TRUST THE GOP
Simn...@aol.com
>In an eerie example of B5 becoming real life, evidence is out today that
>conclusively proves that, as many of us have long suspected, the Republican
>Party is in fact an organization of evil, black-gloved, jack-booted fascists
>bent on using
>mind control techniques and subliminal messages to take over the world.
I've seen the ad in question. For those that don't know, the Republican Party
has been running an ad for G.W. Bush attacking the Gore medicare/prescription
plan. At one point, the ad claims the Gore plan puts "bureaucrats" in
control.
The word "bureaucrats" drops dramatically onto the screen, apparently from
the
camera's point of view. For one frame, all that can be seen of the word
"bureaucrats" as it drops is the letters "rats". Some are claiming it's a
subliminal message. The director of the ad in question has admitted it was
intentional, but not intentionally subliminal, but the actual Republican
people
who paid for the ad have denied any knowledge of any subliminal messages.
Personally, I doubt it's worth getting excited about, either way.
And, for disclaimers, I am not a Republican, although I have no love for Gore
either.
Martin "The Mess" Hohner <*> Simn...@aol.com
United States of Earth? Schoonmaker for President!
Expansionist Party of the United States Website:
**** http://hometown.aol.com/XPUS/index.html ****
Thomas Bagwell
>Laura M. Appelbaum shaped the electrons to say:
>
>>In an eerie example of B5 becoming real life, evidence is out today that
>>conclusively proves that, as many of us have long suspected, the Republican
>>Party is in fact an organization of evil, black-gloved, jack-booted fascists
>>bent on using
>>mind control techniques and subliminal messages to take over the world.
>
>I've seen the ad in question. For those that don't know, the Republican Party
>has been running an ad for G.W. Bush attacking the Gore medicare/prescription
>plan. At one point, the ad claims the Gore plan puts "bureaucrats" in
>control.
> The word "bureaucrats" drops dramatically onto the screen, apparently from
>the
>camera's point of view. For one frame, all that can be seen of the word
>"bureaucrats" as it drops is the letters "rats". Some are claiming it's a
>subliminal message. The director of the ad in question has admitted it was
>intentional, but not intentionally subliminal, but the actual Republican
>people
>who paid for the ad have denied any knowledge of any subliminal messages.
>
>Personally, I doubt it's worth getting excited about, either way.
I saw the ad as well and I agree with you. What gets me is how it's
being blown all out of proportion in an attempt to make it something
it isn't. The only clip they tend to show it, though, is the still
frame with the word 'RATS' in it. Totally out of context. When you
see the whole clip, it isn't subliminal at all...just amusing.
Tom B.
rri...@my-deja.com
gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) wrote:
> I saw the reports on the ad, too--weird! It made me think of the
> episode of B5 where JMS wanted to make it look like there was
subliminal
> advertising going on.
What interest me is that, at the time, JMS said that a 1-frame
flash would be, by the FCC's definition, a subliminal, and
that the flash in "And Now For a Word" was 4 (I think) frames,
for that reason. I seem to recall that he said there were
regulatory issues.
Did the (presumably) professionals who did the Bush ad not know
this?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: <Simn...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:55 PM
Subject: TRUST THE GOP
> >In an eerie example of B5 becoming real life, evidence is out today that
> >conclusively proves that, as many of us have long suspected, the
Republican
> >Party is in fact an organization of evil, black-gloved, jack-booted
fascists
> >bent on using
> >mind control techniques and subliminal messages to take over the world.
... and the Democrats just promise you everything. Seems like a bribe for a
vote. The trouble with the Republican ticket is that it seems like
Democrat-lite.
> And, for disclaimers, I am not a Republican, although I have no love for
Gore
> either.
Well, I *am* a Republican, and this is the first election that I've ever
been tempted to *not* vote. I really wish there was a "None of the above."
selection to make, and that if "None of the above." won, we could have
another Primary and select better candidates. That said, I'd be happier
now, if it was Cheney/Bush, not Bush/Cheney.
Mac
Jim Kress
outrageous inanities posted by Ms. Appelbaum require a response.
In response to Ms. Appelbaum, I can only point out that:
Liberalism Is Fascism
As Ludwig von Mises observed, Fascism, Nazism, and Socialism are varying
versions of the same core conviction: that it is the sacred duty of popular
government to prevent the emergence of profits by public control of
production and distribution. What distinguishes Fascism and Nazism from
Socialism in economic theory is how they translate "public control" into
reality.
For the socialist, it means outright nationalization-government ownership-of
private business. In a socialist state, the government owns and operates the
airlines, railroads, banks, phone companies, and any other business you can
think of. Everyone is an employee of the State.
For the fascist, public or government control is just that-control, rather
than nationalized ownership, via complete bureaucratic regulation of
ostensibly private business.
As an ardent admirer of Marx, Mussolini coined the term "Fascism" for his
brand of authoritarian, patriotic Marxism. Fascism operates under the
principle of "might makes right," through the exercise of raw, naked
governmental police power.
In America today, the increasingly rough-shod violation of constitutional
rights by government agents in the name of "protecting the environment" or
the "war on drugs" is an indication of how far we are proceeding in this
direction.
Intellectually, fascism is far more dishonest than socialism, which at least
has the courage to assert legal ownership of the economy and thus assume the
legal responsibility for its functioning.
As we can see, liberals are the pro typical Fascist - they're dishonest and
they want Government control of all aspects of our life.
Republicans (in particular Conservative Republicans) are the antithesis of
the liberals/ fascists. Conservative Republicans want to minimize or
eliminate governmental influence in and control over our lives. They don't
want jack booted (to borrow Ms. Applebaum's phrase) thugs (like the IRS,
BATF, FBI, DEA, etc) storming into houses of innocent civilians and killing
them and then saying 'Oops. We had the wrong house'. They don't want these
thugs (like the FBI) shooting (and killing) innocent mothers with babes in
arms. They don't want Presidents diverting attention from their political
woes by lying about pharmaceutical plants and then using the armed forces of
the United States blowing them up - thus depriving the natives of a country
their one source of necessary drugs like antibiotics. They don't want the
President singling out people in a crowd to the Secret Service after a
speech and having the people arrested and held captive - just because they
told the president "you suck". They don't want the President lying about
'ethnic cleansing' claiming 100,000 Kosovar Albanians have been killed (the
actual count by the UN was less than 1200 and many of those were Serbs) and
using this as a pretext to launch attacks against the women and children of
another country (Serbia) plus forcing thousands of people into refugee camps
so they could escape his bombing attacks in their country (the Albanians in
Kosovo). They don't want Congressmen and women using the House Bank as a
source of easy money via the deliberate writing of bad checks. They don't
want the government to be able to come to you and tell you that you can't
build on land you legally acquired, just because some bureaucRAT in
Washington has decided that the land you bought is now a newly protected
wetland (even though it has no water on it). They don't want the government
to be able to tell you that you cannot have your backyard barbecue because a
nameless bureaucRAT in Washington has decided that your air quality needs
improvement. They don't want your local water company to have to increase
your rates by 50% a nameless bureaucRAT in Washington has decided that you
must meet pollution requirements for chemicals that have never been found in
your water. They don't want the government to make the forests of the
country tinderboxes then the government setting them ablaze and watching
while they burn down our houses. They don't want the government to forbid
oil exploration and drilling in land we own so that we aren't dependant on
foreign oil sources and gasoline doesn't rise to $2.00/ gallon. They don't
want the government to allow $100 billion/ year waste, abuse, and theft from
government entitlement programs. They don't want the country to be
government by liberals/ fascists who tell us "Your too stupid to know how to
invest your own money" (like Clinton and Gore).
Under the liberal/ fascist Clinton/ Gore administration this list is endless
...
Also, look at this article (
ttp://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE017970.html )and compare the information
presented here to the actions of Clinton and Liberals. It is clear we are
now in the hands of a Fascist State - organized and lead by people like
Clinton and Gore.
Read more about Liberals at
http://www.kressworks.com/Politics/Liberal_home_page/ALHP.html . Be sure to
listen to their theme song. I'm sure it's one of Ms. Appelbaum's favorites
...
With respect to the Bush ad,
1) This was reported in the major media 2 weeks ago. Fox News did an
extensive review of the ad on its news programming. It seems Gore must have
needed some diversion from the heat he was getting about his 5.6 trillion
dollar, double our taxes 'budget plan' so he loosed his dogs on old news.
2) If any rational person watches the ad, they will see that the word
bureaucrats is bounced all over the screen (as part of the animation of the
ad). So, in one frame you only see 'bure', in another frame you see
'bureau', in another you see 'eau', and in another you see 'rats'.
According to the 'logic' proposed by the Gore gang, the Bush campaign must
be trying to subliminally influence people to buy water (eau), purchase
furniture (bureau), and ascribe evil feelings to democRATS (rats).
Somehow, I don't think water sales are going to rise, people are going to
purchase more furniture, and voters are going to suddenly equate democRATS
to vermin (unless, of course they remember to think about what is is, what
alone really means, and lying to a federal grand jury is OK, as long as you
are only lying about soliciting and receiving sex acts at you place of
work).
Jim Kress
<Simn...@aol.com> wrote in message news:9d.a9df41...@aol.com...
Gharlane of Eddore
Laura M. Appelbaum shaped the electrons to say:
>
> In an eerie example of B5 becoming real life, evidence is out today
> that conclusively proves that, as many of us have long suspected,
> the Republican Party is in fact an organization of evil, black-gloved,
> jack-booted fascists bent on using mind control techniques and
> subliminal messages to take over the world.
>
Unlike the "Democrat" party, and the incredible media white-washing
of FDR's socialist and communist plots to put every penny of private
money in the nation under the control of the government, and FDR's
personally-waged War To Make The World Safe For Tax-Based Economies?
Or even the way Old Joe Kennedy bought all those newspapers and
journalists to make sure that the voting public, especially in
Massachusetts, never heard about JFK's first wife?
If the EEE-ville Nasty Bad Republicans are the ones using "Mind Control
Techniques" to take over the world, how come the "Democrats" and the
rag-tag puling mass of "Media Liberals" actually seem to be running
things?
You're telling me Bob Dole was an "evil jack-booted fascist bent on
using mind control techniques and subliminal messages to take over
the world?" BOB DOLE, who couldn't even run a *campaign* any better
than Mister Brain Damage Of 1972, George McGovern?
Try to live in the real world...
Simn...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I've seen the ad in question. For those that don't know, the
> Republican Party has been running an ad for G.W. Bush attacking
> the Gore medicare/prescription plan. At one point, the ad claims
> the Gore plan puts "bureaucrats" in control.
> The word "bureaucrats" drops dramatically onto the screen, apparently
> from the camera's point of view. For one frame, all that can be seen
> of the word "bureaucrats" as it drops is the letters "rats". Some are
> claiming it's a subliminal message. The director of the ad in question
> has admitted it was intentional, but not intentionally subliminal, but
> the actual Republican people who paid for the ad have denied any
> knowledge of any subliminal messages.
>
> Personally, I doubt it's worth getting excited about, either way.
>
> And, for disclaimers, I am not a Republican, although I have no love
> for Gore either.
>
"One frame?" Seems to me that there are FCC regs about how many frames
constitutes a legally-definable "subliminal" ad.
( Do we really need to get into the fact that subliminals are largely
ineffective in the first place, or the fact that most Americans are
such poor readers that even their subliminally-affectable hindbrain
couldn't appercept a long hard word like "RATS" in a fraction of a
second... )
I've seen the ad. "RATS" was on long enough to read; I presumed it
was intentional; I snickered, and forgot about it.
In <39BF92B7...@naxs.com> jam...@naxs.com writes:
>
> It is a non-issue invented by the media. The ad has been out and
> discussed for weeks on some news shows but now that the NY Times
> decides it is important and that the Republicans are using subliminals,
> all the networks have jumped on the bandwagon.
>
Well, when you can't find anything else to gripe about... remember
when the media decided that Gerry Ford ( one of our more graceful
and athletic presidents ) was "clumsy?" And "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE"
ran footage of his fall on an icy airplane stair, over and over,
never seeming to notice that as he was going down, he was pivoting,
in control, and getting an arm up to catch his wife if she slipped
on the same patch? By the time they were done, Gerry Ford was
"clumsy" in the public eye.
>
> Other apparently less important news stories from yesterday include
> a world shortage of oil but who cares about that? We've got important
> name-calling to do!
>
Yep. Been having a field day watching the refinery blockages
in the U.K., and wondering when they're going to give up, hang
Parliament, and form something akin to real actual government,
whose first task will be finding a death sufficiently agonizing
to be appropriate for Tony Blair's execution.
On a positive note, "ZENITH ARMS," a startup corporation, has
finished its alloy prototyping, and is trying to get sufficient
funding in place to justify making application for a license to
manufacture a .45 ACP match pistol, a clone of the much-revered
and much-missed Detonics "Scoremaster."
