighting was,
_before_ coming back and saying "hey, folks, this is
an assinine waste of your children's lives", to me
is a point in his favor. That Bush got a sweetheart
deal in the national guard that let him avoid any
experience of the reality of war, and lacking such
experience decided lying to the American public and
sending our troops into battle in Iraq without an
exit strategy was a peachy keen way to make
political hay, is to me a rather large point against
Bush. But then I entered service as a volunteer, and
before the draft was reinstated, so _truly_ a
volunteer (though not for any noble cause: I needed
a job), not merely someone volunteering as a way to
avoid being drafted to a worse assignment choice, so
I don't have much use for the Clinton _or_ the Bush
approaches to evading the battle zone.
> From 1968 on, the North Vietnamese knew that with
> a strong antiwar movement, they didn't have to
> negoatate, they could sit back and let Jane Fonda
> and John Kerry win their war.
Well, since the US had proved unwilling and unable
to win the war, but extremely able under Tricky Dick
Nixon to alienate its own population, and since wars
do usually end decisively rather than just petering
out from lack of interest, I think you give the
activists more credit than they deserve, they were a
symptom, not a cause, of the public detestation with
the Vietnam war, and the North Vietnamese more
credit for insight than they deserve, and less
credit for fighting a war the US had no skills to
counter, jungle warfare by a jungle dwelling people.
>> * who has been successfully and hilariously
>> ridiculed by a movie that has cleared
>> USD $100,000,000 at the box office and is
>> still going strong,
> Lies make money in this country.
Indeed they do, and even as we speak. Haliburton,
for example, is profiting hugely by the lies George
W. Bush told to drag the US into war in Iraq,
wouldn't you say? Do you hope to convince anyone
that it is merest coincidence how incestuously
Haliburton is related to the Bush administration?
> Look at the money that "JFK" made. Did you ever
> see that piece of trash?
No, I try to avoid conspiracy theory based on
invented "facts".
> Michael Moore is a big fat lying piece of shit.
Well, I'll grant you his use of stock film footage
is a bit creative; anyone who thinks Farenheit 9/11
is a dispassionate recounting of events, or accepts
Moore's description of his documentary as
"non-fiction" is probably also heavily invested in
Florida swamp real estate.
But lots of true stories have been told using
fiction as the vehicle, and the utter corruption of
the Bush administration and the Bush family didn't
start or end its being documented with Fahrenheit
9/11. Sorry if the movie offends your True Believer
sensitivities, but the George W. Bush and George H.
W. Bush portrayed in that movie, exist in the real
world pretty much just as depicted. Shrub really did
sit in a classroom full of little kids with a dazed
"what am I supposed to do now, this part of the
photo op isn't in the script" look on his face while
police and fire crews died trying to rescue people
from the WTC twin towers.
This is _not_ the man I want defending _my_ country
from terrorism.
> All of his alegations have been disproved.
"All?"
Funny how most of his "allegations" involved just
commenting on stock film footage of Bush and cronies
being bought and paid for by the oil rich Saudis,
shmoozing with them, hugging them, being splendidly
entertained by them, benefitting from their
investments, bragging at conventions about how rich
Bush's splendid little war was going to make them.
Maybe you should go see the movie yourself, rather
than taking the word for other True Believers about
what _must_ be the movie's contents. That's the only
reason I bothered to attend, so that I could speak
knowledgeably about the movie contents, not that I
needed any additional convincing of Bush's basic
slime-nature.
.
Are you going to suggest that those film clips were
somehow created from other than real photons emitted
by real Bush family members and cronies?
> > * who has dragged the US reputation in the dirt
> > his whole first term of office, alienating our
> > strongest allies,
> The French wanted to make money selling nuclear
> reactors to Hussein. They didn't give a fuck if
> he was going to make nuclear bombs. The UN
> has proven itself to be a debating society.
Funny how even a country sitting on top of a world
class puddle of oil would rather not fill their air
with its combustion products, a lesson Shrub has yet
to apply to America. Then again, in a battle of
wits between Saddam and Shrub, it sure is lucky for
Shrub that the US had a bigger armed forces, it was
sure lacking in the "intelligent leadership"
category.
Yep, the French, who have _always_ been "less than
splendid" allies, did no better with regard to Iraq.
As a Frankophobe for other entirely reasons
[The French, in their quaking fear that some
language other than French might take root in
France, forbid use of home languages in school,
to the point that even the profoundly Deaf were
forbidden to attend public school classes taught
in LDF, the French language from which American
Sign Langage is derived. The French, in their
quaking fear that their piss-ant little nation
is going to acquire cultural pluralism, offended
_every_ religious faith by a blanket
condemnation of wearing religiously required
symbols and garments to school, whether
rosaries, crosses, Sikh decorative knives and
combs and turbans, Muslim headgear, Jewis
headgear, and on and on. Let's just say I don't
care for the way the French govern themselves,
and that nearly everything about France offends
me.]
Granted, for the sake of argument, that nuclear
weapons under the control of a madman willing to use
them is a bad idea, how is George W. Bush having
them any improvement over Saddam Hussein having
them?
There's this little detail that possession of
nuclear weapons tends to be "an internal affair
unworthy of comment" if you are a warmongering
nation like, say, Israel these days, who have them,
or a festering mess like the Union of South Africa
before the fall of apartheit, which was fairly
reliably suspected of having them, but is somehow
"a thing of deep concern justifying an invasion, at
least if you are a little, easily overwhelmed nation
like Iraq, and not a big, messy, hard to overrun
nation like oh, say, India, whose record of internal
religious warfare is worse than Iraqs if for no
other reason just because India is so much bigger.
>> * who has used his office to impose his
>> religious beliefs as law, in a country whose
>> basis document of government forbids such
>> behavior,
> you'd rather have a man in office who conducts
> vetern affairs while getting a blow job?
A thousandfold so, yes; are you really that stupid?
Clinton's office entertainment didn't worsen my life
one bit, and livened up the news. Shrub's imposition
of his religious values on Americal doesn't manage
to confine itself to the White House interior, and
does indicate profound disrespect on his part for
the very Consitution he swore to uphold in his oath
of office. Of course, he lied through his teeth in
taking that oath of office, but persons of wisdom
knew that about him long before his
not-quite-election.
>> * who has set new records in selling rights to
>> damage the ecology to big business,
> The environmentalists are a nutty bunch of single
> issue wackers.
