left and right
James R. Olson, jr
<gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr wrote:
>> Are you aware of the origin of the left and right designations for
>> political stance?
>
>Yup, but the Left has distorted their meanings. For the left to usurp
>the original meaning of "Liberal" and "Progressive" is a travesty.
Please inform us. By the way, we're talking about left and right
here, not any other terms that you might want to misdefine.
Field Marshal D.J.
> >Yup, but the Left has distorted their meanings. For the left to usurp
> >the original meaning of "Liberal" and "Progressive" is a travesty.
>
> Please inform us. By the way, we're talking about left and right
> here, not any other terms that you might want to misdefine.
To put it simply, today's Conservatism is Classic Liberalism. The
Socialist-Left usurped the once-positive term and perverted it.
Much in the same way the Nazis took the Swastika (once a good-
luck symbol) and perverted it into something evil.
"Progressive" is a "Positive" word, but Politically it is a "Negative"
since it is just another word for Socialist-Left (the Left prefers the
word now because it hasn't been as discredited as "Liberal" has
been, but it soon will be).
Aloha,
--D.J.
Field Marshal D.J.
> Thanks for clearing up the question of whether you can comprehend the
> written word. Your reply makes it abundantly obvious that you cannot
> understand the meaning of a simple sentence.
Peanut, I explained to you exactly what you were asking for. Why don't
you just admit you've been whipped and you can't rebuke it ? No shame
in that, y'know...
Aloha,
--D.J.
James R. Olson, jr
<gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr thus sprake:
>
>> Thanks for clearing up the question of whether you can comprehend the
>> written word. Your reply makes it abundantly obvious that you cannot
>> understand the meaning of a simple sentence.
>
>Peanut, I explained to you exactly what you were asking for.
Can't read. In fact, I was very clear as to what I was asking for, to
the point of making a note of what I WASN'T asking for, and you went
right ahead and spewed forth your usual meaningless rant.
Now, read VERY CAREFULLY: You claimed to know what the origin of the
terms "left" and "right," used to refer to progressive and
conservative political positions, was. I asked you to enlighten us.
You failed to do so, and instead gushed forth with more of your
Newspeak.
Try again, won't you? When were the terms "left" and "right" first
used to refer to political positions?
> Why don't
>you just admit you've been whipped and you can't rebuke it ?
Why don't you try to use words according to their commonly accepted
meanings? If everyone used your Humpty-Dumpty methods of definition,
there'd be no language at all.
>No shame in that, y'know...
You certainly seem to be devoid of any sense of shame.
Field Marshal D.J.
> >Peanut, I explained to you exactly what you were asking for.
>
> Can't read.
Well I'm sure they must offer something at the local community college.
> In fact, I was very clear as to what I was asking for, to
> the point of making a note of what I WASN'T asking for, and you went
> right ahead and spewed forth your usual meaningless rant.
*Sigh* I'm afraid I can't match you and one-dog in that department.
> Now, read VERY CAREFULLY: You claimed to know what the origin of the
> terms "left" and "right," used to refer to progressive and
> conservative political positions, was. I asked you to enlighten us.
I did.
> You failed to do so, and instead gushed forth with more of your
> Newspeak.
That word you use is meaningless.
> Try again, won't you? When were the terms "left" and "right" first
> used to refer to political positions?
If you are referring to it historically, the terms originated in the wake of
the French Revolution in the legislature. The radicals were seated
to the Left of the Speaker while the non-radicals were seated to the
Right. The terms have been used ever since. And in our own
Congress (House), the Democrats are appropriately seated to the
Left of the Speaker's podium. Does that answer your question ?
Aloha,
--D.J.
Field Marshal D.J.
James R. Olson, jr
<gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr wrote:
>
>> >Peanut, I explained to you exactly what you were asking for.
>>
>> Can't read.
>
>Well I'm sure they must offer something at the local community college.
Why don't you enroll?
>
>> In fact, I was very clear as to what I was asking for, to
>> the point of making a note of what I WASN'T asking for, and you went
>> right ahead and spewed forth your usual meaningless rant.
>
>*Sigh* I'm afraid I can't match you and one-dog in that department.
>
>> Now, read VERY CAREFULLY: You claimed to know what the origin of the
>> terms "left" and "right," used to refer to progressive and
>> conservative political positions, was. I asked you to enlighten us.
>
>I did.
Nope. Since you don't appear to be able to decipher simple sentences,
it's no surprise.
>> You failed to do so, and instead gushed forth with more of your
>> Newspeak.
>
>That word you use is meaningless.
Perhaps you should take a modern literature course after you finish
remedial reading.
>> Try again, won't you? When were the terms "left" and "right" first
>> used to refer to political positions?
>
>If you are referring to it historically, the terms originated in the wake of
>the French Revolution in the legislature. The radicals were seated
>to the Left of the Speaker while the non-radicals were seated to the
>Right. The terms have been used ever since. And in our own
>Congress (House), the Democrats are appropriately seated to the
>Left of the Speaker's podium. Does that answer your question ?