Zenith Arms' version will be made of titanium bronze and manganese
bronze, and come with caliber conversion kits for .50 AE,
.451 Detonics Magnum, and in the long-slide version, .45 Winchester
Magnum. ( .44 Magnum and 10 mm variants are under consideration,
if the funding goes through. )
So we may not have gasoline, but we should be able to keep the
Mutant Jackalopes at bay....
Martin A. Hohner
>In response to Ms. Appelbaum, I can only point out that:
>Liberalism Is Fascism
(SNIP long, but good, essay)
>As Ludwig von Mises observed, Fascism, Nazism, and Socialism are varying
>versions of the same core conviction: that it is the sacred duty of popular
>government to prevent the emergence of profits by public control of
>production and distribution.
There's a Margaret Thatcher quote along the same lines. "The worst idea of the
last century is that profit is somehow inherently evil."
>Republicans (in particular Conservative Republicans) are the antithesis of
>the liberals/ fascists. Conservative Republicans want to minimize or
>eliminate governmental influence in and control over our lives.
Except in matters of morality, such as censorship, government support of
Christianity, and sexual politics. There, the Republicans are as bad as the
Democrats.
If the Republicans could just kick out the Christian Right elements of the
party, I'd be an enthusiastic Republican. As it is, they are all too eager to
kowtow to the likes of Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, and Ralph Reed. There was a
brief glimmer of hope when McCain was still in the fight, but he was drowned by
Dubya's money before I got a chance to vote for him (darn late Illinois
Primaries).
Both the Republicans and Democrats fall for the great flaw in Populist
Government. When only votes count, and most people vote their narrow
self-interest, the winner is usually the politician who promises the most.
Hence, my former Congressional Representative, Dan Rostenkowski, whose
campaigns invariably consisted of bragging about how many pork-barrel projects
he could drop in the district.
Bush is trying to buy the vote by promising tax cuts. Gore is doing the same,
and adding free prescription drugs. Both also are promising sweeping new
spending programs of one kind or another.
What we need is a new kind of politician, the kind who promises to CUT programs
instead of starting new ones. The kind who realizes that the Government should
do as little as possible, not as much as possible.
What we need is a good Libertarian.
Martin "The Messr" Hohner <*> Simn...@aol.com
Bill Crawford
Shadows? :>
- Will, who can't think of a thing to put here
"It's the year 2000...but where are the flying cars? I
was promised flying cars! I don't see any flying cars!"
- Avery Brooks
CHARLES L KEENER
> Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Who are the Vorlons, and who are the
> Shadows? :>
Neither, the Shadows and the Vorlons had grand designs that stretched out
over centuries most politicians today have no idea what they're stance will
be on any given issue tomorrow. In comparison to B5 the republicans are the
markab, and the democrats are the clark regime.
I'm either going to vote for G.W because he's closest to me on the issues.
or Nader because no matter how scary he sounds at least he means what he
says making him the most honest of the bunch.
Aurorous,
Laura M. Appelbaum
"Jim Kress" <kress...@kressworks.com> wrote in message
news:8pn29p$36t$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> To the moderator - I wouldn't even think of posting this except that the
> outrageous inanities posted by Ms. Appelbaum require a response.
No, what's inane is that you missed my obvious tongue-in-check (symbolized,
since you are apparently oblivious to it, by the common email winking smirk
of ;D at the end of the message. Talk about an inability to see what's
right in front of you!
Tammy Smith
episode of B5 where JMS wanted to make it look like there was subliminal
but Bush sure can't get a break these days, can he? First, the comment
where he didn't know the microphone was on, & now this.
Tammy
James Bell
> Laura M. Appelbaum shaped the electrons to say:
>
> >In an eerie example of B5 becoming real life, evidence is out today that
> >conclusively proves that, as many of us have long suspected, the Republican
> >Party is in fact an organization of evil, black-gloved, jack-booted fascists
> >bent on using
> >mind control techniques and subliminal messages to take over the world.
>
> I've seen the ad in question. For those that don't know, the Republican Party
> has been running an ad for G.W. Bush attacking the Gore medicare/prescription
> plan. At one point, the ad claims the Gore plan puts "bureaucrats" in
> control.
> The word "bureaucrats" drops dramatically onto the screen, apparently from
> the
> camera's point of view. For one frame, all that can be seen of the word
> "bureaucrats" as it drops is the letters "rats". Some are claiming it's a
> subliminal message. The director of the ad in question has admitted it was
> intentional, but not intentionally subliminal, but the actual Republican
> people
> who paid for the ad have denied any knowledge of any subliminal messages.
>
> Personally, I doubt it's worth getting excited about, either way.
>
> And, for disclaimers, I am not a Republican, although I have no love for Gore
> either.
It is a non-issue invented by the media. The ad has been out and discussed for
weeks on some news shows but now that the NY Times decides it is important and
that the Republicans are using subliminals, all the networks have jumped on the
bandwagon.
Other apparently less important news stories from yesterday include a world
shortage of oil but who cares about that? We've got important name-calling to
do!
Jim
Thomas Bagwell
>In article <15144-39...@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) wrote:
>> I saw the reports on the ad, too--weird! It made me think of the
>> episode of B5 where JMS wanted to make it look like there was
>subliminal
>> advertising going on.
>
>What interest me is that, at the time, JMS said that a 1-frame
>flash would be, by the FCC's definition, a subliminal, and
>that the flash in "And Now For a Word" was 4 (I think) frames,
>for that reason. I seem to recall that he said there were
>regulatory issues.
>
>Did the (presumably) professionals who did the Bush ad not know
>this?
Actually, it wasn't subliminal at all in this context. It was just
the word 'BUREAUCRATS' crossing the screen. At one point, only the
last 4 letters were on the screen. It's really one of the biggest
furors whipped up over nothing I've seen lately.
Tom B.
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gharlane of Eddore" <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Cc: <rec-arts-sf-tv-b...@moderators.isc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: TRUST THE GOP
>
> Laura M. Appelbaum shaped the electrons to say:
> >
> > In an eerie example of B5 becoming real life, evidence is out today
> > that conclusively proves that, as many of us have long suspected,
> > the Republican Party is in fact an organization of evil, black-gloved,
> > jack-booted fascists bent on using mind control techniques and
> > subliminal messages to take over the world.
> >
>
> Unlike the "Democrat" party, and the incredible media white-washing
> of FDR's socialist and communist plots to put every penny of private
> money in the nation under the control of the government, and FDR's
> personally-waged War To Make The World Safe For Tax-Based Economies?
>
> Or even the way Old Joe Kennedy bought all those newspapers and
> journalists to make sure that the voting public, especially in
> Massachusetts, never heard about JFK's first wife?
>
> If the EEE-ville Nasty Bad Republicans are the ones using "Mind Control
> Techniques" to take over the world, how come the "Democrats" and the
> rag-tag puling mass of "Media Liberals" actually seem to be running
> things?
>
> You're telling me Bob Dole was an "evil jack-booted fascist bent on
> using mind control techniques and subliminal messages to take over
> the world?" BOB DOLE, who couldn't even run a *campaign* any better
> than Mister Brain Damage Of 1972, George McGovern?
>
> Try to live in the real world...
>
I find myself in total agreement with Gharlane. I recently heard on the
news that the Bob Dole campaign would have stood a better chance if "Dole
would have used his great sense of humor." ...... My reply was "Dole
*had* a sense of humor???" Who would have known?
> Simn...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > I've seen the ad in question. For those that don't know, the
> > Republican Party has been running an ad for G.W. Bush attacking
> > the Gore medicare/prescription plan. At one point, the ad claims
> > the Gore plan puts "bureaucrats" in control.
> > The word "bureaucrats" drops dramatically onto the screen, apparently
> > from the camera's point of view. For one frame, all that can be seen
> > of the word "bureaucrats" as it drops is the letters "rats". Some are
> > claiming it's a subliminal message. The director of the ad in question
> > has admitted it was intentional, but not intentionally subliminal, but
> > the actual Republican people who paid for the ad have denied any
> > knowledge of any subliminal messages.
> >
> > Personally, I doubt it's worth getting excited about, either way.
> >
> > And, for disclaimers, I am not a Republican, although I have no love
> > for Gore either.
> >
>
>
> "One frame?" Seems to me that there are FCC regs about how many frames
> constitutes a legally-definable "subliminal" ad.
> ( Do we really need to get into the fact that subliminals are largely
> ineffective in the first place, or the fact that most Americans are
> such poor readers that even their subliminally-affectable hindbrain
> couldn't appercept a long hard word like "RATS" in a fraction of a
> second... )
>
> I've seen the ad. "RATS" was on long enough to read; I presumed it
> was intentional; I snickered, and forgot about it.
Wouldn't bureaucRATS also apply to Republicans, and all other politicians in
Washington D.C. ? If so, what's the big deal?
> On a positive note, "ZENITH ARMS," a startup corporation, has
> finished its alloy prototyping, and is trying to get sufficient
> funding in place to justify making application for a license to
> manufacture a .45 ACP match pistol, a clone of the much-revered
> and much-missed Detonics "Scoremaster."
> Zenith Arms' version will be made of titanium bronze and manganese
> bronze, and come with caliber conversion kits for .50 AE,
> .451 Detonics Magnum, and in the long-slide version, .45 Winchester
> Magnum. ( .44 Magnum and 10 mm variants are under consideration,
> if the funding goes through. )
> So we may not have gasoline, but we should be able to keep the
> Mutant Jackalopes at bay....
44 Magnum? Do they have an auto cartridge in that size?
Mac
Mac Breck
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin A. Hohner" <simn...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: OT - TRUST THE GOP
> Jim Kress shaped the electrons to say:
snip
> There was a
> brief glimmer of hope when McCain was still in the fight, but he was
drowned by
> Dubya's money before I got a chance to vote for him (darn late Illinois
> Primaries).
I *still* voted for John in the PA Primary.
Mac
cgla...@hotmail.com
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
In article <39BF92B7...@naxs.com>,
jam...@naxs.com wrote:
> It is a non-issue invented by the media. The ad has been out and
> discussed for weeks on some news shows but now that the NY Times
> decides it is important
Actually, no. The *Gore campaign* decided that it was "important",
and called a friendly reporter at the New York Times to spoof him into
giving front-page time to a 'story' that Fox News Channel and the Times
had looked at two weeks ago and left in the dustbin of irrelevancy.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonysnow/printts2000914.shtml
Tony Snow
September 14, 2000
Rats...Rats...and more rats
WASHINGTON -- Richard Berke of The New York Times is one of the
gentlest, most unassuming souls in the world of journalism. He speaks
quietly, moves without fanfare and does his best to blend into the
scenery when covering a story.
During a sabbatical at Harvard a few years back, his classmates
lovingly called him "the Beave." He would smile shyly at the jape and
then go about his business -- attending classes, taking notes, inviting
colleagues to deliver lectures and doing chores the other kids avoided.
Such utter earnestness has made him one of the nation's best-liked and
most influential political scribes.
But last week, the Gore campaign suckered journalism's Mr. Nice Guy --
big time. An unnamed political functionary alerted Berke about a
Republican ad blasting Al Gore's health-care plan in which one frame --
one-twelfth of one second -- featured the last four letters of the
word "bureaucrats."
I know a fair amount about the story because I was the first to report
it. Two of my colleagues at Fox News, Andy Schwartz and Jim Eldridge,
spied the "rats" while screening the ad on Aug. 28. That evening, we
put the whole thing on Fox News Channel -- stopping the tape for the
seemingly inadvertent reference to vermin. Everyone who saw it had a
good laugh.
Our publicity department dutifully contacted a number of papers,
including The New York Times, and even placed a follow-up call to the
Times. But nobody bit on the story, presumably because they understood
that in moving the word "bureaucrats" from left to right across a
television screen, the final four letters naturally would appear
together.
So the whole thing vanished -- until, on a slow news day in a laggardly
news week, the Gore campaign called Berke with its "scoop." It said a
clever viewer in Seattle had noticed the "r" word in a Republican ad,
insinuating that the rodentine reference constituted dirty, lowdown,
filthy politics at its worst.
Berke snapped at the bait. He wrote a piece, which the Times splashed
across its front page. It alleged deep and troubling ugliness in the
heart of the Republican camp -- all because of four letters only a
highly vigilant viewer would notice. The story fingered Alex
Castellanos, a GOP ad man, and fulsomely quoted some of Castellanos'
most ardent enemies. It gave him a sentence or two for rebuttal.
The original item carried no mention of Fox News, meaning Berke had no
idea he had been fooled into touting a stale story about an ad
scheduled to go off the air the day his piece appeared. Gore operatives
thus transformed the Times into a purveyor of all the news that's fit
to reprint.