Are we? I manage to worry about acid rain,
deforestation, pollution of lakes and streams that
make drinking water toxic and rivers catch fire,
irreversable extinction of species, global warming,
strip mining the oceans of fish to the point that
breeding stocks are threatened, renewed hunting of
whales still struggling to recover their historical
population levels, conversion of the
alongshore breeding habitat of ocean fishes to
condominiums, disrupting fragile ecosystems with
oil drilling for reserves too tiny to be worth the
damages, general dumping of industrial toxins to
become part of the human environment, landfills
overflowing with stuff that should have been
recycled, displacement of prairie tall grass by
agriculture, loss of songbird habitat, Pandas hard
pressed to find bamboo, and a long list of other
things Bush is involved in making much, much worse
to make his rich cronies richer, all sometimes
before the period at the end of a single sentence.
The "nutty bunch" are the ones who think it is
possible to overpopulate a planet this badly, and
have it and us survive without great attention being
paid with the force of law to reducing the impact of
humankind's worst behaviors.
>> * and who only stops lying when his mouth is
>> closed,
> I think we've established that the Clinton
> presidency was based on lies and deception.
An interesting example of the "tell a lie
often enough, it is bound to be believed" school of
political persuasion.
> Compared to Clinton and the rest of the
> Democrats,
You were raised in some convent or something? A
little casual sex keeps the dust bunnies from taking
over the corners of the White House as all the
scampering stirs them back out where the vacuum
clener nozzles can reach them. Voting the "jealous
of some guy's better nookie success" ticket isn't
the path to political enlightenment, it is the path
back to the burning witches for the fun of it era.
I'm betting the White House was practically dust
bunny free while JFK was in office.
The bigger issues of the Clinton presidency, like
Whitewater, seem to be forgotten by those to whom
complex issue are just not worth the skull sweat to
consider, and Hillary is doing just splendidly
despite being a bought and paid for politician
(though not quite on the Bush family scale;
Hillary's loot lacks several sets of
zeros-conveying-magnitude compared to the Bushs'
Saudi-derived plunder).
> GW has been a breath of fresh air.
You must _really_ be fond of breathing smog.
Once again, how do Clinton's lies excuse Bush's
lies, exactly?
>> that the best the Democrats can do is be
>> struggling to achieve a _tie_ for electoral
>> college votes, this close to the election?
> They have no cause to rally around.
"Four more years, NOT!" works perfectly fine
for me. The chances of picking someone even
at random who could do a worse job of being
president than Shrub _has_ done are too small
to be worth considering.
> Did you watch Kerry's acceptance speech last night?
What part of "Kent doesn't watch television" is too
complex for your needed-to-vote-Republican
complex-thinking-avoidance-mechanism to grasp?
I can try to type it slower for you, if you can
identify the parts giving you trouble.
> They're trying to sell Kerry as a Republican war
> hero.
Umm, that would seem unlikely; the last war hero the
Republicans ran, Bob Dole, was as stone-faced as
Kerry, and didn't do well.
> They're trying to be more Republican than the
> Republicans.
I do believe my posting mentioned my disgust with
living in a one party country trying to fake being a
democracy. Perhaps you missed that?
> George Bush is too weak to be President!
Umm, I'm pretty sure that is "weak" as in "weak
between the ears". It's pretty easy to look
"strong" when someone else does that inconvient
"dying in battle" part for you.
Kerry's "let's don't fight in any more wars _we_ are
the ones to start" looks fairly sensible in
comparision to Bush's "let's out-daddy daddy and go
fight that really 'easy' war, _again_". Only thing
was, Bush II has managed a rather large multiple of
daddy's "own troops killed in battle" count. Why did
we think the dunce son of a lying bastard would
make a good choice for commander-in-chief, again?
> He should have overthrown more governments!
Really? Somehow that isn't the story coming from
Kerry's lips. Are you getting all your True Believer
data via I.V. from other True Believers, or do you
make some attempt at checking ground truth?
>> If the Democratic Party had any clue where its
>> political base was, Bush would be struggling to
>> find _any_ electoral college votes by this point,
>> and the Republican Convention would have a strong
>> "dump the Shrub" subcontext to it other than the
>> obvious Al Quida one already im place.
> The Democrats have spit of the feet of their
> liberal members. Howard Dean must have needed CPR
> last night.
Yep, can't tell the teams without a political
button, or some such was my complaint. Oh, there it
is again, right below!
>> ObBizarre: That I live in a one-party "democracy",
>> where you cannot differentiate the players if they
>> forget to wear their campaign buttons.
> That great sucking sound you heard last night was
> the Democratic Party moving to the right of the
> Republican Party.
That's not hard to do, though it is really just a
perceptual thingie due to mutual "ships passing in
the night" Bernouli-effect hull attraction, since
the Republicans have launched a successful Mach 2
move to the left, having stolen the "spend" half of
"tax and spend", believing as they do now in free
lunches for all.
Since Reagan parlayed fiscal irresponsiblity to a
reputation as 'The Great Communicator", Shrub must
incorrectly think his even worse budget deficits are
going to make him somehow even more popular than his
hero.
This massive Republican shift to the "bread and
circuses" point on the political spectrum leaves
only the less popular "tax" part of their former
agenda to the slowly-growing fiscally responsible
Democrats.
Poor, poor pitiful Democrats, left with "but who's
going to _pay_ for all this" as their main agenda.
Like that's going to be some stunning vote-getter!
Bummer.
I suspect the story on Reagan and Bush II in the
history books is going to read slightly differently,
once the US is forced to repudiate its national
debt, sure to happen well within my lifetime, and,
if Bush wins another four, quite possibly even well
before my own social security eligibility.
When the US becomes another third world wholly-owned
subsidiary of the International Monitory Fund, along
with such other big hitters as Argentina, Botswana,
and the Russian (Banana) Republic, say, perhaps the
electorate will wake up realizing that circuses can
just as easily charge patrons at the egress as at
the ingress.
Getting from that point to an electorate that would
rather think about issues than listen to the band is
too big a step to contemplate. Fortunately, the
rumors that such a state ever existed in American
history are just that, rumors, so you are in a long
tradition of brain-dead True Believerism, Aldo, that
part is nothing of which to be ashamed; it is the
"Republican" part that puts your sanity in question.
xanthian.