Oh, very nice! It only took me two tries to squeeze it out of you,
even if you did use your own Newspeak term for the conservatives.
The conservatives sat at the right, while the Radicals sat at the
left. Now, what were the agendas of the two groups? The
conservatives were in favor of saving the monarchy, while the Radicals
were in favor of democracy. So it is appropriate that the Democrats
are the left (such as it is) party of America, while the dynastically
oriented Republicans are on the right.
Field Marshal D.J.
-snip foolishness-
> >If you are referring to it historically, the terms originated in the wake
of
> >the French Revolution in the legislature. The radicals were seated
> >to the Left of the Speaker while the non-radicals were seated to the
> >Right. The terms have been used ever since. And in our own
> >Congress (House), the Democrats are appropriately seated to the
> >Left of the Speaker's podium. Does that answer your question ?
>
> Oh, very nice! It only took me two tries to squeeze it out of you,
> even if you did use your own Newspeak term for the conservatives.
>
> The conservatives sat at the right, while the Radicals sat at the
> left. Now, what were the agendas of the two groups? The
> conservatives were in favor of saving the monarchy, while the Radicals
> were in favor of democracy. So it is appropriate that the Democrats
> are the left (such as it is) party of America, while the dynastically
> oriented Republicans are on the right.
Comparing the agendas of two sides of the French Parliament in the
wake of their Revolution to the Republicans and Democrats is stretching
it a bit, but if you must, remember that those "radicals" would also come
to include Socialists and Communists, and we all know how "Democratic"
they truly were (or are). I don't know of any American Republicans favoring
a Monarchy in contrast to the English Conservative (Tories) that do, but
given the conduct of the Democrat Party earlier this year during the
impeachment, we see that they are today's Monarchists with the Clintons
as the "Royal Family" that they support to the death...
Aloha,
--D.J.
James R. Olson, jr
<gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr wrote:
>> The conservatives sat at the right, while the Radicals sat at the
>> left. Now, what were the agendas of the two groups? The
>> conservatives were in favor of saving the monarchy, while the Radicals
>> were in favor of democracy. So it is appropriate that the Democrats
>> are the left (such as it is) party of America, while the dynastically
>> oriented Republicans are on the right.
>
>Comparing the agendas of two sides of the French Parliament in the
>wake of their Revolution to the Republicans and Democrats is stretching
>it a bit,
Oh, not too much. The French conservatives were for the most part the
richer part of the Third Estate (and supported the prerogatives of the
First and Second Estates), while the Radicals for the most part
represented either the poorer or the more thoughtful parts.
Eventually the conservatives killed all the Radicals off and
instituted a dictatorship, something that I'm sure your lot would be
happy to do, considering your eager support for people who follow that
path in other countries.
> but if you must, remember that those "radicals" would also come
>to include Socialists and Communists, and we all know how "Democratic"
>they truly were (or are).
Their vision of society was a lot more democratic than the
Monarchists, that's for certain.
> I don't know of any American Republicans favoring
>a Monarchy
Remember the loud calls for repeal of term limits on the President
during Reagan's regime? And what's behind GW's popularity? Nothing
but his name.
> in contrast to the English Conservative (Tories) that do, but
>given the conduct of the Democrat Party earlier this year during the
>impeachment, we see that they are today's Monarchists with the Clintons
>as the "Royal Family" that they support to the death...
Clinton was and still is quite popular with the general run of
Americans, despite eight years of character assasination by the media.
Note that he was elected twice, and impeached by for trumped up
"offences" that had noting whatsoever to do with his office or the
performance of his duties.
I know it's hard for you to understand what an out-of-touch lunatic
you are (that's one of the things that makes you such a lunatic), but
the support Clinton enjoyss has nothing to do with dynasties, it has
to do with a hard job done well, something that no Republican in
recent memory can brag about.
Field Marshal D.J.
> >Comparing the agendas of two sides of the French Parliament in the
> >wake of their Revolution to the Republicans and Democrats is stretching
> >it a bit,
>
> Oh, not too much. The French conservatives were for the most part the
> richer part of the Third Estate (and supported the prerogatives of the
> First and Second Estates), while the Radicals for the most part
> represented either the poorer or the more thoughtful parts.
Of course, today's Republicans represent all 3 interests, unlike today's
Democrats.
> Eventually the conservatives killed all the Radicals off and
> instituted a dictatorship, something that I'm sure your lot would be
> happy to do, considering your eager support for people who follow that
> path in other countries.
You seem to be mistaking us for your Democrat buddies who appeased
evil Communist regimes and take money from them for their campaigns.
> > but if you must, remember that those "radicals" would also come
> >to include Socialists and Communists, and we all know how "Democratic"
> >they truly were (or are).