Let's put the matter in perspective. The spot criticized Gore's plan to
replace garden-variety HMOs with the Godzilla of HMOs, a giant federal
health-care plan -- and to force all senior citizens to get their
medicine from Uncle Sam. The spot warned that under such a scheme, we
would have to entrust our very lives to that most hated of species:
bureaucrats.
This allegation is true. Gore is fighting to make working families fill
out forms and stand in long lines so they can battle over scraps
of "targeted" help he proposes to give. Ironically, the "rats"
characterization comports with Gore's stated position, which is that
people shouldn't have to submit to the steely discipline of paper-
pushing, pencil-licking, benefit-denying accountants.
But the press didn't do its homework in this case. Instead, it invited
a feeding frenzy. Castellanos' detractors branded him the Darth Vader
of political advertising. Commentators grimly debated subliminal
advertising. And William Kennard, the chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission, promised a full probe -- if someone would
request one (hint, hint).
Reporters overlooked: 1) the actual argument presented by the ad, 2)
the fact that the Times got the story from Fox two weeks earlier but
printed it only after prompting from the Gore campaign, 3) Gore's
stated hatred of bean-counting lowlifes and 4) the fact that the word
in question was not referring to Gore or anybody in his campaign.
Yet, let us assume the very "worst." Suppose Castellanos deliberately
plotted to truncate "bureaucrats" to "rats" for one-twelfth of a
second.
What's wrong with that? Does anyone feel a surge of dignity and liberty
when being forced to submit to distant, disembodied clerks? And does
anybody think for a moment the Gore campaign wouldn't be hooting with
derision if the Republican Party had said something nice about
bureaucrats -- for instance, that they didn't deserve all these
malevolent press hits? (Note to reporters: please read nothing into the
last five letters of the previous sentence.)
©2000 Creators Syndicate
--
Chuckg
"You got to learn three things. What's real, what's not real, and
what's the difference..." -- Granny Weatherwax
Jon Niehof
> issues. or Nader because no matter how scary he sounds at least he
> means what he says making him the most honest of the bunch.
government exists to keep big corporations out of my face, and that's about
it--the Libertarians fail miserably on this point), I'm just plain going to
do a write-in for Cthulu.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
"Lightfingered Garrett knew that greed was a sin
but twasn't his own that at last did him in."
RIP looking Glass Studios
Up yours, John Romero.
James Bell
> [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
>
> [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
>
> [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Simn...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:55 PM
> Subject: TRUST THE GOP
>
> > >In an eerie example of B5 becoming real life, evidence is out today that
> > >conclusively proves that, as many of us have long suspected, the
> Republican
> > >Party is in fact an organization of evil, black-gloved, jack-booted
> fascists
> > >bent on using
> > >mind control techniques and subliminal messages to take over the world.
>
> ... and the Democrats just promise you everything. Seems like a bribe for a
> vote. The trouble with the Republican ticket is that it seems like
> Democrat-lite.
>
> > And, for disclaimers, I am not a Republican, although I have no love for
> Gore
> > either.
>
> Well, I *am* a Republican, and this is the first election that I've ever
> been tempted to *not* vote. I really wish there was a "None of the above."
> selection to make, and that if "None of the above." won, we could have
> another Primary and select better candidates. That said, I'd be happier
> now, if it was Cheney/Bush, not Bush/Cheney.
>
> Mac
There is always Libertarian.
Jim
James Bell
> Jim Kress shaped the electrons to say:
>
> >In response to Ms. Appelbaum, I can only point out that:
> >Liberalism Is Fascism
> (SNIP long, but good, essay)
>
> >As Ludwig von Mises observed, Fascism, Nazism, and Socialism are varying
> >versions of the same core conviction: that it is the sacred duty of popular
> >government to prevent the emergence of profits by public control of
> >production and distribution.
>
> There's a Margaret Thatcher quote along the same lines. "The worst idea of the
> last century is that profit is somehow inherently evil."
>
> >Republicans (in particular Conservative Republicans) are the antithesis of
> >the liberals/ fascists. Conservative Republicans want to minimize or
> >eliminate governmental influence in and control over our lives.
>
> Except in matters of morality, such as censorship, government support of
> Christianity, and sexual politics. There, the Republicans are as bad as the
> Democrats.
>
> If the Republicans could just kick out the Christian Right elements of the
> party, I'd be an enthusiastic Republican. As it is, they are all too eager to
> kowtow to the likes of Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, and Ralph Reed. There was a
> brief glimmer of hope when McCain was still in the fight, but he was drowned by
> Dubya's money before I got a chance to vote for him (darn late Illinois
> Primaries).
>
> Both the Republicans and Democrats fall for the great flaw in Populist
> Government. When only votes count, and most people vote their narrow
> self-interest, the winner is usually the politician who promises the most.
> Hence, my former Congressional Representative, Dan Rostenkowski, whose
> campaigns invariably consisted of bragging about how many pork-barrel projects
> he could drop in the district.
>
> Bush is trying to buy the vote by promising tax cuts. Gore is doing the same,
> and adding free prescription drugs. Both also are promising sweeping new
> spending programs of one kind or another.
>
> What we need is a new kind of politician, the kind who promises to CUT programs
> instead of starting new ones. The kind who realizes that the Government should
> do as little as possible, not as much as possible.
>
> What we need is a good Libertarian.
It seems to me that the Libertarians are only lacking one thing: the media.
Until someone of enough import to the media runs under the Libertarian banner,
they aren't going to get a second look. People in general vote for whoever the TV
tells them to. Libertarians get no serious air time. If they were only allowed
in the debates it would be a step in the right direction. They need someone with
name recognition but who would also be taken seriously (unlike the Howard Stern
fiasco).
Jim
Jms at B5
I supported John McCain early on, even though I've traditionally voted
democrat, because I thought there was a man of great substance up there behind
the podium. I don't believe in following party lines, I try to find the best
person for the job.
I think Gore is okay. I'm not massively enthusiastic, I think we could've done
better on that count, but at the end of the day, he's okay. I think he'll do a
decent, reasonable job.
I definitely do NOT want GWB in office, for very strong reasons.
This is a man who said, when he was told that there might be a huge budget
shortfall in Texas as a result of his administration's choices, "Well,
hopefully I won't have to worry about that." This is not a man who we should
put anywhere NEAR the White House.
Further, major corporations put up nearly $100 million bucks, the largest in
history, for his primary campaign. Corporations like that don't put up money
at that level unless they think they're going to be getting something back in
exchange. This is a man who is going to be absolutely beholden to big
business, as he was in Texas, where the first things he did was to provide a
massive tax break for big oil, and the "tort reform" he lauded later was a bill
to make it harder to sue corporations when they do bad stuff.
This is a man who is a total chameleon. When McCain trounced him in one of the
primaries as a reformer, suddenly Bush came out with all these banners saying
HE was a reformer. He co-opts the other guy's stance when the other guy is
ahead because he really has no other stance other than "I want the job."
He was packaged and picked because the party heads think Bush was a brand name
they could promote, and because he was well placed to get the southern vote.
They picked him because of logistics, not because he was the best man for the
job.
He's prissy, arrogant, brittle, not terribly bright, and if he gets anywhere
near the White House the damage he will do the country will, I believe, be
*substantial*.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
rri...@my-deja.com
world
> shortage of oil but who cares about that? We've got important
name-calling to
> do!
Oh yeah. It's not a _real_ issue, affecting the very survival of the
Republic, like, say,whether or not the President got a blow job....
Three times in my life, the Republican Party, or a major portion of it,
has attempted to overthrow Constitutional rule in this country. Having
failed with demagoguery in the 50's, outright crime in the 70's, and an
attempted coup under color of law in the 90's, now they're experimenting
with mind control.
Lincoln must be barfing in his grave.
John W. Kennedy
tnba...@mail.com (Thomas Bagwell) wrote:
> Actually, it wasn't subliminal at all in this context. It was just
> the word 'BUREAUCRATS' crossing the screen. At one point, only the
> last 4 letters were on the screen.
I am somewhat handicapped by the fact that I have not seen the ad, but
_every_ description I have seen says that it is talking about a
one-frame flash of "RATS" _before_ "BUREAUCRATS" crosses the screen.
And the F.C.C. _is_ running an investigation, although they fear they
won't be able to take any action, as they are only empowered against
stations knowingly running a subliminal ad, and not against the ad's
creators.
--
As a Christian, I wish to register both my disgust at George W. Bush's
attempt to exploit the name of my Lord and my God for its brand value,
and my horror at the fact that a major candidate should be so deeply
illiterate as to call Him a "political philosopher" in the first place.
Hobbs
>Laura M. Appelbaum shaped the electrons to say:
>
>>In an eerie example of B5 becoming real life, evidence is out today that
>>conclusively proves that, as many of us have long suspected, the
Republican
>>Party is in fact an organization of evil, black-gloved, jack-booted
fascists
>>bent on using
>>mind control techniques and subliminal messages to take over the world.
>
>I've seen the ad in question. For those that don't know, the Republican
Party
>has been running an ad for G.W. Bush attacking the Gore
medicare/prescription
>plan. At one point, the ad claims the Gore plan puts "bureaucrats" in
>control.
> The word "bureaucrats" drops dramatically onto the screen, apparently from
>the
>camera's point of view. For one frame, all that can be seen of the word
>"bureaucrats" as it drops is the letters "rats". Some are claiming it's a
>subliminal message. The director of the ad in question has admitted it was
>intentional, but not intentionally subliminal, but the actual Republican
>people
>who paid for the ad have denied any knowledge of any subliminal >messages.
>
No, no, not subliminal messages, subliminable messages.
That is the funniest thing Shrub has said thus far (and no, it wasn't a
simple slip of the tongue because he was tired or stressed; he said it
three times). At least he'll be entertaining if he's elected. ;-)
Thomas Bagwell
wrote:
>Wouldn't bureaucRATS also apply to Republicans, and all other politicians in
>Washington D.C. ? If so, what's the big deal?
The ad was discussing the fact that Al Gore's health plan would have
bureaucrats making medical decisions instead of doctors. That was the
context for the word.
Tom B.
Gharlane of Eddore
In <39BF92B7...@naxs.com>,
jam...@naxs.com wrote:
>
> Other apparently less important news stories from yesterday
> include a world shortage of oil but who cares about that?
> We've got important name-calling to do!
>
In <8pqnep$pec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Unknown Anonymous Poster
rri...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> Oh yeah. It's not a _real_ issue, affecting the very survival of
> the Republic,
>
...<deletia>
>
> Three times in my life, the Republican Party, or a major portion of
> it, has attempted to overthrow Constitutional rule in this country.
> Having failed with demagoguery in the 50's, outright crime in the 70's,
> and an attempted coup under color of law in the 90's, now they're
> experimenting with mind control.
>
(A) You weren't *ALIVE* in the '50's, and in the '70's you weren't
sufficiently cognizant of your surroundings to have opinions.
(B) You're ignoring who was in charge of Congress and the White House
during vastly more massive debacles of authoritarian transgression;
look up who was "in charge" when the 16th Amendment was illegally
passed; look up who was running things when 'Prohibition' was
enacted; look up who communized the nation with the so-called
"Social Security" system in the thirties, and made it illegal for
Americans to own gold; look up who passed NFA '34, FFA '38,
GCA '68, and the SO-called "Omnibus Crime Control Bill" in '94.
Look up who got us into Korea, Viet Nam, Kosovo, and strategic
strikes against non-aggressive *civilian* population, without a
declaration of war, just to keep his sex life off the frong page.
And we won't even mention "NAFTA."
I'll grant you the abuse of the "seizure/forfeiture" decisions
under a theoretically "Republican" government, but bear in mind
that the decades of "the government owns your property" legislation
ramrodded by "Democrats" had set the stage for it and inured the
people to such abuse.
( Did you know that the city of Albuquerque recently enacted
legislation allowing the confiscation of a HOUSE where
under-age people drink alcohol? Even if the booze was
locked up and the kids break in to get it? )
>
> Lincoln must be barfing in his grave.
>
Lincoln was an obsessive Federalist who believed in an all-powerful
strong central government, and who is on record as being relatively
uninterested in individual human rights. If he's barfing in his
grave, it's because a few states are still holding out against some
federal encroachments. The man was a complete nut case who could
have headed off the entire "Civil War" and forestalled most of the
economic disasters and world wars of XXth century by just behaving
intelligently and encouraging free enterprise, and concomitantly
creating a social and economic environment where slavery became
hugely unprofitable. As far as I'm concerned, he was the pivotal
kingpin in the creation of debacles that echoed down the decades,
resulting in the deaths of millions, and the more uncomfortable he
might be, the better I like it. I just hope FDR is spinning like
a top over the fact tha the U.S. hasn't yet gone completely
communist and turned Congress into an *overt* Politburo.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Excellent post, Jim.