Gary Heston
edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <b9c34a43.04073...@posting.google.com>,
> aldopi...@yahoo.com (Aldo Pignotti) wrote:
>if you want to talk about hypocrisy
>that has been the republican strong point ever since gingrich
Please ask your war hero to explain how his medals from Viet Nam
ended up on the wall of his Senate office--after he threw them
over the gate of the Capital Building during his antiwar activities.
He qualifies as a Grade-A hypocrite. Makes a good weathervane, though.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net
Contrary to popular opinion, _not_ everyone loves Raymond.
edens rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote:
> In article <mair_fheal-D934E...@corp.supernews.com>,
> edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges <mair_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >In article <b9c34a43.04073...@posting.google.com>,
> > aldopi...@yahoo.com (Aldo Pignotti) wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >if you want to talk about hypocrisy
> >that has been the republican strong point ever since gingrich
> [ ... ]
>
> Please ask your war hero to explain how his medals from Viet Nam
not my war hero
> ended up on the wall of his Senate office--after he threw them
> over the gate of the Capital Building during his antiwar activities.
arf meow arf
Aldo Pignotti
> You know, it always baffles me how _anyone_ could be
> brainwashed enough to fall for the Republican Party
> line
I've always been surprised that anyone could fall for the lies and the
hypocrisy of the Democrats. The Democratic leaders tell you they want
to tax the rich while they are lining their own pockets. Tell the
masses what they want to hear and do what you like.
>My best friend from high school died in Vietnam in a National Guard
> > uniform.
>
> And this places George W. Bush and his sweetheart
> deal into the line of fire, exactly how?
The point is that the Democrats are hpocrites for making GW war
service an issue.
>
> > Besides, while Clinton was in office, we heard
> > over and over again from the Democrats that it was
> > OK to be a [d]raft dodger.
>
> This makes George W. Bush's sweetheart deal to evade
> the Vietnam war while also avioding showing up for
> National Guard muster, because his rich daddy could
> call in favors, more acceptable exactly how, again?
At least he served. Clinton should have gone to jail. He got a
deferment because he was in ROTC and when it was time for him to
fullfill his obligation, he renounced his ROTC status.
> > You don't smell the stench of hypocrisy and PR
> > flacks around the Kerry campaign?
>
> I don't watch television, I don't subscribe to a
> newspaper, so I rather miss all input from the PR
> flacks around the Kerry campaign.
You should have watched the convention. It was startling. The
Democrats are trying to be more warlike than the Republicans.
>However, so far
> as I can detect, Kerry _is_ a war hero, several
> times over,
I don't know, I've heard interviews with several veterens who are
outraged that such a big deal is being made of Kerry's "band-aid"
medals.
> > > * who gained office by electoral fraud,
>
> > That's Electoral College, my dear friend and I see
> > there's been no attempt to get rid of it.
>
> The electoral fraud was the sending of masses of
> Republicans into the field to turn away Black voters
> in Florida with "the election's been rescheduled to
> tomorrow" on the valid guess that most of those
> voters would vote for Gore. The electoral fraud was
> the sending of multiple absentee ballots to
> servicemen serving oversees, a constituancy that
> seems to be heavily Republican supporters.
The election was completely investigated and neither happened. I had
the flu during the Elections investigation and watched the daily
coverage on C-Span. During the mornings, there were the sound bites
who heard on the news about handicapped people who weren't allowed to
vote, black people who were turned away but police. In the afternoon,
the people who actually ran the elections came on and told us that
they had investigated every allegation and they were just wrong.
People were at the wrong buildings, people were misinformed. That
Election Commision were a bunch of knee jerk liberals looking for a
headline when they couldn't find a story.
> Getting from that point to an electorate that would
> rather think about issues than listen to the band is
> too big a step to contemplate. Fortunately, the
> rumors that such a state ever existed in American
> history are just that, rumors, so you are in a long
> tradition of brain-dead True Believerism, Aldo, that
> part is nothing of which to be ashamed; it is the
> "Republican" part that puts your sanity in question.
I have to admit, I've shouted "Not Insane" in a court of law. I'm not
a true believer in any way shape or form, I'm just sick and tired of
lying liberal hypocrites who want to tax me to death.
edens rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > > uniform.
> >
> > And this places George W. Bush and his sweetheart
> > deal into the line of fire, exactly how?
>
> The point is that the Democrats are hpocrites for making GW war
> service an issue.
wrong
theyre playing tit for tat
it was republicans who brought this issue up against clinton
its the republicans who are the hypocrites
for now declaring military service is irrelevant
when this issue is used against them instead of for them
like this whole family values thing republicans started
with divorcees like reagan and gringrich
and jack ryans recent self inflicted immolation
> At least he served. Clinton should have gone to jail. He got a
> deferment because he was in ROTC and when it was time for him to
> fullfill his obligation, he renounced his ROTC status.
for all the crimes clinton is accused of
isnt it odd he never been even indicted?
how long did cheney serve?
> I have to admit, I've shouted "Not Insane" in a court of law. I'm not
> a true believer in any way shape or form, I'm just sick and tired of
> lying liberal hypocrites who want to tax me to death.
the real question is whether youre willing to give up those services
taxes are supposed to pay for
arf meow arf
Kent Paul Dolan
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote:
>> You know, it always baffles me how _anyone_ could
>> be brainwashed enough to fall for the Republican
>> Party line
> I've always been surprised that anyone could fall
> for the lies and the hypocrisy of the Democrats.
I dunno, the Democrats say: we'll raise your taxes
and use the extra revenues to pay for new services
to make the country a better place.
Modulo the incredibly amount of pork-barreling both
parties do to attempt to ensure re-election, that's
pretty much what happens.
Yes, Clinton fibbed, he use a lot of the extra
revenue to balance the federal budget, and put a
strict lifetime limit on welfare mooching. How
despicable of him.
The Republicans say: we'll lower your taxes and use
the extra revenues to pay for new services to make
the country a better place.
Somehow, those "extra revenues" fail to materialize,
but the rich still get to keep their preferential
tas reductions.
In Reagan's case, he specifically claimed that lower
taxes would result in increased revenues via
prosperity that would more than make up the
difference. That was a lie. What happened was that
he tripled the national debt wasting money on a Navy
we couldn't afford. How despicable of him.