>
> Their vision of society was a lot more democratic than the
> Monarchists, that's for certain.
Make no mistake, there is nothing "Democratic" about Socialism or
Communism, something you and Mr. Toda have failed to understand.
> > I don't know of any American Republicans favoring
> >a Monarchy
>
> Remember the loud calls for repeal of term limits on the President
> during Reagan's regime?
Remember that it was the Republican party that put an end to any
future Monarchies after the reign of Franklin Roosevelt during the
1947-48 Congress.
> And what's behind GW's popularity? Nothing
> but his name.
More likely that, and the fact he is not Clinton.
> Clinton was and still is quite popular with the general run of
> Americans,
Are you sniffing glue, again ?
> despite eight years of character assasination by the media.
The media ? The media has been Clinton's number #1 apologist since
day 1. If they REALLY wanted to destroy him and run him out of office,
he would have been gone by now (i.e. Gingrich). Or are you gonna play
up this silly VRWC nonsense ?
> Note that he was elected twice,
Both by a MINORITY of the electorate. He has never enjoyed the support
of a majority in either election, not since his Arkansas days.
> and impeached by for trumped up
> "offences" that had noting whatsoever to do with his office or the
> performance of his duties.
You're sniffing glue right now, aren't you ? This is such a tired, old,
worn-
out, loony-toons argument that it isn't even worth responding to.
> I know it's hard for you to understand what an out-of-touch lunatic
> you are
Newspeak from Jimbo, lunatic=rational and reasonable.
> (that's one of the things that makes you such a lunatic),
Thank you, Jimbo.
> but
> the support Clinton enjoyss has nothing to do with dynasties,
What support, Jimbo ?
> it has to do with a hard job done well,
What has he done ? (Besides Broddricking the Constitution ?)
> something that no Republican in recent memory can brag about.
Ronald Reagan, George Bush...
Jimbo, you really need to get a grip. It's time for your medicine again.
Aloha,
--D.J.
James R. Olson, jr
<gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>Jimbo let loose with:
>
>> >Comparing the agendas of two sides of the French Parliament in the
>> >wake of their Revolution to the Republicans and Democrats is stretching
>> >it a bit,
>>
>> Oh, not too much. The French conservatives were for the most part the
>> richer part of the Third Estate (and supported the prerogatives of the
>> First and Second Estates), while the Radicals for the most part
>> represented either the poorer or the more thoughtful parts.
>
>Of course, today's Republicans represent all 3 interests, unlike today's
>Democrats.
Right. The Nobility, the Clergy, and the Dupes, like you.
>
>> Eventually the conservatives killed all the Radicals off and
>> instituted a dictatorship, something that I'm sure your lot would be
>> happy to do, considering your eager support for people who follow that
>> path in other countries.
>
>You seem to be mistaking us for your Democrat buddies who appeased
>evil Communist regimes and take money from them for their campaigns.
Actually, I was thinking of your Republican heroes who gave money to
evil fascist regimes, and helped them kill off the opposition.
>
>> > but if you must, remember that those "radicals" would also come
>> >to include Socialists and Communists, and we all know how "Democratic"
>> >they truly were (or are).
>>
>> Their vision of society was a lot more democratic than the
>> Monarchists, that's for certain.
>
>Make no mistake, there is nothing "Democratic" about Socialism or
>Communism, something you and Mr. Toda have failed to understand.
Where exactly are democracy and socialism incompatible?
Marxist-Leninism isn't democratic, because of its insistence on the
rule of the "vanguard party," but then, Marxist-Leninism didn't even
claim to be socialism.
>
>> > I don't know of any American Republicans favoring
>> >a Monarchy
>>
>> Remember the loud calls for repeal of term limits on the President
>> during Reagan's regime?
>
>Remember that it was the Republican party that put an end to any
>future Monarchies after the reign of Franklin Roosevelt during the
>1947-48 Congress.
I guess it was the best they could come up with after their coup
attempt of '32 failed. Look up Smedley Butler on the Web for more
info. But the commitment to term limits only lasted until they got
their own puppet in the door...
>> it has to do with a hard job done well,
>> something that no Republican in recent memory can brag about.
>
>Ronald Reagan, George Bush...
You're pretty bright, that's who I was specifically talking about.
One of them drove us deep into debt while preaching about small
government, the other one just sort of sat in the White House
scratching his head trying to think of which country he could invade
the next time his poll numbers sank.
James R. Olson, jr
<gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>Jimbo let loose with:
>> despite eight years of character assasination by the media.
>
>The media ? The media has been Clinton's number #1 apologist since
>day 1. If they REALLY wanted to destroy him and run him out of office,
>he would have been gone by now (i.e. Gingrich). Or are you gonna play
>up this silly VRWC nonsense ?