There are probably a few European nations with evil liberal governments
who might disagree. They certainly did when they were occupied during WWII.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
John Morrow
>Three times in my life, the Republican Party, or a major portion of it,
>has attempted to overthrow Constitutional rule in this country. Having
>failed with demagoguery in the 50's, outright crime in the 70's, and an
>attempted coup under color of law in the 90's, now they're experimenting
>with mind control.
Just remember that all those Republicans who voted to impeach and
remove Clinton as President were voting to make Al Gore president.
I'm not sure how you could call that a "coup". As for overthrowing
Constitutional rule, that's been pretty dead for decades. At least as
far back as FDR's extortion of the Supreme Court.
John Morrow
Tammy Smith
think he was pretty aware of what was going on in the '70's!
Tamm
John R. Campbell
>Jumping in with what will probably be my only thoughts on the issue....
>
>I supported John McCain early on, even though I've traditionally voted
>democrat, because I thought there was a man of great substance up there behind
>the podium. I don't believe in following party lines, I try to find the best
>person for the job.
Which is a problem- I've been appalled at the folks who are *proud*
if being "Party Line" voters. Of course, anyone who enjoyed and
*thought* about B5 episodes (at MCI, us consultants would hang out at
lunch as *discuss* the issues brought up- something that none of
the Treks ever got. Well, except for the fact that, as consultants,
*we* were the red-shirts).
>I think Gore is okay. I'm not massively enthusiastic, I think we could've done
>better on that count, but at the end of the day, he's okay. I think he'll do a
>decent, reasonable job.
He's dull though. When it looked like it was coming down to him
and Bush, it was a case of "Dull or Duller".
I think that the last 4-6 years weren't all that bad because we have
had a bunch of tightwads in congress and a spendthift prez in that
big white house- and neither could agree on a quid pro quo to get
more money out. I certainly do _not_ like the idea of having both
republicans controlling both legislation _and_ executive- though
I could hold my nose and vote for Gore with a clear conscience if
I thought he'd be held in check by a republican congress.
Of course, no matter what, I really don't like the idea of having
a fellow who makes Gore look brilliant in the White House either.
What we _need_ is for someone like Jay Leno to run- he's able to
be entertaining enough to get elected, and, due to his time in stand-
up, he must be pretty good at thinking on his feet. We'd test all
of the other candidates by seeing how well they can guest-host the
tonight show in their quest for equal time...
>I definitely do NOT want GWB in office, for very strong reasons.
Canada is starting to look good, ain't it...
>He's prissy, arrogant, brittle, not terribly bright, and if he gets anywhere
>near the White House the damage he will do the country will, I believe, be
>*substantial*.
There was a joke I saw in rec.humor.funny, but, when I look on their
site, cannot find hide nor hair of it. Here's the text:
>Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
>Subject: Comparing Texas Schools
>From: haa...@nm.net (Cheryl Haaker)
>Keywords: topical, smirk, forwarded
>Message-ID: <Sfc2...@netfunny.com>
>Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:30:00 PDT
Education in Texas has improved greatly under the George W. Bush
administration. Now, 60% of Texas 6th graders read at a higher level than
the Governor. Under Governor Ann Richards, few if any achieved these
levels of literacy.
>--
>This joke's link: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/00/Sep/literacy.html
Of course, the media _love_ Bush- his entertainment value is
way beyond Gore's simply because he does a couple of Dan Quayle's
darn near every chance he gets.
I'm not impressed by either set of candidates. Of course, the
Reform candidate Buchanan doesn't thrill me (President Clark,
is that you?)...
Our biggest problem is that there's no "reject" button for us
to push that'd start the selection all over.
"We love our candidates.... PULL! ... <BLAM!>"
--
John R. Campbell Speaker to Machines so...@jtan.com
- As a SysAdmin, yes, I CAN read your e-mail, but I DON'T get that bored!
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of John Campbell alone and
do not reflect the opinions of his employer(s) or lackeys
thereof. Anyone who says differently is itching for a fight!
Tammy Smith
to after all.
Tammy
J. Potts
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
[major snippage]
>He's prissy, arrogant, brittle, not terribly bright, and if he gets anywhere
>near the White House the damage he will do the country will, I believe, be
>*substantial*.
Okay, Joe. Quit holding back. Tell us how you *really* feel!
;-)
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Brian Reed
Jms at B5 wrote:
> Jumping in with what will probably be my only thoughts on the issue....
>
> I supported John McCain early on, even though I've traditionally voted
> democrat, because I thought there was a man of great substance up there behind
> the podium. I don't believe in following party lines, I try to find the best
> person for the job.
>
> I think Gore is okay. I'm not massively enthusiastic, I think we could've done
> better on that count, but at the end of the day, he's okay. I think he'll do a
> decent, reasonable job.
>
> I definitely do NOT want GWB in office, for very strong reasons.
>
> This is a man who said, when he was told that there might be a huge budget
> shortfall in Texas as a result of his administration's choices, "Well,
> hopefully I won't have to worry about that." This is not a man who we should
> put anywhere NEAR the White House.
>
> Further, major corporations put up nearly $100 million bucks, the largest in
> history, for his primary campaign. Corporations like that don't put up money
> at that level unless they think they're going to be getting something back in
> exchange. This is a man who is going to be absolutely beholden to big
> business, as he was in Texas, where the first things he did was to provide a
> massive tax break for big oil, and the "tort reform" he lauded later was a bill
> to make it harder to sue corporations when they do bad stuff.
So who is going to pay you to write, direct and produce TV shows and movies the
Gore department of film and television. As for "Big Oil" there is no more big oil
in the U.S. Most of them are either wholly or partly owned by foreign corporations.
Clinton-Bore have destroyed the U.S. oil exploration and production industry. I
should know, I used to have a pretty good job working for a small consulting firm
that had a lot of work prior to the moron being elected, now I'm in the sixth year
of essential unemployment. I'm not alone, ARCO fired over 30,000 oil workers in
Alaska alone and basically shut down exploration at all. The same for the rest of
the companies. All they do now is buy OPEC oil, refine it and sell it.
As for Tort reform the best thing there is a Lawyer tax of say 98% to get rid of
the greedy, scumy Lawyers who just sue to get a settlement and a lot of money that
the clients never see. Like the tobacco thing where the Lawyers get what 100
billion dollars, so they can buy a fleet of Bentley's and a string of seaside
mansions. Fine pay them $200/hr and reasonable expenses and that's all.
If the corporations are as powerful as you seem to think why don't they just say to
their employees vote for GWB or you're fired, or even sneakier they say if Gore is
elected we'll have to close the plant and say move to Mexico so Gore better not get
elected.
I'm not wild about Bush (I would prefer Colin Powell) but there is no way I would
ever vote for that idiot Gore who had to have bodyguards in Vietnam to type out his
pathetic articles. Also this guy professes scientific knowledge that makes him an
expert in global warming and the environment that I bet he never took or passed a
substantial science course in his life.
BCR
Rob Perkins
> I think Gore is okay. I'm not massively enthusiastic, I think we could've
done
> better on that count, but at the end of the day, he's okay. I think he'll
do a
> decent, reasonable job.
>
> I definitely do NOT want GWB in office, for very strong reasons.
>
> This is a man who said, when he was told that there might be a huge budget
> shortfall in Texas as a result of his administration's choices, "Well,
> hopefully I won't have to worry about that." This is not a man who we
should
> put anywhere NEAR the White House.
Are there references to this statement of Bush's? Not that I don't believe
you that he said that, but I'd like to read it in its context.
> This is a man who is going to be absolutely beholden to big
> business, [...]
That's the thing that I'm most afraid of about him. The thing about Gore is
that I'm sure he'll take his environmental policies, and some other Big
Government ideas, much farther than I'd care, even though I agree with him
on many of the basics.
I reiterate: with a dem in the white house, I want a republican congress,
but not a supermajority. With a republican there, the dems need to control
congress, under the same conditions.
> He's prissy, arrogant, brittle, not terribly bright, and if he gets
anywhere
> near the White House the damage he will do the country will, I believe, be
> *substantial*.
Have you met Al Gore? I haven't. I'd appreciate your opinion of his
character.
Rob
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Okay, Joe. Quit holding back. Tell us how you *really* feel!
Quick! Somebody call Joe a nazi, and we may end this thing before it
gets really bad.
Jms at B5
>you that he said that, but I'd like to read it in its context.
Jeez, it was everywhere about a month ago...even showed up in Newsweek's Quotes
of the Week section. I saw it when it first aired, and the context was this:
when Bush came in, there was a budget surplus which he said could be used for X
purposes and still give a whole bunch of tax breaks to major businesses in the
Texas area. This year, due to those policies, there's expected to be a budget
*shortfall*, and no one yet knows just how bad that's going to be yet. That's
not in contest by anyone, even Bush. The final context was that he was asked
what he thought the shortall would be, and he said he hoped he woudn't have to
worry about (on the theory that he would be in the White House by then).
Now, THAT'S what I call responsible governing....
Jms at B5
>gets really bad.
Well, you know what I always say about nazis, the fuhrer the better....
Gharlane of Eddore
In <21317-39...@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) writes:
>
> Sorry, Gharlane--JMS wasn't the one who wrote the post I was
> referring to after all.
>
Quite correct; JMS was born in summer of '54, and consquently lacks
memories like WWII; Korea; Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy; J. Edgar Hoover's
paranoiac hunt for Evil Communists and his continuation of the
destruction of human rights begun during FDR's reign in the thirties;
McCarthy's pet assistant, a young coat-tail grabber named Nixon....
and Joe was raised by folks who reviled Eisenhower and fervently
espoused the election of JFK in '60.
Joe wasn't even ten years old when JFK was shot, and to this day he
regards JFK as a tragic Arthurian hero, firmly believing the hype that
JFK wrote his own speeches. The assassination of a synthetically
charismatic leader with the highest-priced P.R. operation in history,
and the emotional shock created by the destruction of that Illusion
Of Camelot, have stayed with Joe to this day.
The Young Gentleman whom I was addressing is even more callow than
JFK, by a couple of decades, and worse, lacks Joe's mitigating
personal qualities; but I see some basis for making vaguely similar
assertions in Joe's general direction, as long as he hasn't got a
baseball bat in his hands...
Martin A. Hohner
>If the corporations are as powerful as you seem to think why don't they just
>say to
>their employees vote for GWB or you're fired, or even sneakier they say if
>Gore is
>elected we'll have to close the plant and say move to Mexico so Gore better
>not get
>elected.
Which, coincidentally enough, is EXACTLY what the Gore-supporting Unions do
with their members. Unions are occasionally well and good, but it's odd that
it's totally illegal to do just about anything to stop unionization, but
perfectly legal for Unions to ban all non-union workers from a company. You
can't fire someone for joining a union, but you can fire someone for refusing
to join a union.
On the other hand, an awful lot of Churches do an awful lot of politicking,
primarily on the Republican side, despite the fact that it is absolutely
illegal for non-profit organizations (such as Churches) to endorse or campaign
on behalf of individual candidates or parties.
"Big Corporations" don't tell their employees how to vote. They know how much
trouble that can get them into. They just throw money at candidates and hire
professional lobbyists, and let money do their talking. It's distasteful, but
it's probably preferable to either of the above variations on the same theme.
Martin "The Mess" Hohner <*> Simn...@aol.com
United States of Earth? Schoonmaker for President!
Expansionist Party of the United States Website:
**** http://hometown.aol.com/XPUS/index.html ****
James Bell
> In article <39BF92B7...@naxs.com>,
> jam...@naxs.com wrote:
> > Other apparently less important news stories from yesterday include a
> world
> > shortage of oil but who cares about that? We've got important
> name-calling to
> > do!
>
> Oh yeah. It's not a _real_ issue, affecting the very survival of the
> Republic, like, say,whether or not the President got a blow job....
>
> Three times in my life, the Republican Party, or a major portion of it,
> has attempted to overthrow Constitutional rule in this country. Having
> failed with demagoguery in the 50's, outright crime in the 70's, and an
> attempted coup under color of law in the 90's, now they're experimenting
> with mind control.
Just how stupid do you think we are? For your so-called "coup under color
of law" do you know who would have become president if Clinton was found
guilty? AL GORE! What the hell kind of coup is that?!?
And "mind control" DOESN'T EXIST. It is an invented issue. I never cease
to be amazed at the gullability of the American public.
Jim
Reed Snellenberger
>
> >Are there references to this statement of Bush's? Not that I don't believe
> >you that he said that, but I'd like to read it in its context.
>
> Jeez, it was everywhere about a month ago...even showed up in Newsweek's Quotes
> of the Week section. I saw it when it first aired, and the context was this:
> when Bush came in, there was a budget surplus which he said could be used for X
> purposes and still give a whole bunch of tax breaks to major businesses in the
> Texas area. This year, due to those policies, there's expected to be a budget
> *shortfall*, and no one yet knows just how bad that's going to be yet. That's
> not in contest by anyone, even Bush. The final context was that he was asked
> what he thought the shortall would be, and he said he hoped he woudn't have to
> worry about (on the theory that he would be in the White House by then).