I have no real idea what lies Shrub told to justify
lowering the taxes for his rich supporters and
running up the debt even faster, I'd long before
then given up TV and hoping for an improved
political process in the US. It hardly mattered
with control of Congress in the hands of those with
the same ideology, he was going to get his way in
any case. At any rate, he is setting new records at
depriving the economy of venture capital, and thus
new jobs creation, by sucking that money into
Treasury bonds instead.
Has he made the country a better place? Only if you
like high unemployment, and lunatic fringe religious
beliefs being given the force of law or of executive
order, and the environment being poisoned and
despoiled of its resources to make his supporters
rich. We get to drink dirtier water and see the last
wilderness areas run through with roads so loggers
can clear cut the last old growth forests, that 5%
of the original that remains but that the loggers
won't be happy until that is 0%. How despicable of
him.
If you object to the Democrats lining their own
pockets with your tax revenues, you cannot begin to
compare in that to my objections to the Republicans
lining their _churches'_ pockets with _my_ tax
revenues. My ancestors-in-concept fought a rather
nasty war to be rid of that brand of government once
and for all, but the Republicans have chosen to
sneak it back, not because doing so was right or
moral, quite the opposite, it is wrong and immoral
and very, very un-American.
They did it because they hold America's deepest
values in contempt, preferring their fringe minority
nutcase religious values.
They did it because they had the power to do it.
They did it because they could, and to hell with the
examples world wide of how splendid it is NOT to
live in a theocracy.
> The Democratic leaders tell you they want to tax
> the rich while they are lining their own pockets.
Not that it makes doing so right but all politicians
"line their own pockets". Republicans just happen to
be a lot more blatant about it.
That general tendency is because anyone who would
voluntarily run for political office is by that very
choice proved so corrupt that their very willingness
should be disqualifying. It hardly matters what
their party affiliation is. Some SF story that
selected all US office holders by lottery instead of
by election probably had a better idea.
Harry Truman may have been the last politician who
didn't leave the US Presidency rich, and I admire
him greatly for that minor evidence of probity.
At least, you'll have trouble accusing the Democrats
of failing to _try_ to shift more of the tax burden
onto the vastly undertaxed rich, granted the rich
use money and bought and paid for politicians to
block these efforts at every turn.
I'd be plenty happy to see a flat tax replace the
misnamed "progressive" one for lots of reasons, as
long as it applied to the rich as well as to the
poor. The rich would pay a larger share of the total
taxes than now, I suspect, and lots of tax-dodge
specialist lawyers would have to get real jobs. The
folks at the other end of the food chain wouldn't be
so keen on "free lunch" social programs if they
weren't exempt from paying a share of the costs, and
the "free" part wasn't quite so "free" looking any
more.
> Tell the masses what they want to hear and do what
> you like.
Trying to type all the instances of the Republicans
doing that just during the current administration
would wear my fingertips back to the elbows, so just
consider you've received a huge raspberry for that
ridiculous comment.
>>> My best friend from high school died in Vietnam
>>> in a National Guard uniform.
>> And this places George W. Bush and his sweetheart
>> deal into the line of fire, exactly how?
> The point is that the Democrats are hopcrites for
> making GW war service an issue.
I don't think so. Prior sins by someone else are not
exculpating of present sins by someone we are trying
to evaluate as fit or unfit to hold office.
Someone who had some ground experience of combat
would probably be moderately less willing to send
others to fight in wars that were easily avoided,
though that isn't an absolute, either. Almost
certainly a combat veteran would have had the
patience to negotiate a UN armed response, rather
than a US armed response, to Saddam Hussein's
violations of several sommittments to the UN.
I have a professor friend (we had lunch together
again Saturday, as we do regularly) who was a foot
soldier in Viet Nam, chose to be enlisted rather
than officer when drafted because the service time
for enlisted was shorter, though he was a college
graduate, as were his entire boot camp platoon.
He left 'Nam early with a Purple Heart that was for
more than a shaving-nick's worth, but not
permanently disabling either. Now 34 years later,
and nearing retirement later this year, his day to
day life is still dominated by memories of combat,
and at least half his conversation covers those
fewer-than-24-months of his life. Combat experience
changes people _profoundly_, this isn't some
isolated case, survivors of WWII are much the same.
So, Shrub having no idea what he was requesting,
sent troops into an unwinnable conflict, one very
much like Viet Nam, fighting a war we don't know how
to fight, against people overjoyed to die for their
cause, thinking it guarantees them a prime spot in
the hereafter, far from home and against people
impassioned against one another with "us" stuck in
the middle. Nixon couldn't find an exit strategy,
and in the end, "we" got our butts kicked.
Lack of combat experience is _very_ pertinent in
this regard. Given that we no longer exclude half
our population from combat duties, and while I feel
sorry for the real 4F types this would disadvantage,
I think lack of combat experience is simply
disqualifying today for someone who will among other
duties be commander-in-chief.
The terrible job Shrub is doing in that regard is
more than sufficient evidence to support this
opinion.
Shrub is following the same trail, with the same
easily expected outcome, as Nixon did (and Johnson
before him, this kind of stupidity isn't limited to
one political party), bringing us to five lost wars
by the US in a row since WWII.
That latter minor detail always makes me giggle when
we are branded "a superpower" or "the last
superpower" by those who hate our guts.
We got our tails kicked in Korea, and ran bleating
from the Chinese, and the communist North Koreans
remain in charge of half of that country.
We got our heads handed to us at the Bay of Pigs,
and Castro remained in charge in Cuba.
We got our tails kicked in Viet Nam, and the
communist North Vietnamese succeeded putting
themselves in charge of all of that country.
We wimped out in the Gulf War, and left Saddam in
charge and the problem he represented festering.
[Granted we had a moral and legal obligation to do
so, this sure isn't "last superpower" behavior.]
Now, we've got somebody else to execute Saddam for
us, and we're _still_ getting our fannies waxed,
despite Shrub having declared victory. He missed
the trick any combat veteran would have known: when
you're getting your butt kicked, you are supposed to
declare victory AND RETREAT.
Notice that in every case, the US lost to tin-pot
dictators in countries we had the strength, but not
the will, easily to reduce to stone age civilizations.
>>> Besides, while Clinton was in office, we heard
>>> over and over again from the Democrats that it
>>> was OK to be a [d]raft dodger.
>> This makes George W. Bush's sweetheart deal to
>> evade the Vietnam war while also avioding showing
>> up for National Guard muster, because his rich
>> daddy could call in favors, more acceptable
>> exactly how, again?