Here's real proof you live in a larallel universe. You claim to read
some ungodly number of newspapers (proof of either your unemployment
or your dishonesty) and you NEVER noticed years of squalling about the
non-crimes of Whitewater, the months of Monica headlines, all the
predicitons that Clinton was finished, and so on and on.
But you say the media ruined Gingrich...did the media in your universe
do stories about his checkered sexual history? Did they run more than
a day or so of articles on his repititive flaunting of tax law? Did
they bother to mention that he had been caught in the same violation
more than once, and still pleaded ignorance the semsond time around?
Why did Gingrich resign in your universe? Here, it was out of spite
when he finally recognized that nastiness isn't a good long-term
political strategy...not that we miss him a whole lot.
Field Marshal D.J.
> Here's real proof you live in a larallel universe. You claim to read
> some ungodly number of newspapers (proof of either your unemployment
> or your dishonesty) and you NEVER noticed years of squalling about the
> non-crimes of Whitewater,
Hmm, well I would notice if there had been NON-crimes, except there
weren't any. People were convicted, and you still continue to deny it.
> the months of Monica headlines, all the
> predicitons that Clinton was finished, and so on and on.
We were assuming Clinton would do the honorable thing and resign like
a normal person with any degree of character would do, but we forgot we
weren't dealing with an honorable person.
> But you say the media ruined Gingrich...
Not just the media.
> did the media in your universe
> do stories about his checkered sexual history?
My newspaper (the paper for which Gore worked at, and now is his number
#1 propaganda arm of his campaign), did a hatchet job on him everyday
demanding his resignation on more than one occasion.
> Did they run more than
> a day or so of articles on his repititive flaunting of tax law?
They did, even as it turned out he had DONE NOTHING WRONG.
> Did
> they bother to mention that he had been caught in the same violation
> more than once, and still pleaded ignorance the semsond time around?
And was still innocent of trumped-up charges against him and was fully
cleared.
> Why did Gingrich resign in your universe?
In my universe, where truth and reality reign, unlike yours, Gingrich
resigned
because of the disappointing election returns of '98 and disputes within his
own caucus over the agenda and direction of the party. Many of the rank and
file wanted new blood, he sensed that and gracefully stepped down.
> Here, it was out of spite
> when he finally recognized that nastiness isn't a good long-term
> political strategy...
Gee, really ? It always works for the Democrats.
> not that we miss him a whole lot.
Oh, yes you do. You miss him a lot. Without him to kick around anymore, who
do you have ? Hastert ? DeLay ? The Dems didn't really want him gone,
anyway,
he was a lightning rod for their (legal, what little there was of that)
fundraising
efforts. Just like we wouldn't want Ted Kennedy gone, though if Hillary gets
elected, she'll do more to revitalize our party than a dozen Ted Kennedys.
Aloha,
--D.J.
Field Marshal D.J.
> >Of course, today's Republicans represent all 3 interests, unlike today's
> >Democrats.
>
> Right. The Nobility, the Clergy, and the Dupes, like you.
I'm not a Democrat, peanut.
> Actually, I was thinking of your Republican heroes who gave money to
> evil fascist regimes, and helped them kill off the opposition.
Examples, please.
> Where exactly are democracy and socialism incompatible?
In today's society, it is the basic difference between freedom and tyranny.
Freedom cannot function where tyranny is present, and vice versa.
> Marxist-Leninism isn't democratic, because of its insistence on the
> rule of the "vanguard party," but then, Marxist-Leninism didn't even
> claim to be socialism.
That's a bizarre claim.
> >Remember that it was the Republican party that put an end to any
> >future Monarchies after the reign of Franklin Roosevelt during the
> >1947-48 Congress.
>
> I guess it was the best they could come up with after their coup
> attempt of '32 failed.
What the hell are you talking about ?
> Look up Smedley Butler on the Web for more
> info.
The Marine General ? The only thing I could find was some kook Socialist
site ranting about the evils of capitalism.
> But the commitment to term limits only lasted until they got
> their own puppet in the door...
Uh, huh. What Republican President served more than 2 terms ?
> >Ronald Reagan, George Bush...
>
> You're pretty bright, that's who I was specifically talking about.
> One of them drove us deep into debt while preaching about small
> government,
=buzzer sounds=
Oh, sorry. Wrong answer. Better luck next time.
> the other one just sort of sat in the White House
> scratching his head trying to think of which country he could invade
> the next time his poll numbers sank.
=buzzer sounds=
Wrong, again. The correct answer is Bill Clinton. Thanks for playing the
game. What parting gifts do we have for our contestant, Vanna ?
Aloha,
--D.J.
James R. Olson, jr
<gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr let loose with:
>
>> >Of course, today's Republicans represent all 3 interests, unlike today's
>> >Democrats.
>>
>> Right. The Nobility, the Clergy, and the Dupes, like you.
>
>I'm not a Democrat, peanut.
>
>> Actually, I was thinking of your Republican heroes who gave money to
>> evil fascist regimes, and helped them kill off the opposition.