>
> Now, THAT'S what I call responsible governing....
No... there isn't a budget shortfall. It was a "one-day wonder" story
that was promulgated by some Texas Democrats (funny how that worked
out). Texas actually looks to have a pretty substantial surplus this
year.
I'm not even going to comment on the bilge in your other note, except to
mention that your attack on his personality ("prissy", etc) suggests
that you've never met the man. I predict your response to this, if any,
will be along the lines of "And I don't want to, either...".
And to think you wrote "And Now for a Word" -- maybe you should watch it
again...
Grumble
Reed Snellenberger
Jim Kress
You might want to do the same level of research on your political statements
as you do on your script writing. Here are some facts from the 2nd most
liberal 'news' paper on the other left coast (excerpted from the Washington
Post dated 7/21/2000):
The Gore campaign is seizing on what it believes could be its most potent
weapon against the Texas governor. By making an issue of the Texas budget,
Gore hopes to strip Bush's ability to portray himself as a prudent fiscal
manager. Keenly aware of the potential power of this issue, Bush's campaign
launched a strong counterattack, accusing the vice president of purposefully
misleading the public about the state's fiscal health.
After scrambling his schedule to add this afternoon's stop in Texas, Gore
sat on a stage at a conference center here with three single mothers whose
children have no health insurance. The vice president noted that the federal
government had huge deficits when he and Clinton came to office and is now
running huge surpluses. He contrasted that with Texas, where he said Bush
made budget decisions in recent years that have managed to "squander" the
state's large surplus.
"Governor Bush chose a different set of priorities. Instead of addressing
the serious problems we are hearing about today," Gore said, "the governor
made his top priority a large tax cut for special interests."
In an angry rebuttal at the governor's mansion in Austin two hours after
Gore's broadside, Bush said that Texas "doesn't need the vice president to
teach it about balanced budgets."
"I am proud that under my leadership, working with Republicans and
Democrats, Texas has increased spending for education, increased spending
for health care, built and funded prisons, cut taxes by record amounts - and
we still have a large surplus," Bush said. "For Vice President Gore to claim
otherwise for his own political purposes is a travesty. He should be
ashamed."
Even before Gore had taken the stage in San Antonio, the state's Republican
comptroller - a political ally of Bush - held a news conference to predict
rosy new budget figures. Carole Keeton Rylander dramatically told reporters
that she had dressed in black rather than red to announce her estimate that
the state was running a $1.4 billion surplus, rather than the $1.1 billion
surplus she had predicted just days ago. That, she said, would allow the
state to cover $610 million in unexpected expenditures and still have plenty
of money left over for other priorities.
"My message to Al Gore is, there is no deficit in Texas," she said at the
Capitol in Austin. "And I would further say, stop putting out misleading and
incorrect information about the fiscal condition of the state of Texas that
is not only a disservice to our Texas citizens, it's a disservice to all of
the folks in these United States."
Later, state House appropriations committee Chairman Rob Junell, a Democrat
who has endorsed Bush, said in a conference call to reporters that Gore was
trying to distort facts for "political advantage, and I'm distressed by
that."
At the heart of Gore's attack is Bush's effort last year to push a $2
billion tax cut. At the time, the state was predicting $6.4 billion in
surpluses over the course of its two-year budget. The tax cut was eventually
scaled back to about $1.6 billion as a part of a bipartisan compromise to
spend most of the remaining money on teacher raises and other social
programs.
But recently, state budget officials announced that the government had
underestimated its expenditures for Medicaid and the prison system by about
$610 million.
While Bush's critics in the legislature say that alone is alarming, they add
that even the $610 million shortfall estimate is low and cite news reports
about a memo from the Texas Department of Health indicating the Medicaid
shortfall could be as high as $633 million.
--- end excerpt
Now, let's see $1.4 billion surplus - $633 million possible unanticipated
cost = $767 million surplus.
'Nuf said.
Jim Kress
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000914230820...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> >Are there references to this statement of Bush's? Not that I don't
believe
> >you that he said that, but I'd like to read it in its context.
>
> Jeez, it was everywhere about a month ago...even showed up in Newsweek's
Quotes
> of the Week section. I saw it when it first aired, and the context was
this:
> when Bush came in, there was a budget surplus which he said could be used
for X
> purposes and still give a whole bunch of tax breaks to major businesses in
the
> Texas area. This year, due to those policies, there's expected to be a
budget
> *shortfall*, and no one yet knows just how bad that's going to be yet.
That's
> not in contest by anyone, even Bush. The final context was that he was
asked
> what he thought the shortall would be, and he said he hoped he woudn't
have to
> worry about (on the theory that he would be in the White House by then).
>
> Now, THAT'S what I call responsible governing....
>
>
Jim Kress
I could never confuse you with Mrs. Clinton ...
Jim Kress
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000914230922...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> >Quick! Somebody call Joe a nazi, and we may end this thing before it
> >gets really bad.
>
> Well, you know what I always say about nazis, the fuhrer the better....
>
Harry
>
> Jumping in with what will probably be my only thoughts on the issue....
>
> I supported John McCain early on, even though I've traditionally voted
I traditionally vote Republican, but I can't take exception with
one word that you wrote about GWB. Unfortunately, I don't think that
Al Gore is any better. It's a hard choice to decide if we want our
country sold out to big business or the Chinese communists. Sadly,
either party could have run better people (and the polls clearly
showed that the Republicans would likely win by a landslide if they
nominated McCain, while they looked like they would suffer a
narrow defeat with the son of "read my lips"). It's unfortunate
that the people don't get to vote for who they want to vote for in
this country. Perhaps someday the republicans will learn this, but
it doesn't seem likely. they didn't learn it four years ago and they
so no grasp of reality this year.
John
John
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000914184144...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> Jumping in with what will probably be my only thoughts on the issue....
>
> I supported John McCain early on, even though I've traditionally voted
> democrat, because I thought there was a man of great substance up there
behind
> the podium. I don't believe in following party lines, I try to find the
best
> person for the job.
>
> I think Gore is okay. I'm not massively enthusiastic, I think we could've
done
> better on that count, but at the end of the day, he's okay. I think he'll
do a
> decent, reasonable job.
>
> I definitely do NOT want GWB in office, for very strong reasons.
>
> This is a man who said, when he was told that there might be a huge budget
> shortfall in Texas as a result of his administration's choices, "Well,
> hopefully I won't have to worry about that." This is not a man who we
should
> put anywhere NEAR the White House.
>
> Further, major corporations put up nearly $100 million bucks, the largest
in
> history, for his primary campaign. Corporations like that don't put up
money
> at that level unless they think they're going to be getting something back
in
> exchange. This is a man who is going to be absolutely beholden to big
> business, as he was in Texas, where the first things he did was to provide
a
> massive tax break for big oil, and the "tort reform" he lauded later was a
bill
> to make it harder to sue corporations when they do bad stuff.
>
> This is a man who is a total chameleon. When McCain trounced him in one
of the
> primaries as a reformer, suddenly Bush came out with all these banners
saying
> HE was a reformer. He co-opts the other guy's stance when the other guy
is
> ahead because he really has no other stance other than "I want the job."
>
> He was packaged and picked because the party heads think Bush was a brand
name
> they could promote, and because he was well placed to get the southern
vote.
> They picked him because of logistics, not because he was the best man for
the
> job.
>
> He's prissy, arrogant, brittle, not terribly bright, and if he gets
anywhere
> near the White House the damage he will do the country will, I believe, be
> *substantial*.
>
pazi
OBEY
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Bagwell" <tnba...@mail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: TRUST THE GOP
> On 14 Sep 2000 06:16:23 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Wouldn't bureaucRATS also apply to Republicans, and all other politicians
in
> >Washington D.C. ? If so, what's the big deal?
>
> The ad was discussing the fact that Al Gore's health plan would have
> bureaucrats making medical decisions instead of doctors.
Would Al Gore's health plan have bureaucrats making medical decisions
instead of doctors? If true, again, what's the big deal?
If it's a lie, that *is* a big deal.
Mac
James Bell
Good thing Gharlane wasn't replying to jms, then.
Jim
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: <rri...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: TRUST THE GOP
> In article <39BF92B7...@naxs.com>,
> jam...@naxs.com wrote:
> > Other apparently less important news stories from yesterday include a
> world
> > shortage of oil but who cares about that? We've got important
> name-calling to
> > do!
>
> Oh yeah. It's not a _real_ issue, affecting the very survival of the
> Republic, like, say,whether or not the President got a blow job....
Unlike say, campaign contributions from China? The "President got a blow
job" wasn't the issue. The issue was "lying under oath" which is perfectly
OK with some people, namely our current Prez, and the Dems that *still*
support him..
> Three times in my life, the Republican Party, or a major portion of it,
> has attempted to overthrow Constitutional rule in this country. Having
> failed with demagoguery in the 50's,
Missed that.
> outright crime in the 70's,
Nixon?
> and an
> attempted coup under color of law in the 90's,
BS.
> now they're experimenting
> with mind control.
The Dems have absolutely no room to talk.
> Lincoln must be barfing in his grave.
only if Gore gets in.
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
snip
> ... if he gets anywhere
> near the White House the damage he will do the country will, I believe, be
> *substantial*.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> B5 Official Fan Club at:
> http://www.thestation.com
> (all message content (c) 2000 by
> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> to reprint specifically denied to
> SFX Magazine)
The same could be said for Gore.
Mac - also a McCain supporter.
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tammy Smith" <gka...@webtv.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: TRUST THE GOP
> Gharlane, JMS was born in the 1950's (early part of that decade), & I
> think he was pretty aware of what was going on in the '70's!
So you're saying ri0...@my-deja.com is JMS?
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "John R. Campbell" <so...@penrij.uucp.jtan.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
snip
> Canada is starting to look good, ain't it...
Canada started to look good the day Clinton took office.
> >He's prissy, arrogant, brittle, not terribly bright, and if he gets
anywhere
> >near the White House the damage he will do the country will, I believe,
be
> >*substantial*.
>
> There was a joke I saw in rec.humor.funny, but, when I look on their
> site, cannot find hide nor hair of it. Here's the text:
>
> >Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
> >Subject: Comparing Texas Schools
> >From: haa...@nm.net (Cheryl Haaker)
> >Keywords: topical, smirk, forwarded
> >Message-ID: <Sfc2...@netfunny.com>
> >Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:30:00 PDT
>
> Education in Texas has improved greatly under the George W. Bush
> administration. Now, 60% of Texas 6th graders read at a higher level than
> the Governor. Under Governor Ann Richards, few if any achieved these
> levels of literacy.
>
> >--
> >This joke's link: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/00/Sep/literacy.html
Is it "literacy" or IQ, *or* just that he doesn't seem to be able to think
quickly on his feet and ad-lib? I think Cheney would slaughter them all in
a debate.
> Of course, the media _love_ Bush- his entertainment value is
> way beyond Gore's simply because he does a couple of Dan Quayle's
> darn near every chance he gets.
Gore is the straight man. It makes for less material.
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Perkins" <rob_p...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
snip
> Have you met Al Gore? I haven't. I'd appreciate your opinion of his
> character.
The only way for anybody's read of his "character" to be accurate, would be
if Lyta was with JMS when he met Gore.
Mac
Paul Harper
wrote:
>I could never confuse you with Mrs. Clinton ...
Ah. American politics.
So exciting. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Tom Davis
news:20000914184144...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> Jumping in with what will probably be my only thoughts on the issue....
>
>
> I definitely do NOT want GWB in office, for very strong reasons.
For a satirical reason why "Dubya" shouldn't be in office, from the
perspective of a Texan, go to
http:www.tom-davis.org/bush_and_dick.html for "The Tale of the Bush and
Dick."
Gharlane of Eddore
I normally wouldn't bother with this thread, but since JMS isn't
reading my posts/e-mail anyway, I figure I won't hurt his blood
pressure...
In <20000914184144...@ng-co1.aol.com>
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>
> Jumping in with what will probably be my only thoughts on the issue....
>
> I supported John McCain early on, even though I've traditionally voted
> democrat, because I thought there was a man of great substance up there
> behind the podium. I don't believe in following party lines, I try to
> find the best person for the job.
>
McCain made me nervous, but I'd probably have taken a chance on him
if he ran; my main problem with the guy was his constant harping on
his service record, which I feel he's milked for far too long; and
his stance on certain constitutional rights issues. He seems to
support government regulation in areas where I don't feel any
government has any business sticking its nose. ( see his statements
concerning the "War On Drugs" and InterNet censorship... he appears
to support both. )
>
> I think Gore is okay. I'm not massively enthusiastic, I think we
> could've done better on that count, but at the end of the day,
> he's okay. I think he'll do a decent, reasonable job.