> At least he served.
Well, not exactly; he seems to have been AWOL a lot,
and that in particular in the interests of _not_
serving, say, in Viet Nam.
> Clinton should have gone to jail. He got a
> deferment because he was in ROTC and when it was
> time for him to fullfill his obligation, he
> renounced his ROTC status.
My guess, as he wasn't instantly jailed, is that
this was a legal thing to do. Legal, as opposed,
say, to Shrub's repeatedly failing to show up for
drills and musters in the "service" in which he was
supposedly engaged, which was and remains a direct
violaton of the UCMJ for which, without a sugar
daddy to smooth things over, he'd have spent time in
the stockade and been busted back to E1 and sent
straight to Nam to finish his obligated time?
>>> You don't smell the stench of hypocrisy and PR
>>> flacks around the Kerry campaign?
>> I don't watch television, I don't subscribe to a
>> newspaper, so I rather miss all input from the PR
>> flacks around the Kerry campaign.
> You should have watched the convention.
Well, no, I saved all those hours of being brain
deadened by commercials, and my hiking companion was
more than happy to regale me with the executive
summary over the phone, nightly.
> It was startling. The Democrats are trying to be
> more warlike than the Republicans.
You somehow expect otherwise when the Republicans
have made impugning Kerry's service and patriotism a
big part of their campaign strategy, earning the
contempt of service veterens nationwide?
Just how stupid did you claim to be, anyway?
>> However, so far as I can detect, Kerry _is_ a war
>> hero, several times over,
> I don't know,
You're right, you don't, and with the clarity and
first handedness of the evidence on the subject,
your True Believer filter must be of the nanopore
persuasion.
> I've heard interviews with several veterens who
> are outraged that such a big deal is being made of
> Kerry's "band-aid" medals.
I'm sure there were more spectacular examples of
heroism in Viet Nam; real full-gonzo maniacs
_volunteered_ to serve in that war. The stories of
guys coming home with strings of ears worn as
necklaces are all too true.
That doesn't make Kerry _less_ a hero, and I suspect
the folks doing the complaining are doing so in
large part because his is far more the hero than
they ever were, and also simply because they are
Republican faithful who realize that Kerry is a
hundred times the mench Shrub could ever be.
I haven't "heard" anything, but I've read quite
detailed reports of Kerry putting his own life at
risk, and being wounded in the process, to save the
life of a subordinate, reports _from_ that subordinate.
If the Republicans are then claiming that Kerry is
not "a war hero", the Republicans are simply telling
bare faced lies, in a way that shows their utter
contempt for all servicemen and servicewomen.
This, given the record of the current administration
as flagrant liars to the US public on issues of the
evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and the convenient
disappearance of most records of Shrub's Air
National Guard attendance at drills and musters, is
hardly as "startling" as you claim, now is it.
You have attached your cart behind a horse that is
doing a _lot_ of fertilizing as it drags you
unthinking to the voting booth.
>>>> * who gained office by electoral fraud,
>>> That's Electoral College, my dear friend and I
>>> see there's been no attempt to get rid of it.
>> The electoral fraud was the sending of masses of
>> Republicans into the field to turn away Black voters
>> in Florida with "the election's been rescheduled to
>> tomorrow" on the valid guess that most of those
>> voters would vote for Gore. The electoral fraud was
>> the sending of multiple absentee ballots to
>> servicemen serving oversees, a constituancy that
>> seems to be heavily Republican supporters.
> The election was completely investigated and
> neither happened. I had the flu during the
> Elections investigation and watched the daily
> coverage on C-Span. During the mornings, there
> were the sound bites who heard on the news about
> handicapped people who weren't allowed to vote,
> black people who were turned away but police. In
> the afternoon, the people who actually ran the
> elections
That would be the people who engaged in and promoted
this fraud? And you believed a word they said?
Just how stupid did you claim to be, one more time?
Funny how it works, but politically neutral people
tend _never_ to be the ones who volunteer their time
to run polling stations.
> came on and told us that they had investigated
> every allegation and they were just wrong. People
> were at the wrong buildings, people were
> misinformed.
People were not given directions to the correct
buildings, people were told direct lies...
Duplicate ballots came back from troops overseas;
they denied this too? Funny how some of the more
honest troops reported being solicited to submit
multiple absentee ballots, then, isn't it?
> That Election Commision were a bunch of knee jerk
> liberals looking for a headline when they couldn't
> find a story.
My how easy it is to use overloaded semantics when
you and those whose line you keep swallowing have
been caught out in untruths once again.
>> Getting from that point to an electorate that
>> would rather think about issues than listen to
>> the band is too big a step to contemplate.
>> Fortunately, the rumors that such a state ever
>> existed in American history are just that,
>> rumors, so you are in a long tradition of
>> brain-dead True Believerism, Aldo, that part is
>> nothing of which to be ashamed; it is the
>> "Republican" part that puts your sanity in
>> question.
> I have to admit, I've shouted "Not Insane" in a
> court of law. I'm not a true believer in any way
> shape or form,
You can say that, and in the very next sentence you
can say this:
> I'm just sick and tired of lying liberal
> hypocrites who want to tax me to death.
What part of "convicted from the evidence of your
own keyboard" is too complex for you to understand?
You are so brainwashed you TYPE in Republican party
cliches devoid of truth or even content.
No one wants to "tax you to death". A few of the
saner people want to tax you to pay for the services
you demand, in this case services like a so far
$127,000,000,000 incursion into a sovereign nation
that neither attacked us nor posed any immediate
threat to do so, in hopes that being seen as "tough
on terrorism" would make Shrub look like something
more re-electable than the C student incompetent in
office he has so visibly proved himself to be.
That little war, for that very political reason, and
damn the cost in US lives, was so widely
telegraphed, it was being campaigned against right
here in this newsgroup months before it occurred.
Personally, I think if 900 lives and counting hasn't
made that point, it isn't likely to be made by the
perhaps 200 more that will die before the election
at the current rate, and perhaps the nation should
choose a better plan.
Kerry might be that better plan, he might not, but
Shrub is stone cold guaranteed not to be it, and
Kerry is the only electable alternative at this
point.
Were you a saner person, you'd choose to vote
against fiscal irresponsibility, and for
responsibility in the use of combat forces, but I'm
not realistically expecting to change the mind of
someone obviously blind to the world in front of
his eyes.