>
>Examples, please.
In our universe, you can list just about every South or Central
American dictatorship, for instance, we have some real standouts in
Guatemala and El Salvador.
Reagan's petulant attempt to put the Somozas back in power comes to
mind as well.
Of course, in the depths of the Cold War just about every US president
was guilty of that sort of thing, whether Democrat or Republican.
>> Where exactly are democracy and socialism incompatible?
>
>In today's society, it is the basic difference between freedom and tyranny.
>Freedom cannot function where tyranny is present, and vice versa.
Newspeak and Big Lie. Just repeating "Socialism is tyranny" over and
over isn't an argument, it's propaganda.
>> Marxist-Leninism isn't democratic, because of its insistence on the
>> rule of the "vanguard party," but then, Marxist-Leninism didn't even
>> claim to be socialism.
>
>That's a bizarre claim.
Try educating yourself a little. The information is out there, if you
stop avoiding it.
>
>> >Remember that it was the Republican party that put an end to any
>> >future Monarchies after the reign of Franklin Roosevelt during the
>> >1947-48 Congress.
>>
>> I guess it was the best they could come up with after their coup
>> attempt of '32 failed.
>
>What the hell are you talking about ?
>
>> Look up Smedley Butler on the Web for more
>> info.
>
>The Marine General ? The only thing I could find was some kook Socialist
>site ranting about the evils of capitalism.
Careful not to look too hard, weren't you? Follows your pattern of
willful ignorance, but if you want to stay a conservative, you've got
to work hard at keeping the blinders on, don't you?
>> >Ronald Reagan, George Bush...
>>
>> You're pretty bright, that's who I was specifically talking about.
>> One of them drove us deep into debt while preaching about small
>> government,
>
>=buzzer sounds=
>
>Oh, sorry. Wrong answer. Better luck next time.
Your residence in a perpendicular universe is once more confirmed.
Ronald Reagan ranted about smaller government his whole term, and left
us with a bigger establishment than when he left.
I suppose you're one of those people who claims that it was Congress
who drove us into debt. Funny how that debt didn't start to mount
until Reagan came into office. Funny how Congress trimmed every
budget except one that he submitted.
Congress has to take some blame, it's true, but mainly for letting
Reagan run loose instead of having the courage to impeach him.
>> the other one just sort of sat in the White House
>> scratching his head trying to think of which country he could invade
>> the next time his poll numbers sank.
>
>=buzzer sounds=
>
>Wrong, again. The correct answer is Bill Clinton. Thanks for playing the
>game. What parting gifts do we have for our contestant, Vanna ?
Perpendicular universe once again. The correct answer is George Bush.
Examples: Panama: a manufactured incident where a CIA supported
puppet was suddnely hung out to dry because Georgie needed a military
action to make him look good.
Iraq: a manufactured incident, where our puppet Saddam was told he'd
have carte blanche to invade Kuwait, the Iraqi forces were promoted in
the "liberal" media as being a real tough opponent, we were fed pages
and pages of lies about "democratic" Kuwait and the horrible things
the nasty Iraqis did, and then eventually we rolled over them up to
the point of convenience, and left the puppet in place to serve as a
whipping boy at a later date.
Somalia: a manufactured incident, where GB found a mess to drop in
Clinton's lap after he lost the election.
James R. Olson, jr
<gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr let loose with:
>
>> Here's real proof you live in a larallel universe. You claim to read
>> some ungodly number of newspapers (proof of either your unemployment
>> or your dishonesty) and you NEVER noticed years of squalling about the
>> non-crimes of Whitewater,
>
>Hmm, well I would notice if there had been NON-crimes, except there
>weren't any. People were convicted, and you still continue to deny it.
"People were convicted" all right. It's just that none of them were
the President. People were also let off the hook for a variety of
crimes in the hope that they'd pin the President.
>> the months of Monica headlines, all the
>> predicitons that Clinton was finished, and so on and on.
>
>We were assuming Clinton would do the honorable thing and resign like
>a normal person with any degree of character would do, but we forgot we
>weren't dealing with an honorable person.
"We?" All of a sudden that "liberal press" that gave Clinton a free
ride is "we?"
Boy, it's no wonder you're a conservative, you can't keep a train of
thought on the track for more than a minute.
>
>> But you say the media ruined Gingrich...
>
>Not just the media.
Right, Gingrich had a big, big part in it too.
>
>> did the media in your universe
>> do stories about his checkered sexual history?
>
>My newspaper (the paper for which Gore worked at, and now is his number
>#1 propaganda arm of his campaign), did a hatchet job on him everyday
>demanding his resignation on more than one occasion.
Damn. Why don't we get that one in this town?
>
>> Did they run more than
>> a day or so of articles on his repititive flaunting of tax law?
>
>They did, even as it turned out he had DONE NOTHING WRONG.
When was that?