>
Oh, absolutely. After all, this is the guy who invented the
InterNet, doesn't know how to use a workstation computer, "wrote"
a book about environmental issues that he appears not to have
read yet ( and is full of conceptual and factual errors anyway ),
and is on record as thinking Herr Klinton's back-trail of raped
and government-organization-intimidated women is all a "fabrication."
Of course, we have no indications that Gore has ever felt the need
to arrange deaths among his staff or ex-staff in order to guard
his more embarrassing secrets, so it might well be that all the
campaign funding from mainland China wouldn't really affect his
job performance.
On the plus side, his room-mate was Tommy Lee Jones, and Tommy Lee
Jones majored in English Lit and writes a lot of his own material,
so if Gore gets elected, at least he'll have one wrong-headed
supporter who can write him speeches with a modicum of literacy...
>
> I definitely do NOT want GWB in office, for very strong reasons.
>
I suspect it's pretty much a "given" at this point, that Shrub Jr.
is going to be our next president; I'm not exactly thrilled over
this, but at least he won't be actively supporting nationalization
of police functions under one big department of ninja-suited storm
troopers who kick in the wrong doors at 2 AM and shoot people, and
GWBJr. won't be on record as actively supporting and espousing the
single biggest, most sociopathically callous criminal we've ever
had in the White House, UNlike his Gorey opponent.....
>
> This is a man who said, when he was told that there might be a
> huge budget shortfall in Texas as a result of his administration's
> choices, "Well, hopefully I won't have to worry about that."
>
You need to check the full context on that; you're being misled
(once again) by "Liberal"-media reportorial bias; as a one-time
journalist, you should be aware of the fact that you're reacting
the way they want you to, which is why you're getting fed specific
bits of info in highly selective and slanted presentations.
Bush, Jr. has enough REAL shortcomings that they could go after
him on valid grounds, if they didn't realize they can get your
socialist-liberal negative reaction with a much smaller investment
of time and money by just pushing your hot buttons, with your
active co-operation.
>
> This is not a man who we should put anywhere NEAR the White House.
>
OBGM: "Whom." Objective case.
>
> Further, major corporations put up nearly $100 million bucks, the
> largest in history, for his primary campaign.
>
As opposed to all that wonderful lovely Chinese Mainland Moola that's
carried the "Democrats" for the last several elections? The "liberal
media" funding and active campaign participation that's been expended
on getting "Democrats" elected, depending on lots of quids-pro-quo in
return? Spielberg and "DreamWorks" make a *LOT* more... and
contribute a lot more... than the technical and mechanical corporations.
And you might like to look up Bloodworth and Thomason some time, and
consider their contribution to Herr Klinton's life and times, and the
interesting effect they have on the careers of folks Herr K. needs
to quiet down. ( viz. their apparent involvement in Elizabeth Ward
Gracen's career, just as one example. )
>
> Corporations like that don't put up money at that level unless they
> think they're going to be getting something back in exchange.
>
Oh, right, UNlike all those foreign governments who invested heavily
in the Klinton administration in order to get "most favored nation"
trading status for operations that should be under sanctions, if not
complete trade embargoes, to keep them from profiting from slave labor
and massive environmental and civil rights abuse?
>
> This is a man who is going to be absolutely beholden to big business,
> as he was in Texas, where the first things he did was to provide a
> massive tax break for big oil, and the "tort reform" he lauded later
> was a bill to make it harder to sue corporations when they do bad stuff.
>
There's a problem with this? Since U.S. oil operations are largely
at a stand-still due to Herr Klinton's mis-management of the whole
situation, and massive funds outflow from the U.S..... and since the
only thing really going on in the Texan oil industry at present is
*refining* what's shipped in from elsewhere in the world... at high
prices... it's not like a bit of oil-company-friendly legislation
at the national level might not do a whole lot of good for the
economy, and the environment in general.
As for "tort reform," we *still* need it. As presently constituted,
the system rewards legal harassment of any major corporation, with
or without basis.
>
> This is a man who is a total chameleon. When McCain trounced him in
> one of the primaries as a reformer, suddenly Bush came out with all
> these banners saying HE was a reformer. He co-opts the other guy's
> stance when the other guy is ahead because he really has no other
> stance other than "I want the job."
>
As opposed to Mister "took the lead in creating the InterNet" who
didn't recognize busts of Franklin and Washington?
Concerning Bush:
>
> He was packaged and picked because the party heads think Bush was a
> brand name they could promote, and because he was well placed to get
> the southern vote. They picked him because of logistics, not because
> he was the best man for the job.
>
Gee. I can't wait to hear your reactions on the various members of
the Kennedy family. ( Strike that; you're still on record as asserting
that JFK wrote his own speeches and books. )
>
> He's prissy, arrogant, brittle, not terribly bright, and if he gets
> anywhere near the White House the damage he will do the country will,
> I believe, be *substantial*.
>
> jms
>
After two Klintonian administrations, ( in both of which elections JMS
is on record as having voted for Herr Klinton ) during which Klinton
smilingly, *GLEE*fully, signed garbage like the so-called "Omnibus Crime
Control Bill" of 1994 into law... and signed the so-called "Communications
Decency Act" into law, with *pride*... and aided and abetted in the
destruction of our civil rights, our military, our economy, our
technological superiority, the image and honor of the U.S. presidency,
our national morale, and the reputation and trustworthiness of our
law officers and investigators.....
All I can say is, we could probably *USE* a "prissy, arrogant, not
terribly bright" person in the White House, if it means we get the
present incumbents and their hangers-on out of the executive branch.
I don't *LIKE* living in a nation where they can kick in your doors
at two A.M. without a search warrant, and then confiscate everything
in sight by asserting it's part of a 'drug investigation,' even when
there's no basis for the assertion. The best way to avoid this sort
of thing is a P.O.'d, heavily armed citizenry, providing the feds with
an incentive to remember the Bill of Rights.
It's time for the Supreme Court to re-examine that stupid, illegal,
"forfeiture" decision from the *last* Republican era, and it's time
for the Supreme Court to take a non-dissembling stance on the Bill
of Rights in general, and get this nation back to some dependable
and rational basics.
Enough. Now it's my turn to shut up.
Tammy Smith
when I post half-asleep (it's the graveyard-shift that I work. I've
never quite adjusted). I can't believe the things I miss!
Sincerest apologies to all involved. :)
Tammy
Aubrey W. Adkins
Aubrey
Jms at B5 wrote:
> Jumping in with what will probably be my only thoughts on the issue....
>
> I supported John McCain early on, even though I've traditionally voted
> democrat, because I thought there was a man of great substance up there behind
> the podium. I don't believe in following party lines, I try to find the best
> person for the job.
>
> I think Gore is okay. I'm not massively enthusiastic, I think we could've done
> better on that count, but at the end of the day, he's okay. I think he'll do a
> decent, reasonable job.
>
> I definitely do NOT want GWB in office, for very strong reasons.
>
> This is a man who said, when he was told that there might be a huge budget
> shortfall in Texas as a result of his administration's choices, "Well,
> hopefully I won't have to worry about that." This is not a man who we should
> put anywhere NEAR the White House.
>
> Further, major corporations put up nearly $100 million bucks, the largest in
> history, for his primary campaign. Corporations like that don't put up money
> at that level unless they think they're going to be getting something back in
> exchange. This is a man who is going to be absolutely beholden to big
> business, as he was in Texas, where the first things he did was to provide a
> massive tax break for big oil, and the "tort reform" he lauded later was a bill
> to make it harder to sue corporations when they do bad stuff.
>
> This is a man who is a total chameleon. When McCain trounced him in one of the
> primaries as a reformer, suddenly Bush came out with all these banners saying
> HE was a reformer. He co-opts the other guy's stance when the other guy is
> ahead because he really has no other stance other than "I want the job."
>
> He was packaged and picked because the party heads think Bush was a brand name
> they could promote, and because he was well placed to get the southern vote.
> They picked him because of logistics, not because he was the best man for the
> job.
>
> He's prissy, arrogant, brittle, not terribly bright, and if he gets anywhere
> near the White House the damage he will do the country will, I believe, be
> *substantial*.
>
> jms
>
Aubrey W. Adkins
qualified than his boss. Something to think about...if the next prez gets iced, who
would you most like to see in the W.H....Joe or Dick?
James Bell
> Jms at B5 wrote:
> >
> > Jumping in with what will probably be my only thoughts on the issue....
> >
> > I supported John McCain early on, even though I've traditionally voted
> > democrat, .......
>
> I traditionally vote Republican, but I can't take exception with
> one word that you wrote about GWB. Unfortunately, I don't think that
> Al Gore is any better. It's a hard choice to decide if we want our
> country sold out to big business or the Chinese communists. Sadly,
> either party could have run better people (and the polls clearly
> showed that the Republicans would likely win by a landslide if they
> nominated McCain, while they looked like they would suffer a
> narrow defeat with the son of "read my lips"). It's unfortunate
> that the people don't get to vote for who they want to vote for in
> this country. Perhaps someday the republicans will learn this, but
> it doesn't seem likely. they didn't learn it four years ago and they
> so no grasp of reality this year.
Please, don't complain about the system because your guy lost. If McCain
was so overwhelmingly popular, why did he get beat so badly in the
primaries? His popularity is a media-supported myth geared at weakening
Bush. Even with the full support of the media, McCain was resoundingly
beaten by Bush. People were not allowed to vote for him? Give me a break.
The vast majority of Republicans chose Bush over McCain or any of the others
just as the vast majority of Democrats chose Al Gore over Bradley. It
happened. It's over. Live with it.
Jim
Aubrey W. Adkins
Haven't you figurted it out yet? The Republicans are running the wrong man for
the #1 position. So are the Democrats.
Aubrey
Mac Breck wrote:
> [ The following text is in the "Windows-1252" character set. ]
>
> [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
>
> [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John R. Campbell" <so...@penrij.uucp.jtan.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 9:47 PM
> Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
>
> snip
> > Canada is starting to look good, ain't it...
>
> Canada started to look good the day Clinton took office.
>
> > >He's prissy, arrogant, brittle, not terribly bright, and if he gets
> anywhere
> > >near the White House the damage he will do the country will, I believe,
> be
> > >*substantial*.
> >
Aubrey W. Adkins
> <Snipped>
>
> Please, don't complain about the system because your guy lost. If McCain
> was so overwhelmingly popular, why did he get beat so badly in the
> primaries? His popularity is a media-supported myth geared at weakening
> Bush. Even with the full support of the media, McCain was resoundingly
> beaten by Bush. People were not allowed to vote for him? Give me a break.
> The vast majority of Republicans chose Bush over McCain or any of the others
> just as the vast majority of Democrats chose Al Gore over Bradley. It
> happened. It's over. Live with it.
>
> Jim
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is what wins elections the vast majority of the
time. Bush spent almost his whole stash defeating McCain in the primaries, and
don't sell owning the start organization short for its effects on results
either. That is true wheather it's a Republican or Democrat contest.
Aubrey
Kurtz
"Aubrey W. Adkins" <xazq...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39C27348...@home.com...
> Mac,
> Haven't you figurted it out yet? The Republicans are running the wrong
man for
> the #1 position. So are the Democrats.
> Aubrey
>
There's a thought:
Who would you vote for, Liebermann/Gore or Cheney/Bush?
Iain Clark
"Paul Harper" <pa...@harper.net> wrote in message
news:6bb4ssgddru6tsdvj...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Sep 2000 06:57:04 -0700, "Jim Kress" <kress...@kressworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I could never confuse you with Mrs. Clinton ...
>
> Ah. American politics.
>
> So exciting. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
Still, Babylon 5 is the most discussed topic here...after George Bush and
gun control.
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Tim Skirvin
>Quick! Somebody call Joe a nazi, and we may end this thing before it
>gets really bad.
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.faq>
Sorry. Hadn't posted that URL here before.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@ks.uiuc.edu)
--
Theoretical Biophysics@UIUC <URL:http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/>
System Administrator ph#: 217/244-1855 fax: 217/244-6078
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gharlane of Eddore" <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Cc: <rec-arts-sf-tv-b...@moderators.isc.org>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
>
I suspect that if Gore does get in, he'll do whatever he can to take away
our rights.
> and
> GWBJr. won't be on record as actively supporting and espousing the
> single biggest, most sociopathically callous criminal we've ever
> had in the White House, UNlike his Gorey opponent.....
>
> >
> > This is a man who said, when he was told that there might be a
> > huge budget shortfall in Texas as a result of his administration's
> > choices, "Well, hopefully I won't have to worry about that."
> >
>
> You need to check the full context on that; you're being misled
> (once again) by "Liberal"-media reportorial bias; as a one-time
> journalist, you should be aware of the fact that you're reacting
> the way they want you to, which is why you're getting fed specific
> bits of info in highly selective and slanted presentations.