I'm just keeping my typing fingers limber for the
amusement of on-lookers, and because I like yanking
the chains of you and your fellow unthinking dunces.
Tom Betz
news:35bc85ecfeee67dd9b9...@mygate.mailgate.org:
>
> I dunno, the Democrats say: we'll raise your taxes
> and use the extra revenues to pay for new services
> to make the country a better place.
For an extremely small value of "your" (less than 5% of the wage-earning
population, when considering those with incomes over $200,000 -- the
population Kerry plans to raise taxes for).
It worked great when Clinton did it in 1993, right up to the point that
Bush un-did it in 2001.
--
|I always wanted to be someone,| Tom Betz, Generalist |
|but now I think I should have | Want to send me email? |
|been a wee bit more specific. | <http://tinyurl.com/ps2u> |
edens rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> population, when considering those with incomes over $200,000 -- the
> population Kerry plans to raise taxes for).
>
> It worked great when Clinton did it in 1993, right up to the point that
> Bush un-did it in 2001.
i think borrow and spend is a better idea
think in terms of home mortgage
you got some equity in the house and youre tired of making mortgage payments
so you borrow against the equity
and get enough money to make all loan payments for a few years
when you run out of money
the property has appreciated so you have more equity to borrow against
and you get another loan
this is great system
property always appreciates
and you never have to work to make any payments
you can always borrow against the increased value
this can go on forever
its free money
you got a house for free
borrow and spend
its the way to go
arf meow arf
kevincar
> > >My best friend from high school died in Vietnam in a National Guard
> > > > uniform.
> > >
> > > And this places George W. Bush and his sweetheart
> > > deal into the line of fire, exactly how?
> >
> > The point is that the Democrats are hpocrites for making GW war
> > service an issue.
>
> wrong
> theyre playing tit for tat
> it was republicans who brought this issue up against clinton
> its the republicans who are the hypocrites
> for now declaring military service is irrelevant
> when this issue is used against them instead of for them
>
The declaration of war was declared from the squeaking anus of
the White House bathtub rubber duckie that
was installed by the Clinton administration... It has been
squeaking "Death to Iraq!" over and over for over twelve
years, but thank God it was a Republican aministration that
was able to decode the message using a Turing Machine
algorithm developed by Peter Olcott (in this very
newsgroup) therefore cementing forever the history of t.b.
> like this whole family values thing republicans started
> with divorcees like reagan and gringrich
> and jack ryans recent self inflicted immolation
>
> > At least he served. Clinton should have gone to jail. He got a
> > deferment because he was in ROTC and when it was time for him to
> > fullfill his obligation, he renounced his ROTC status.
>
> for all the crimes clinton is accused of
> isnt it odd he never been even indicted?
>
> how long did cheney serve?
Total bullshit.
Cheney served with me in the dotcom revoution, whereby we both
devised a unique system of accounting which ignored profits
and only concentrated on net income- it was great- you
should have totally been there but obviously you wern't, otherwise
I would have remembered you. Unfortunately Dickie withdrew
from the White House duckie-anus and left me holding the
plug. I tried installing a profitable plug in the gaping hole
left in the duck's squeak-hole but Kent refused upon the advice
given by Tom- Oh well; time will tell who is right.
>
> > I have to admit, I've shouted "Not Insane" in a court of law. I'm not
> > a true believer in any way shape or form, I'm just sick and tired of
> > lying liberal hypocrites who want to tax me to death.
>
> the real question is whether youre willing to give up those services
> taxes are supposed to pay for
>
Wrong again.
The only real question is which anus you wish to listen to.
The White House, or a (yet undetermined) influence. It's everyone's
choice, but somehow I doubt your judgement, given your demonstrated
inability to comprehend these simple facts I've presented.
> arf meow arf
You better run, man- The Olcott turing machine tape is ready
to roll over your ass any moment now.
K.C
Aldo Pignotti
> theyre playing tit for tat
No, no, no, it was Bill Clinton who was playing with that girl's tits.
> it was republicans who brought this issue up against clinton
> its the republicans who are the hypocrites
Nay, nay, nay. The Republicans (if I must characterize such a diverse
group) are the strong honest body builder types. Simple men and women
perhaps but strong people who work hard and like to me left alone.
Jerimah Johnston was probably the first Republican.
> for now declaring military service is irrelevant
> when this issue is used against them instead of for them
The Demos told us for eight years that it was OK to have a spineless
draft dodger in the White House. It is they who now are saying we
can't have someone with National Guard experience in the White House,
we have to have a "real war hero" even though their candidate rose to
fame as an antiwar protester. Am I the only person in this country who
watched the Demos National Convention?
>
> like this whole family values thing republicans started
> with divorcees like reagan and gringrich
> and jack ryans recent self inflicted immolation
This whole "family values" issue is another red herring the Demos have
come up with. When a Republican says "family values" he (or she) is
saying we need a society where families work and stay together.
Instead of calling for help from a cop or a bureaucrat when you need
help, you call your mother, father or sister. You stick together,
families working together, neighbors working together. The Demos
turned this into "man married to woman with 2.5 children in the
burbs". The Demos are simple minded folk and think in terms of
stereotypes. The Republicans realize its a much more complicated
world. The Demos think that with enough laws and enough bureaucrats,
the world will be a perfect place.
>
> > At least he served. Clinton should have gone to jail. He got a
> > deferment because he was in ROTC and when it was time for him to
> > fullfill his obligation, he renounced his ROTC status.
>
> for all the crimes clinton is accused of
> isnt it odd he never been even indicted?
He was impeached. Ken Starr also let the Clintons refile their tax
returns. The Federal prosecutor in Arkansas wanted to charge the
Clintons with tax evasion but Ken Starr overruled him and let them
just refile their tax returns with some of their deductions reduced.
>
> how long did cheney serve?
>
> > I have to admit, I've shouted "Not Insane" in a court of law. I'm not
> > a true believer in any way shape or form, I'm just sick and tired of
> > lying liberal hypocrites who want to tax me to death.
>
> the real question is whether youre willing to give up those services
> taxes are supposed to pay for
Yes, in a heart beat. I think government is here to keep the roads
clear of snow in the winter and not much else. I suppose you kids in
California don't think that way. Let me put it this way. We need a
government who makes sure we can get to the beach and that the beach
is nice and clean. More rock and less talk.