>
>> Did
>> they bother to mention that he had been caught in the same violation
>> more than once, and still pleaded ignorance the semsond time around?
>
>And was still innocent of trumped-up charges against him and was fully
>cleared.
Big Lie. He violated the tax rules for non-profit organizations on
more than one occasion. It's true that he was cleared of the last set
of charges, but he admitted to lying to the investigating panel of the
House Ethics Committee on the matter.
[12/22/96]
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a stunning confession Saturday after two
years of denials, Speaker Newt Gingrich admitted violating
House ethics rules. Republican sources said Gingrich was
bargaining for a reprimand that would allow him to remain the
House's top official.
Gingrich, who had a meteoric rise to the speakership in 1995,
could fall from that perch just as fast if the chamber votes
instead to censure him. The punishment is reserved for
serious offenses, and House rules prohibit censured members
from serving as speaker.
A lesser vote to reprimand Gingrich would allow him to keep
his job. While the speaker's defense team bargained for him
secretly with the House ethics committee, the Republican
hierarchy swiftly closed ranks in hopes of ensuring his
re-election next month.
Persistent denials ended Saturday for the speaker with the
striking statement that "I, Newt Gingrich, admit'' to
wrongdoing. He acknowledged his failure to seek legal advice
that would have prevented his use of tax-exempt organizations
for political purposes.
The ideological leader of the GOP's House takeover also
conceded, "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate,
incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the (House
ethics) committee, but I did not intend to mislead.''
Of course, the funniest part of the whole thing was Newt's claim that
he lied, but "didn't mean to mislead."
Oh well, it's all old news anyway. Newt has come to his just
desserts, and won't be troubling us any more. It probably won't be
long 'til his replacements get what they deserve too.
Field Marshal D.J.
> "People were convicted" all right. It's just that none of them were
> the President.
Not yet (but then Whitewater isn't the really big fish in Clinton's ocean
of crimes).
> People were also let off the hook for a variety of
> crimes in the hope that they'd pin the President.
True, but given some juries today, it's often difficult to convict people
even with overwhelming evidence.
> "We?" All of a sudden that "liberal press" that gave Clinton a free
> ride is "we?"
People of good conscience. You do know what a conscience is, don't
you, Jimbo ? Maybe not.
> Boy, it's no wonder you're a conservative, you can't keep a train of
> thought on the track for more than a minute.
Stay on topic, peanut, you're the one veering away.
> Right, Gingrich had a big, big part in it too.
He played a part, but a small one.
> Damn. Why don't we get that one in this town?
Consider yourself lucky.
> >They did, even as it turned out he had DONE NOTHING WRONG.
>
> When was that?
Earlier this year, it was reported on CNN (on Inside Politics, no less).
It's of no consequence now, anyway. You got your wish and he's gone.
> >And was still innocent of trumped-up charges against him and was fully
> >cleared.
>
> Big Lie. He violated the tax rules for non-profit organizations on
> more than one occasion. It's true that he was cleared of the last set
> of charges, but he admitted to lying to the investigating panel of the
> House Ethics Committee on the matter.
-snip article-
> Of course, the funniest part of the whole thing was Newt's claim that
> he lied, but "didn't mean to mislead."
He didn't lie.
> Oh well, it's all old news anyway.
Indeed, but you do enjoy beating a dead horse.
> Newt has come to his just
> desserts, and won't be troubling us any more. It probably won't be
> long 'til his replacements get what they deserve too.
Gonna assassinate them, too ?
Aloha,
--D.J.
Field Marshal D.J.
> In our universe, you can list just about every South or Central
> American dictatorship, for instance, we have some real standouts in
> Guatemala and El Salvador.
>
> Reagan's petulant attempt to put the Somozas back in power comes to
> mind as well.
Heaven forbid those Soviet backed Sandanistas didn't lead El Salvador
to the promised land... straight off the cliff.
> Of course, in the depths of the Cold War just about every US president
> was guilty of that sort of thing, whether Democrat or Republican.
Careful now, you're not being a partisan with remarks like that.
> Newspeak and Big Lie. Just repeating "Socialism is tyranny" over and
> over isn't an argument, it's propaganda.
Hey, Jimbo, Socialism IS tyranny. Just because you put your hands over
your ears and stomp the floor doesn't change the fact.
> Try educating yourself a little. The information is out there, if you
> stop avoiding it.
I was a Marxist, Jimbo, I know a little something about it. It's just
another
name for Socialism (just like Naziism is just another name for Fascism).
> >> I guess it was the best they could come up with after their coup
> >> attempt of '32 failed.
> >
> >What the hell are you talking about ?
You still haven't answered this one... What coup ?
> >The Marine General ? The only thing I could find was some kook Socialist
> >site ranting about the evils of capitalism.
>
> Careful not to look too hard, weren't you?
I only saw the one site, it might be helpful if you posted some links.