>
> Bush, Jr. has enough REAL shortcomings that they could go after
> him on valid grounds, if they didn't realize they can get your
> socialist-liberal negative reaction with a much smaller investment
> of time and money by just pushing your hot buttons, with your
> active co-operation.
>
> >
> > This is not a man who we should put anywhere NEAR the White House.
> >
>
> OBGM: "Whom." Objective case.
>
> >
> > Further, major corporations put up nearly $100 million bucks, the
> > largest in history, for his primary campaign.
> >
>
> As opposed to all that wonderful lovely Chinese Mainland Moola that's
> carried the "Democrats" for the last several elections?
Oh come on, Gharlane, we know that doesn't "count." Nobody can "prove" that
Al did anything wrong. <S>
> The "liberal
> media" funding and active campaign participation that's been expended
> on getting "Democrats" elected, depending on lots of quids-pro-quo in
> return? Spielberg and "DreamWorks" make a *LOT* more... and
> contribute a lot more... than the technical and mechanical corporations.
> And you might like to look up Bloodworth and Thomason some time, and
> consider their contribution to Herr Klinton's life and times, and the
> interesting effect they have on the careers of folks Herr K. needs
> to quiet down. ( viz. their apparent involvement in Elizabeth Ward
> Gracen's career, just as one example. )
Please elaborate.
I look forward to that day!
> I don't *LIKE* living in a nation where they can kick in your doors
> at two A.M. without a search warrant, and then confiscate everything
> in sight by asserting it's part of a 'drug investigation,' even when
> there's no basis for the assertion. The best way to avoid this sort
> of thing is a P.O.'d, heavily armed citizenry, providing the feds with
> an incentive to remember the Bill of Rights.
Al, Rosie, et all, want your gun. Only *they* can be trusted with guns.
Bill and Al are Father. Bill and Al are Mother. Trust the Bill and Al.
<S>
Mac
Christopher M. Conway
John Morrow <mor...@fnord.io.com> wrote:
= rri...@my-deja.com writes:
[snip]
= As for overthrowing
= Constitutional rule, that's been pretty dead for decades. At least as
= far back as FDR's extortion of the Supreme Court.
Actually, it goes back to Lincoln. The Republic was replaced by an Empire
when he decided to force sovereign states back into "The Union." He also
suspended constitutional rights-- including habeas corpus-- until forced
to reinstate them by the courts.
Gore and Bush both suck equally badly. Vote for Harry Browne, the Libertarian
candidate, who is the only candidate who will work to restore our rights and
our consititution.
http://www.harrybrowne.org
--
Christopher M. Conway U*IX and C Guru
wom...@prickly-wombat.com Don't Tread on Me
We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we will all hang separately.
I'll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy.
Reed Snellenberger
>
> And to think you wrote "And Now for a Word" -- maybe you should watch it
> again...
>
And, of course, I meant to refer to "The Illusion of Truth" here...
<sigh - always visit midwinter before making references...>
Reed
Thomas Bagwell
wrote:
>In article <39c054e5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> tnba...@mail.com (Thomas Bagwell) wrote:
>
>> Actually, it wasn't subliminal at all in this context. It was just
>> the word 'BUREAUCRATS' crossing the screen. At one point, only the
>> last 4 letters were on the screen.
>
>I am somewhat handicapped by the fact that I have not seen the ad, but
>_every_ description I have seen says that it is talking about a
>one-frame flash of "RATS" _before_ "BUREAUCRATS" crosses the screen.
The word "BUREAUCRATS" started off far larger than the screen.
Flashing as it shrank down to size, itially you saw just the bottom
half of the last 2-3 letters, then the last 4 letters and a bit of the
'C', then the whole word taking up the screen, then the word in its
final size.
(From recollection...I haven't freeze-framed through it.)
Tom B.
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Anybody have the old Hillary joke archived? It had a line that went
something like "... and has a really BIG left wing."
Mac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Kress" <kress...@kressworks.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
> Well, Joe, I for one would NEVER call you a Nazi.
>
> I could never confuse you with Mrs. Clinton ...
>
> Jim Kress
>
> "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000914230922...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> > >Quick! Somebody call Joe a nazi, and we may end this thing before it
> > >gets really bad.
> >
> > Well, you know what I always say about nazis, the fuhrer the better....
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Why does no one call the politicians (almost all of them) on the so-called
"budget surplus" when there really is a multi-trillion dollar DEFICIT?
The Democratic Senator from SC (sorry, can't recall his name) mentioned it
on CSPAN yesterday. IIRC, the deficit is around 5.6 trillion dollars, and
it got BIGGER (i.e. worse) by $28 billion dollars in the first 9 months of
this year.
What surplus? There is NO surplus.
Mac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
> >Are there references to this statement of Bush's? Not that I don't
believe
> >you that he said that, but I'd like to read it in its context.
>
> Jeez, it was everywhere about a month ago...even showed up in Newsweek's
Quotes
> of the Week section. I saw it when it first aired, and the context was
this:
> when Bush came in, there was a budget surplus which he said could be used
for X
> purposes and still give a whole bunch of tax breaks to major businesses in
the
> Texas area. This year, due to those policies, there's expected to be a
budget
> *shortfall*, and no one yet knows just how bad that's going to be yet.
That's
> not in contest by anyone, even Bush. The final context was that he was
asked
> what he thought the shortall would be, and he said he hoped he woudn't
have to
> worry about (on the theory that he would be in the White House by then).
>
> Now, THAT'S what I call responsible governing....
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Kress" <kress...@kressworks.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
> Joe,
>
> You might want to do the same level of research on your political
statements
> as you do on your script writing. Here are some facts from the 2nd most
> liberal 'news' paper on the other left coast (excerpted from the
Washington
> Post dated 7/21/2000):
>
> The Gore campaign is seizing on what it believes could be its most potent
> weapon against the Texas governor. By making an issue of the Texas budget,
> Gore hopes to strip Bush's ability to portray himself as a prudent fiscal
> manager. Keenly aware of the potential power of this issue, Bush's
campaign
> launched a strong counterattack, accusing the vice president of
purposefully
> misleading the public about the state's fiscal health.
>
> After scrambling his schedule to add this afternoon's stop in Texas, Gore
> sat on a stage at a conference center here with three single mothers whose
> children have no health insurance. The vice president noted that the
federal
> government had huge deficits when he and Clinton came to office and is now
> running huge surpluses.
Not according to the Democratic Senator from South Carolina. There is a 5.6
trillion dollar DEFICIT, not a surplus.
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Sorry! I didn't see your other message 'till after I sent my reply.
Mac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tammy Smith" <gka...@webtv.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: TRUST THE GOP
James Bell
The person who spends the most money usually wins, true. However, tt is American
citizens who vote. If they are so gullible as to vote for the person with the
most face time, they get what they deserve. I have no pity for people who vote
based on face time and sound bytes rather than using their brains. It isn't a
problem with the system, it is a problem with the voters...they are for the most
part intellectually lazy.
Jim
James Bell
> In article <Vcew5.13234$XT1.2...@news5.giganews.com>,
> John Morrow <mor...@fnord.io.com> wrote:
> = rri...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> = As for overthrowing
> = Constitutional rule, that's been pretty dead for decades. At least as
> = far back as FDR's extortion of the Supreme Court.
>
> Actually, it goes back to Lincoln. The Republic was replaced by an Empire
> when he decided to force sovereign states back into "The Union." He also
> suspended constitutional rights-- including habeas corpus-- until forced
> to reinstate them by the courts.
>
> Gore and Bush both suck equally badly. Vote for Harry Browne, the Libertarian
> candidate, who is the only candidate who will work to restore our rights and
> our consititution.
>
> http://www.harrybrowne.org
The survey at that link is pretty good, too:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/misc/survey.htm
Very interesting. I wonder how elections would turn out if, rather than voting,
one just took a similar survey and the person who one comes out closest to got
the nod...I'd bet neither major party would win as often.
Jim
Jms at B5
>country sold out to big business or the Chinese communists.
In 20 years they'll be out of power. Trust me. Look at North Korea, which is
looking for some way out of the same system.
>the polls clearly
>showed that the Republicans would likely win by a landslide if they
>nominated McCain
Which is a very telling thing. The big money guys want somebody who they can
control. That ain't McCain, who I still think is very much his own man.
A vote for George W Bush is like a vote for Charlie McCarthy, without knowing
which correlating Edgar Bergen has his hand up the dummy's butt.
Jms at B5
>was so overwhelmingly popular, why did he get beat so badly in the
>primaries? His popularity is a media-supported myth geared at weakening
>Bush. Even with the full support of the media, McCain was resoundingly
>beaten by Bush. People were not allowed to vote for him? Give me a break.
>The vast majority of Republicans chose Bush over McCain or any of the others
>just as the vast majority of Democrats chose Al Gore over Bradley. It
>happened. It's over. Live with it.
>
McCain got beaten because his party wanted ONLY GWB to win, instead of being
open to whichever candidates were running to select the best man. When your
own party hobbles your efforts at organization and fundraising, it's awful hard
to win.
I was talking to one Republican candidate here in California, and he mentioned
that the Republican party was REQUIRING of all its incumbents and new
candidates that they sign a form pledging their support to GBW -- this DURING
the primaries, when McCain was still strongly in the running -- and if they did
NOT sign the endorsement, the money for their various races would be withheld.
Go ahead...tell me that's a level playing field.
Adam Michaud
Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>Not according to the Democratic Senator from South Carolina. There is a 5.6
>trillion dollar DEFICIT, not a surplus.
Then the Democratic Senator from South Carolina is mistaken. There's a
5.6 trillion dollar DEBT, not deficit. Deficit is year-to-year, debt is
cumulative. So we have a surplus and a debt, but not a deficit.
(And, of course, without the service on that debt, we could be running
much larger surpluses and/or lower taxes, improve education in a
meaningful way, yadda, yadda, yadda. IMO, any politician who *doesn't*
have debt reduction as a high priority is being irresponsible. And, yes,
I'm aware of the arguments for not paying off the debt because of the
stability that U.S. Gov't bonds provide to world financial markets; I
don't buy it. Without the haven that those bonds provide, the amount of
money poured into corporate investment goes *way* up, and there's little
long-term downside to that. At the very least, reducing the debt to, say,
$1 trillion would free up hundreds of billions for, as you prefer, tax
cuts, government programs, infrastructure improvements (don't tell me the
interstate highway system couldn't use a few billion dollars in
improvement), or whatever.)
Of course, that a senator needs a lesson in basic economics and economic
terminiology wouldn't be surprising.
Adam
J. Potts
> The Gore campaign is seizing on what it believes could be its most potent
> weapon against the Texas governor. By making an issue of the Texas budget,
> Gore hopes to strip Bush's ability to portray himself as a prudent fiscal
> manager. Keenly aware of the potential power of this issue, Bush's campaign
> launched a strong counterattack, accusing the vice president of purposefully
> misleading the public about the state's fiscal health.
>
> After scrambling his schedule to add this afternoon's stop in Texas, Gore
> sat on a stage at a conference center here with three single mothers whose
> children have no health insurance. The vice president noted that the federal
> government had huge deficits when he and Clinton came to office and is now
> running huge surpluses.
In article <015501c01f21$c575fe00$37d2...@cobweb.net>,
Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>Not according to the Democratic Senator from South Carolina. There is a 5.6
>trillion dollar DEFICIT, not a surplus.
I think he was talking about the national *budget* not the national debt.
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
J. Potts
Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>Why does no one call the politicians (almost all of them) on the so-called
>"budget surplus" when there really is a multi-trillion dollar DEFICIT?
>
>The Democratic Senator from SC (sorry, can't recall his name) mentioned it
>on CSPAN yesterday. IIRC, the deficit is around 5.6 trillion dollars, and
>it got BIGGER (i.e. worse) by $28 billion dollars in the first 9 months of
>this year.
>
>What surplus? There is NO surplus.
You're talking apples and oranges, i.e. budget and debt. We use to be
unable to get a balanced budget and kept having one that spent more than it
took in. Now we have a budget that takes in more than it spends (a surplus).
However, we still have a huge debt that needs to be paid off (maybe with
something like the surplus budget--gee, what a concept). Having a surplus
budget for the time being is a not a bad thing (IMO) since it allows us to pay
off some of the national debt[1].
[1] That's assuming the government actually uses the surplus to *pay off* the
Pål Are Nordal
>
> The person who spends the most money usually wins, true.
Ban political commercials.
They eat up money like a black hole, basically making prostituting
yourself to the corporations a requirement for running. They're also far
to short to convey anything useful, leaving either a meaningless
reciting of how the candidate supports low taxes, the environment, good
healthcare etc., or an attack on the opponent.
Just think if a party could campaign by only having volunteers passing
out material in the cites, and having candidates appear in news programs
and political talkshows.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Pål Are Nordal
[ About Gore ]
Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
>
> and is on record as thinking Herr Klinton's back-trail of raped
> and government-organization-intimidated women is all a "fabrication."