>
> arf meow arf
I have to admit, I miss old Slick Willie and his weekly scandals. All
we have to look forward to now is the occaissional gaffe from Theresa
Hines. Oh, the Demos are the party of the working guy. When John
Kerry's campaign couldn't raise enough money to keep up with Howard
Dean, Theresa wrote a check for $6 million. Yeah, they're working
stiffs like you and me. I think I'm going to roll the sleeves on my
work shirt and write about those hard working Kerrys and Hineses.
BELANGER
>Nay, nay, nay. The Republicans (if I must characterize such a diverse
>group) are the strong honest body builder types.
Is there any hope of you explaining what you might possibly mean by,
or why you even chose, the metaphor "strong honest body builder type"?
>The Demos are simple minded folk and think in terms of
>stereotypes.
The irony is pleasant to all of my senses at once.
>When John
>Kerry's campaign couldn't raise enough money to keep up with Howard
>Dean, Theresa wrote a check for $6 million.
John Kerry is rich. Therefore you should not vote for John Kerry.
George Bush is rich. Therefore... something.
--
BELANGER
Go Nader! Or Perot! Or someone!
Marc Goodman
> aldopi...@yahoo.com (Aldo Pignotti) wrote:
>
>
>>Nay, nay, nay. The Republicans (if I must characterize such a diverse
>>group) are the strong honest body builder types.
>
>
> Is there any hope of you explaining what you might possibly mean by,
> or why you even chose, the metaphor "strong honest body builder type"?
I just assumed he was saying that all Republicans are
latent homosexuals. You mean that's not what he means?
Maybe the answer is in Johnson's school o' fish.
>>The Demos are simple minded folk and think in terms of
>>stereotypes.
>
>
> The irony is pleasant to all of my senses at once.
Don't forget to turn off the steam irony, your house
might burn down.
>>When John
>>Kerry's campaign couldn't raise enough money to keep up with Howard
>>Dean, Theresa wrote a check for $6 million.
>
>
> John Kerry is rich. Therefore you should not vote for John Kerry.
> George Bush is rich. Therefore... something.
I wish my wife would write me a check for $6 million.
I'd settle for a couple of thousand. I'd settle for maybe
dinner and a night out. I have nothing but respect for a
man who's clever enough to marry into money.
Or, for the repbulicans, marry some nice rich guy.
Or a fish.
kevincar
> > For an extremely small value of "your" (less than 5% of the wage-earning
> > population, when considering those with incomes over $200,000 -- the
> > population Kerry plans to raise taxes for).
> >
> > It worked great when Clinton did it in 1993, right up to the point that
> > Bush un-did it in 2001.
>
> i think borrow and spend is a better idea
>
> think in terms of home mortgage
> you got some equity in the house and youre tired of making mortgage payments
>
> so you borrow against the equity
> and get enough money to make all loan payments for a few years
>
> when you run out of money
> the property has appreciated so you have more equity to borrow against
> and you get another loan
>
and taxes... Plus State and local communications taxes, Plus
State and local sewer/refuse taxes, plus State and local this-and
that taxes. Unless you're talking about your propery appreciating
linearly at approximately a living-wage-per-year, from the moment you
set foot in the property.
While your living, you have to pay the mortgage that you took out...
But your plan WILL work if you rent out your house and live in your
parent's basement.
BTW-
The only reason I'm pointing this out was because it was my ex that
thought along these lines of yours. Her solution to the mounting debt
was to blame it all on me, divorce me and attempt to leave me with the
bills (Yes, that too is an option you can try, if you are of that cloth).
K.C
edens rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
kevin...@yahoo.com (kevincar) wrote:
but thats how the federal government works
if it worls for them
why not me
arf meow arf
Kent Paul Dolan
> kevin...@yahoo.com (kevincar) wrote:
>> But your plan WILL work if you rent out your
>> house and live in your parent's basement.
> but thats how the federal government works
> if it wor[k]s for them
> why not me
Umm, 'cause you don't have thugs with machine guns
standing by on your parents' block to make your
parents agree with the idea?
xanthian.
No, I'm no political guru.
A lucky, guess, really, is all that was.
BELANGER
I _thought_ I'd seen Laura Bush peeking out a tiny, cellar window!
edens rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
BELANGER <ready_TAK...@hotmail.com> wrote:
dont you wonder if last month when the clintons visted the white house
if hilary and laura got together
each wondered why they married syuch a doofus
arf meow arf
Aldo Pignotti
>
> In Reagan's case, he specifically claimed that lower
> taxes would result in increased revenues via
> prosperity that would more than make up the
> difference. That was a lie.
Where do you think the prosperity of the ninties came from? Do you
think Slick Willie did anything? He promised to cut taxes the first
time he ran but by the time he actually took office, the small
recession of the early ninties was over and his advisors were joking
about not having to keep THAT campaign promise. Slick Willie cut the
taxes later when tax revenues began to soar with the Internet boom.
> I have no real idea what lies Shrub told to justify
> lowering the taxes for his rich supporters and
> running up the debt even faster,
Hey, I got a check for $800 from the Internal Revenue Service and I'm
not rich. Don't forget, GW inherited a recession from Slick Willie.
> I'd be plenty happy to see a flat tax replace the
> misnamed "progressive" one for lots of reasons, as
> long as it applied to the rich as well as to the
> poor. The rich would pay a larger share of the total
> taxes than now, I suspect, and lots of tax-dodge
> specialist lawyers would have to get real jobs. The
> folks at the other end of the food chain wouldn't be
> so keen on "free lunch" social programs if they
> weren't exempt from paying a share of the costs, and
> the "free" part wasn't quite so "free" looking any
> more.
The last time a flat tax floated around Congress it failed because
people finally figured out it would be a tax break for the richer
people and it would be a large burden for the middle class. I
remember it would have cut my taxes by almost 20%. I don't remember
what the flat tax rate was that was being proposed but I thought it
was a great idea because it cut my taxes significantly. Don't forget,
the richest 10% of the people pay 90% of the taxes. Kerry's plan to
raise the taxes works because the richest 2% of the population pay a
huge part of the total. I forget the exact amount but its
surprisingly large.
>
> We wimped out in the Gulf War, and left Saddam in
> charge and the problem he represented festering.
> [Granted we had a moral and legal obligation to do
> so, this sure isn't "last superpower" behavior.]
Ahh, so you wanted GW to "finish the job"?