> Follows your pattern of
> willful ignorance, but if you want to stay a conservative, you've got
> to work hard at keeping the blinders on, don't you?
You got your ideologies mixed up again.
> Your residence in a perpendicular universe is once more confirmed.
> Ronald Reagan ranted about smaller government his whole term, and left
> us with a bigger establishment than when he left.
With a full Republican Government, that will soon change. He never had
one and he had to cut deals (and he acknowledged that he never achieved
all his goals). The important part was that he got us started in the
direction
of smaller government, which would take awhile to achieve.
> I suppose you're one of those people who claims that it was Congress
> who drove us into debt.
Imagine that.
> Funny how that debt didn't start to mount
> until Reagan came into office.
We had no debt before Reagan ?
> Funny how Congress trimmed every budget except one that he submitted.
Yup, of Defense.
> Congress has to take some blame, it's true, but mainly for letting
> Reagan run loose instead of having the courage to impeach him.
You're topping yourself for nonsensical rants today. The last time I shot
off at the mouth with a gem like that was when I was 12.
> >Wrong, again. The correct answer is Bill Clinton. Thanks for playing the
> >game. What parting gifts do we have for our contestant, Vanna ?
>
> Perpendicular universe once again. The correct answer is George Bush.
Come back, Peter Pan.
> Examples: Panama: a manufactured incident where a CIA supported
> puppet was suddnely hung out to dry because Georgie needed a military
> action to make him look good.
Uh, huh.
> Iraq: a manufactured incident, where our puppet Saddam was told he'd
> have carte blanche to invade Kuwait, the Iraqi forces were promoted in
> the "liberal" media as being a real tough opponent, we were fed pages
> and pages of lies about "democratic" Kuwait and the horrible things
> the nasty Iraqis did, and then eventually we rolled over them up to
> the point of convenience, and left the puppet in place to serve as a
> whipping boy at a later date.
Man, you're on a roll today. All manufactured, huh ?
> Somalia: a manufactured incident, where GB found a mess to drop in
> Clinton's lap after he lost the election.
Poor baby. Where do you come up with all this regurgitated pablum ?
Aloha,
--D.J.
Charley Walker
to what these terms should mean. As defined below, I'd rather choose to be
leaning towards liberalism any day rather than towards conservatism. Of
course, extremes in anything are to be avoid as downright unseemly. Lean to
far to the left or right and one will fall off his horse, turn his vehicle
over, fall out of the chair, etc. You get the picture. Of couse, I see most
of us, as individuals, conservative about some things and liberal in others.
I don't think I could be a total conservative or a total liberal.
Webster's Dictionary
Entry Word: conservative
Function: adjective
Text: 1 tending to resist or oppose change <took a very conservative stance
politically>
Synonyms die-hard, fogyish, old-line, orthodox, reactionary, right, tory,
traditionalistic
Contrasted Words modern, progressive, radical
Antonyms advanced
2 kept or keeping within bounds <equally conservative in speech and action>
Synonyms controlled, discreet, moderate, reasonable, restrained, temperate,
unexcessive, unextreme
Related Word cautious, chary, wary; circumspect, politic, proper, prudent
Contrasted Words expansive, unconstrained; excessive, freewheeling,
uncontrolled, unrestrained
Main Entry: 2conservative
Function: noun
Date: 1831
1 a : an adherent or advocate of political conservatism b capitalized : a
member or supporter of a conservative political party
2 a : one who adheres to traditional methods or views b : a cautious or
discreet person
Entry Word: conservative
Function: noun
Text: Synonyms DIEHARD 1, bitter-ender, fundamentalist, old liner, right,
rightist, right-winger, standpat, standpatter, tory
-------------------------------------------------------
Entry Word: liberal
Function: adjective
Text: 1 marked by generosity and openhandedness <a liberal allowance for his
son>
Synonyms bounteous, bountiful, free, freehanded, generous, handsome,
munificent, openhanded, unsparing
Related Word exuberant, lavish, prodigal, profuse; benevolent, charitable,
eleemosynary, philanthropic
Contrasted Words closefisted, miserly, niggardly, parsimonious, penurious,
stingy, tight, tightfisted; meager, scanty
Antonyms close
2
Synonyms PLENTIFUL, abundant, ample, bounteous, bountiful, copious,
generous, plenteous, plenty
3 not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms <modern
young people usually have a liberal attitude toward sex>
Synonyms advanced, broad, broad-minded, progressive, radical, tolerant, wide
Related Word forbearing, indulgent, lenient
Contrasted Words rigid, rigorous, strict, stringent; dictatorial,
doctrinaire, dogmatic, oracular; conservative, reactionary
Antonyms authoritarian
Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
Date: 1820
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in
the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b
capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an
advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights
"Field Marshal D.J." <gr.j...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MIL14.8724$0f7.7...@news.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> James R. Olson, jr wrote:
>
James R. Olson, jr
out quite clearly the Herr Field Marshal isn't speaking normal,
accepted English when he uses those words, but rather some dialect
from his perpendicular universe.