I seriously doubt _any_ vice president would have done anything else in
the same situation. Or has he continued claiming this after Clinton
admitted the whole thing?
Andrew Swallow
at B5) writes:
>
>I was talking to one Republican candidate here in California, and he
>mentioned
>that the Republican party was REQUIRING of all its incumbents and new
>candidates that they sign a form pledging their support to GBW -- this DURING
>the primaries, when McCain was still strongly in the running -- and if they
>did
>NOT sign the endorsement, the money for their various races would be
>withheld.
>
>Go ahead...tell me that's a level playing field.
>
> jms
>
Conspiracy Theory. Whom did the Democrats bribe into throwing the election?
Andrew Swallow
Pål Are Nordal
>
> And "mind control" DOESN'T EXIST.
Of course... that would be the first thing they'd start to broadcast.
Gharlane of Eddore
>
Some Brit Socialist added:
>
> Ah. American politics.
> So exciting. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> <g>
>
In <8ptvbp$e0ms8$1...@ID-36593.news.cis.dfn.de>
"Iain Clark" <iainj...@dragonhaven.worldonline.co.uk> writes:
>
> Still, Babylon 5 is the most discussed topic here...after
> George Bush and gun control.
>
There is No Such Thing as "gun control."
There is only INCREMENTAL CONFISCATION.
And have a nice day.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> There is No Such Thing as "gun control."
>
> There is only INCREMENTAL CONFISCATION.
Nonono. The government isn't coming for your guns.
The metal eating communist elves are.
I hear it's Goldberg and Rabkin's next project.
> And have a nice day.
You too :o)
Wesley Struebing
>In article <015101c01f21$0832c260$37d2...@cobweb.net>,
>Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
>>Why does no one call the politicians (almost all of them) on the so-called
>>"budget surplus" when there really is a multi-trillion dollar DEFICIT?
>>
><snip>
>>
>>What surplus? There is NO surplus.
>
>You're talking apples and oranges, i.e. budget and debt. We use to be
>unable to get a balanced budget and kept having one that spent more than it
>took in. Now we have a budget that takes in more than it spends (a surplus).
>However, we still have a huge debt that needs to be paid off (maybe with
>something like the surplus budget--gee, what a concept). Having a surplus
>budget for the time being is a not a bad thing (IMO) since it allows us to pay
>off some of the national debt[1].
Thank you, Jan - and the rest of those who replied to clarify.
>
>
>
>[1] That's assuming the government actually uses the surplus to *pay off* the
> debt.
Isn't that a bit like jumbo shrimp - or military intelligence? Ah,
well, one can always hope...
--
--Take care; faith manages!
--
--Wes Struebing
--
--+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-- str...@americanisp.com
-- ph: 303-343-9006 / FAX: 303-343-9026
-- home page: http://users.americanisp.com/~wstruebi/
Wesley Struebing
of Eddore) wrotf:
>
>On 15 Sep 2000 06:57:04 -0700, "Jim Kress"
><kress...@kressworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> I could never confuse you with Mrs. Clinton ...
>>
>
>
>Some Brit Socialist added:
>>
>> Ah. American politics.
>> So exciting. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>> <g>
>>
>
>
>In <8ptvbp$e0ms8$1...@ID-36593.news.cis.dfn.de>
>"Iain Clark" <iainj...@dragonhaven.worldonline.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> Still, Babylon 5 is the most discussed topic here...after
>> George Bush and gun control.
>>
>
>
>There is No Such Thing as "gun control."
Well, it IS true - guns aren't being controlled, but people sure
are...
>
>There is only INCREMENTAL CONFISCATION.
>
>And have a nice day.
Thank you, I will.
Ben Varkentine
>which correlating Edgar Bergen has his hand up the dummy's butt.
Did you ever hear the late comedian Bill Hicks' impression of politics in
America, Joe?
"I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs."
"I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking."
"Wait a minute--there's one guy holding up both puppets!"
"SHUT UP! GO BACK TO BED, AMERICA! YOUR GOVERMENT IS IN CONTROL!"
God, I miss that man.
Ben Varkentine
Read my film, theater and music criticism in http://popmatters.com/ &
http://slar.org/
"With the obvious exception of writer/directors, I've never seen any director
do much with the auteur theory and 100 blank pages".-JMS
Jms at B5
>"I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking."
>"Wait a minute--there's one guy holding up both puppets!"
>"SHUT UP! GO BACK TO BED, AMERICA! YOUR GOVERMENT IS IN CONTROL!"
If you like that, you should go to Michael Moore's site (www.michaelmoore.com)
and watch the video he just did for Rage Against the Machine, wherein aliens
dispatch a ship containing a mutant to Earth, it divides into two politicians
(Gore and Bush) and convince people they're different entities even though they
say the same things.
I don't necessarily agree with the point of view, but it's still damned
funny....
John W. Kennedy
ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
> (A) You weren't *ALIVE* in the '50's, and in the '70's you weren't
> sufficiently cognizant of your surroundings to have opinions.
Curious that you think you have my biography at your fingertips, but I
can assure you, you've got it wrong. I remember quite well the days of:
Whistle while you work.
Stevenson's a jerk.
Eisenhower
Has the power.
Whistle while you work.
-- though I confess that the first election I voted in was the very one
that Nixon and his inner circle undermined (albeit, had the law been
then what it is now, I would have been able to vote against his first
term, as well).
Oddly enough, I was brought up to be a Republican, and at twelve years
of age was almost heartbroken when he lost to my namesake. But
Goldwater's decisions that permanently realigned the two parties in 1964
turned me against the side that had consciously and deliberately chosen
the part of manifest wrong.
> (B) You're ignoring who was in charge of Congress and the White
House
> during vastly more massive debacles of authoritarian
transgression;
> look up who was "in charge" when the 16th Amendment was
illegally
> passed;
Oh God! You haven't been taken in by that clownish Taft-Ohio story,
have you?
> look up who was running things when 'Prohibition' was
> enacted;
Andrew Volstead was a Republican; the entire prohibition era was
dominated by Republicans; and Repeal, if I recall aright, was part of
the Democratic platform of 1932.
> look up who communized the nation with the so-called
> "Social Security" system in the thirties,
That's a sneer, not an argument. You can do better than this crap.
--
As a Christian, I wish to register both my disgust at George W. Bush's
attempt to exploit the name of my Lord and my God for its brand value,
and my horror at the fact that a major candidate should be so deeply
illiterate as to call Him a "political philosopher" in the first place.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Thomas Bagwell
>The survey at that link is pretty good, too:
>
>http://www.harrybrowne.org/misc/survey.htm
>
>Very interesting. I wonder how elections would turn out if, rather than voting,
>one just took a similar survey and the person who one comes out closest to got
>the nod...I'd bet neither major party would win as often.
There's a very complete survey at http://www.vote-smart.org as well.
Also just about all information you could want on -all- the
candidates.
Tom B.
Brian Reed
"Martin A. Hohner" wrote:
> Brian Reed shaped the electrons to say:
>
> >If the corporations are as powerful as you seem to think why don't they just
> >say to
> >their employees vote for GWB or you're fired, or even sneakier they say if
> >Gore is
> >elected we'll have to close the plant and say move to Mexico so Gore better
> >not get
> >elected.
>
> Which, coincidentally enough, is EXACTLY what the Gore-supporting Unions do
> with their members. Unions are occasionally well and good, but it's odd that
> it's totally illegal to do just about anything to stop unionization, but
> perfectly legal for Unions to ban all non-union workers from a company. You
> can't fire someone for joining a union, but you can fire someone for refusing
> to join a union.
This depends on whether you are in a right to work state, some prince Albert will
see and end to.
>
>
> On the other hand, an awful lot of Churches do an awful lot of politicking,
> primarily on the Republican side, despite the fact that it is absolutely
> illegal for non-profit organizations (such as Churches) to endorse or campaign
> on behalf of individual candidates or parties.
Most of the Black churches openly support Gore and the democrats and raise funds
at the churches themselves, while many of the leaders of Christian fundamentalist
groups i.e.. Falwell and Robertson lend their support and are mocked and
criticized I don't see an equal amount of skepticism toward the reverend Jackson
or his fellow travelers (hint).
>
>
> "Big Corporations" don't tell their employees how to vote. They know how much
> trouble that can get them into. They just throw money at candidates and hire
> professional lobbyists, and let money do their talking. It's distasteful, but
> it's probably preferable to either of the above variations on the same theme.
>
Unfortunately a lot of the money and lobbyists they throw money at are all former
House and Senate members. I would like to see a law banning them from such
activities or if they do become lobbyists they forfeit their government pensions.
BCR
Nicholas C. Weaver
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>If you like that, you should go to Michael Moore's site (www.michaelmoore.com)
>and watch the video he just did for Rage Against the Machine, wherein aliens
>dispatch a ship containing a mutant to Earth, it divides into two politicians
>(Gore and Bush) and convince people they're different entities even though they
>say the same things.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"
--
Nicholas C. Weaver nwe...@cs.berkeley.edu
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aubrey W. Adkins" <xazq...@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
> Mac,
> Haven't you figurted it out yet? The Republicans are running the wrong
man for
> the #1 position. So are the Democrats.
> Aubrey
I almost said that very thing. Saw a story to that effect in the New York
Times awhile back.
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurtz" <mal...@erols.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
>
> "Aubrey W. Adkins" <xazq...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:39C27348...@home.com...
> > Mac,
> > Haven't you figurted it out yet? The Republicans are running the wrong
> man for
> > the #1 position. So are the Democrats.
> > Aubrey
> >
>
> There's a thought:
>
> Who would you vote for, Liebermann/Gore or Cheney/Bush?
Cheney/Bush
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pål Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
Gharlane of Eddore wrote:
>
> There is No Such Thing as "gun control."
>
> There is only INCREMENTAL CONFISCATION.
Nonono. The government isn't coming for your guns.
The metal eating communist elves are.
Funny, I've never thought of Sen. Charles Schumer (or Biden, Moynihan, et
all)as a "metal eating communist elf," a slippery, slimy, self-serving
sleaze, sure, but never a "metal eating communist elf." However, Schumer
*is* a lot like rust. Schumer is always there to eat away at your rights
when you're not looking.
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Potts" <nav...@lucent.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
> In article <015101c01f21$0832c260$37d2...@cobweb.net>,
> Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
> >Why does no one call the politicians (almost all of them) on the
so-called
> >"budget surplus" when there really is a multi-trillion dollar DEFICIT?
> >
> >The Democratic Senator from SC (sorry, can't recall his name) mentioned
it
> >on CSPAN yesterday. IIRC, the deficit is around 5.6 trillion dollars,
and
> >it got BIGGER (i.e. worse) by $28 billion dollars in the first 9 months
of
> >this year.
> >
> >What surplus? There is NO surplus.
>
> You're talking apples and oranges, i.e. budget and debt. We use to be
> unable to get a balanced budget and kept having one that spent more than
it
> took in. Now we have a budget that takes in more than it spends (a
surplus).
> However, we still have a huge debt that needs to be paid off (maybe with
> something like the surplus budget--gee, what a concept). Having a surplus
> budget for the time being is a not a bad thing (IMO) since it allows us to
pay
> off some of the national debt[1].
>
>
>
> [1] That's assuming the government actually uses the surplus to *pay off*
the
> debt.
When a politician says they have a surplus, what do you think it leads the
average voter to believe? Do you think the average Joe-on -the-street voter
makes the distinction between debt and deficit? They hear surplus, and
think the country's in the black.
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
> A vote for George W Bush is like a vote for Charlie McCarthy, without
knowing
> which correlating Edgar Bergen has his hand up the dummy's butt.
Well I hope it's Cheney.
Mac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: TRUST THE GOP
> >It's a hard choice to decide if we want our
> >country sold out to big business or the Chinese communists.
>
> In 20 years they'll be out of power. Trust me. Look at North Korea,
which is
> looking for some way out of the same system.
>
> >the polls clearly
> >showed that the Republicans would likely win by a landslide if they
> >nominated McCain
>
> Which is a very telling thing. The big money guys want somebody who they
can
> control. That ain't McCain, who I still think is very much his own man.
>
> A vote for George W Bush is like a vote for Charlie McCarthy, without
knowing
> which correlating Edgar Bergen has his hand up the dummy's butt.
>
Ronald P. Peterson
like it. It's unfair and sad. 'Nough said.
Lurker #2
Jms at B5 (jms...@aol.com) wrote:
: Go ahead...tell me that's a level playing field.
: jms
: (jms...@aol.com)
: B5 Official Fan Club at:
: http://www.thestation.com
: (all message content (c) 2000 by
: synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
: to reprint specifically denied to
: SFX Magazine)
--
-Ronald P. Peterson (ro...@cc.gatech.edu)