>
> Now, we've got somebody else to execute Saddam for
> us, and we're _still_ getting our fannies waxed,
> despite Shrub having declared victory. He missed
> the trick any combat veteran would have known: when
> you're getting your butt kicked, you are supposed to
> declare victory AND RETREAT.
I think in the end, the (very) high price we have paid will be worth
it. Have you noticed that North Korea has stopped making provocative
moves toward South Korea? Did you notice that Kadafi has opened up
Lybia to weapon's inspections? Kadafi has even tried to settle the
Pan Am flight 103 case. Even Iran is opening up its borders to
weapons inspections.
>
> Notice that in every case, the US lost to tin-pot
> dictators in countries we had the strength, but not
> the will, easily to reduce to stone age civilizations.
Thank God we didn't.
>
> That would be the people who engaged in and promoted
> this fraud? And you believed a word they said?
>
> Just how stupid did you claim to be, one more time?
You believed the lie that Republicans prevented black people from
voting. If that had happened don't you think one person would have
been arrested or charged with something? Those campaign hearings were
very interesting. Most of the people who ran the elections in Florida
got involved in local politics because the were social activitists and
were greatly offended that anyone would think that they had done
anything wrong. In fact, the did nothing wrong, the charges were are
baseless. The commision made great headlines charging that there was
"instituional racism" but after several months of investigations, they
didn't find one specific act of wrong doing or that one law was
broken. You were duped.
BELANGER
>Have you noticed that North Korea has stopped making provocative
>moves toward South Korea?
I think North Korea had a lengthy "talk" with South Korea's boyfriend
a few weeks ago.
astri
>Don't forget, the richest 10% of the people pay 90% of the taxes.
don't forget that they take in well over 90% of the income.
-- astri
your weight on the moon
> Hey, I got a check for $800 from the Internal Revenue Service and I'm
> not rich. Don't forget, GW inherited a recession from Slick Willie.
> The last time a flat tax floated around Congress it failed because
> people finally figured out it would be a tax break for the richer
> people and it would be a large burden for the middle class. I
> remember it would have cut my taxes by almost 20%. I don't remember
> what the flat tax rate was that was being proposed but I thought it
> was a great idea because it cut my taxes significantly. Don't forget,
Just how short do you think our attention span is?
The City of Defensive Illusion
The republicans proposed a 100% flat tax in the 2000 election. The
caveat was that if you didn't have any abortions for the year
concerned, you would gain access to the special income multiplier that
ranged from 150% to 400% based on your associated religion. I managed
to pull the old religion crossreference from google and have included
it:
Pentecostal Southern Baptist: 400%
African-American Pentecostal Southern Baptist: 75%
Catholic: 175%
Jewish: 325%
Muslim: -17.5% : payment due once a month
Voodoo: 172% * chicken head or shrunken heads per dollar
--
Fleur De Lis Seven Six Hand
Aldo Pignotti
>
> Just how short do you think our attention span is?
pretty fucking short, you read talk.bizarre.
your weight on the moon
>
> >
> > Just how short do you think our attention span is?
>
> pretty fucking short, you read talk.bizarre.
Yeah, and we're pretty much an audience underserving of your genius.
The City of Defensive Illusion
> aldopi...@yahoo.com (Aldo Pignotti) wrote in message news:<b9c34a43.04080...@posting.google.com>...
> > yourweigh...@yahoo.com (your weight on the moon) wrote in message news:<68f994bb.04080...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > Just how short do you think our attention span is?
> >
> > pretty fucking short, you read talk.bizarre.
>
> Yeah, and we're pretty much an audience underserving of your genius.
Intelligence reports on Aldo Pignotti state that he is a bipolar
(manic-depressive looney). This is just the type of refreshing air we
need at this time, in a time where times are not as free to be
yourself as they were four years ago.
A
kevincar
> yourweigh...@yahoo.com (your weight on the moon) wrote in message news:<68f994bb.04080...@posting.google.com>...
> > aldopi...@yahoo.com (Aldo Pignotti) wrote in message news:<b9c34a43.04080...@posting.google.com>...
> > > yourweigh...@yahoo.com (your weight on the moon) wrote in message news:<68f994bb.04080...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Just how short do you think our attention span is?
> > >
> > > pretty fucking short, you read talk.bizarre.
> >
> > Yeah, and we're pretty much an audience underserving of your genius.
>
> Intelligence reports on Aldo Pignotti state that he is a bipolar
> (manic-depressive looney). This is just the type of refreshing air we
> need at this time, in a time where times are not as free to be
> yourself as they were four years ago.
>
This makes a big difference in how we will ultimately treat
Aldo medically .
Aside; Pretty much everyone suffers from a wide spectrum of
personality disorders, some treatable, most not. All that
really matters is whether or not the sufferer in question
posts well or not.
K.C
Mark Boliek
That's right! It's amazing how many French-wine drinking leftists
don't understand that the unprecendented prosperity of 1993-2000 was
totally due to George H.W. Bush. These are probably the same
idiots who never figured out that the 1991-92 recession was due
to Jimmy Carter's policies.
> Just how short do you think our attention span is?
(With present company excepted) ... pretty short, and pretty limited.
Mark
The City of Defensive Illusion
> yourweigh...@yahoo.com (your weight on the moon) wrote in message news:<68f994bb.04080...@posting.google.com>...
> > aldopi...@yahoo.com (Aldo Pignotti) wrote in message news:<b9c34a43.04080...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ... Don't forget, GW inherited a recession from Slick Willie.
>
> That's right! It's amazing how many French-wine drinking leftists
> don't understand that the unprecendented prosperity of 1993-2000 was
> totally due to George H.W. Bush. These are probably the same
> idiots who never figured out that the 1991-92 recession was due
> to Jimmy Carter's policies.
I could tell that I was getting too liberal until I switched from
French wine to California and New Zealand vintages. Before this time,
I was radically aligned, and now I am a comfortable moderate.
> > Just how short do you think our attention span is?
>
> (With present company excepted) ... pretty short, and pretty limited.
>
> Mark
A
your weight on the moon
I b---no, no, no: for today I am done with attempting to poke holes in
others' delusions. (Mine too! Yeah! (Ha!))
All I'll say, though, is that, postingwise, I'm a legend in my own
mind!
And that's enough for me! (No, it's not! (Shut up! (No! (Yes!
(...)))))