.On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 22:20:21 -0600, "Charley Walker"
Field Marshal D.J.
> Thanks, Charley, for providing the English definitions. They point
> out quite clearly the Herr Field Marshal isn't speaking normal,
> accepted English when he uses those words, but rather some dialect
> from his perpendicular universe.
You mean, the truth. You can call "Liberal" and "Conservative" whatever
you want. The textbook, dictionary definitions do not fit the reality of
today's ideologies...
> >Webster's Dictionary
> >Entry Word: conservative
> >Function: adjective
> >Text: 1 tending to resist or oppose change <took a very conservative
stance
> >politically>
Which is incorrect, as a Conservative, I favor DRAMATIC and sweeping
change.
> >Synonyms die-hard,
True.
> fogyish,
No.
> old-line,
Somewhat.
> orthodox, reactionary,
Reactionary, not. Reactionary implies being a part of the establishment,
which the Liberal-Left is.
> right, tory, traditionalistic
> >Contrasted Words modern,
Depends on what modern means...
> progressive,
Which is Conservatism today, as opposed to Liberal Progressivism,
which is just Socialism/Marxism with a nice-sounding name.
> radical
We're called radical by the Left, so you can't possibly agree with 'radical'
being applied to Libs, now can you, Jimbo ?
> >Antonyms advanced
> >2 kept or keeping within bounds <equally conservative in speech and
action>
> >Synonyms controlled, discreet, moderate, reasonable, restrained,
temperate,
> >unexcessive, unextreme
Now this is all true, but Jimbo wouldn't agree with this part.
-snip similar stuff-
> >Entry Word: liberal
> >Function: adjective
> >Text: 1 marked by generosity and openhandedness
With moneys that do not belong to them. Most Liberals are very cheap when it
comes to their own money.
> <a liberal allowance for his son>
> >Synonyms bounteous, bountiful, free,
Free as in "lacking in responsibility."
> freehanded, generous, handsome,
Handsome ?
> >munificent, openhanded, unsparing
Unsparing ? Not quite.
> >Related Word exuberant, lavish,
Decadent.
> prodigal, profuse;
Profane.
> benevolent,
Only to those they think they can exploit.
> charitable, eleemosynary, philanthropic
Again, with money not their own.
> >Contrasted Words closefisted, miserly, niggardly, parsimonious,
penurious,
> >stingy, tight, tightfisted; meager, scanty
Now that definitely would describe Libs when it comes to their own money.
> >3 not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
That definitely is no longer the reality.
<modern
> >young people usually have a liberal attitude toward sex>
That definition of liberal means, "without responsibility."
> >Synonyms advanced, broad, broad-minded,
Both not the reality, they are close-minded.
> progressive,
As in Socialist, but it is not a positive use of the word.
> radical, tolerant, wide
Tolerant of the intolerable, intolerant of the moral and responsible.
> >Related Word forbearing, indulgent, lenient
> >Contrasted Words rigid, rigorous, strict, stringent; dictatorial,
> >doctrinaire, dogmatic, oracular; conservative, reactionary
All those words, removing "conservative" are the prime examples of
liberalism.
> >Date: 1820
> >: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in
> >the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b
> >capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an
> >advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights
Man have things changed...
Hey, Jimbo, guess this makes you a Conservative ! :-)
Aloha,
--D.J.
James R. Olson, jr
<gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr let loose with:
>
>> Thanks, Charley, for providing the English definitions. They point
>> out quite clearly the Herr Field Marshal isn't speaking normal,
>> accepted English when he uses those words, but rather some dialect
>> from his perpendicular universe.
>
>You mean, the truth. You can call "Liberal" and "Conservative" whatever
>you want. The textbook, dictionary definitions do not fit the reality of
>today's ideologies...
Herr Field Marshal has greater authority than silly dictionaries...
>
>> >Webster's Dictionary
>> >Entry Word: conservative
>> >Function: adjective
>> >Text: 1 tending to resist or oppose change <took a very conservative
>stance
>> >politically>
>
>Which is incorrect, as a Conservative, I favor DRAMATIC and sweeping
>change.
Check the entry under "reactionary."
Sabir
Field Marshal D.J. <gr.j...@home.com> wrote in message
news:txf74.7613$t65.3...@news.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> James R. Olson, jr wrote:
>
> > Herr Field Marshal has greater authority than silly dictionaries...
>
> Apparently so.
>
> > Check the entry under "reactionary."
>
> It said, "See Jimbo."
>
> Aloha,
> --D.J.
>
>
>
Field Marshal D.J.
Field Marshal D.J.
> And what was your reaction?
Slight bemusement.
Aloha,
--D.J.
R.I.P. Desmond Llewellyn (1914-1999)