Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Clintoon's Cartoon Cabinet

16 views
Skip to first unread message

HOOVER

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
will it ever end?
Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
Cohen, and he's a Republican.
Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
(not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
never-ending freak show in D.C. Send them all back to the woods and let
them chase little furry animals.

Donald L Ferry

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote:

>Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>will it ever end?
>Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
>ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
>list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
>Cohen, and he's a Republican.

Madam HalfBright has disgraced any legitmate role women may have in
high government.

Ted Holden

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 17:12:15 +0000, HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote:

>Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>will it ever end?
>Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
>ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
>list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
>Cohen, and he's a Republican.

>Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
>(not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a

>never-ending freak show in D.C....


Best description of it I've read so far. What they might want to do
is something I saw in the Wizard of Id once, i.e. let them all pay 50
cents to walk into a tent which says "Freak Show" on it and stand
there and stare at eachother.

Ted Holden
med...@access.digex.com

Carl Spakler

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to
Them and the Clintons represent all thats went wrong with this country
in the past 30 years. A bunch of inept ex radical hippies dictating
policy here and abroad. They have the morals and integrity of a wart
hog.... What people dont get is that the damaging policies and inept
foreign
stategies they promoted will prove to be damaging if not damning to our
kids and grandkids..

Clowns like Roselle will spout out about VWRC but I ( and he) as a
traditional democratic voter smelled this bunch coming .. What an
embarassment.. what a shame..

Carl


Yatsu

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to

HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...


> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.

Definitely, how about the Reagan Administration. Oliver North, John
Poindexter, and the senile president Reagan himself, just to name a few.
This bunch of guys was much worse than the Clinton administration, from
multiplying our debt to looking the other way while crack made it's way
into America.


> We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
> will it ever end?
> Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
> crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
> ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
> list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
> Cohen, and he's a Republican.
> Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
> (not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a

Alanirving

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
Wait a minute Hoover, Clinton told us from the very beginning that his cabinet
would "look like America." He decided from the start that his choices for
cabinet members would not follow tradition and be composed of the brightest,
the best, and the most qualified this country has to offer, but would meet the
liberal notions of diversity and affirmative action. This is the one promise
Clinton actually kept.

al


DeadCosmonautJim

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
How about backing up your statements with given examples or are you just
ranting off?

HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...
> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.

guesswho

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
Yatsu wrote:
Definitely, how about the Reagan Administration. Oliver North, John
Poindexter, and the senile president Reagan himself, just to name a few.

This bunch of guys was much worse than the Clinton administration, from
multiplying our debt to looking the other way while crack made it's way
into America.

Weren't they flown into Mena Ark.?


F. Prefect

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 17:12:15 +0000, HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote:

>Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>will it ever end?
>Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
>ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
>list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
>Cohen, and he's a Republican.
>Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
>(not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
>never-ending freak show in D.C. Send them all back to the woods and let
>them chase little furry animals.

Some people just can't stand prosperity.

Ford
"If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want
it caught and shot, now." Z. Beeblebrox

Steve Wall

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to


On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 17:12:15 +0000, HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote:
>Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
>(not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
>never-ending freak show in D.C. Send them all back to the woods and let
>them chase little furry animals.

Yeah, but they are scalawags, viz. Southerners who talk the talk of
ignorant and hypocritical damyankees.
My regionalism is consonant with yours; if I had my way you damyankee
frauds would require passports to visit the Confederate States of America.

Steve Wall


Carl Spakler

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
Your right Steve. Most of the southerners Ive met are damn fine people.
Its just Clinton surrounded himself with a bunch of southern crooked
politicians,

Carl


DeZyN

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

Yatsu <*ya...@nospam.geocities.com"> wrote in message
<01bdadf8$8e76ffe0$8208...@gibbsjoh.user.msu.edu>...

>
>
>HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...
>> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>
>Definitely, how about the Reagan Administration. Oliver North, John
>Poindexter, and the senile president Reagan himself, just to name a few.
>This bunch of guys was much worse than the Clinton administration, from
>multiplying our debt to looking the other way while crack made it's way
>into America.
>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You aren't to bright are you?
LOLOL


>
>> We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>> will it ever end?
>> Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>> crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
>> ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
>> list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
>> Cohen, and he's a Republican.

DeZyN

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

DeadCosmonautJim wrote in message <6oc1gj$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

>How about backing up your statements with given examples or are you just
>ranting off?
>


Why bother ? Everyone is already familiar with those people and their deeds.
Oh, I get it.
We are supposed to supply these documented examples and then you stomp on
em, huh?
Go back to your sand box and play, little child.

>HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...
>> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.

DeZyN

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to

HOOVER wrote in message <35A8EE...@global.net>...

>Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>will it ever end?
>Ron "The only reason I didn't end up in prison was because of a plane
>crash" Brown; Donna "Dwarf Woman" Shalala (where the hell did Billy Bob
>ever find this loser??); Warren "the senile old fart" Christopher; the
>list goes on. The only one with any credibility at all has been William
>Cohen, and he's a Republican.
>Add all of the southern, redneck hicks lounging around the White House
>(not to mention James "Serpent Head" Carville) and it's like a
>never-ending freak show in D.C. Send them all back to the woods and let
>them chase little furry animals.

Don't forget the biggest embarrassment of all, the condom lady (or was she a
man in drag) :
Jocelyn Elders.
Wonder what she's doin now that she got shit canned?
Probably wearing out kneepads at the salvation army....

HOOVER

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to


Wow, good call! How the hell did I forget that loser? Where is she
now? Probably masturbating in some movie theater in downtown DC.

Carl Spakler

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
And then we have Bills ( The president that represents what went wrong
with america) new
secretary of the air force nominee... The clown was grounded for being
an inept flyer and is being investigated due to unsavory business
practices.. What an embarrassment...

Carl


Weasel X

unread,
Jul 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/18/98
to
Tripp-Lewinsky-Willey intrigue
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 7/15/98
GENE LYONS

Sex confuses everybody, so it should come as no surprise that the
Monica Lewinsky affair appears to have paralyzed the critical
faculties of the Washington press mob.

Consider the famous "talking points." Allegedly handed to Linda Tripp
by Lewinsky with fortuitous timing on Jan. 14, a mere 24 hours after
Kenneth Starr's prosecutors had wired Tripp and sent her out to go
drinking and talk dirty with Monica about her supposed love affair
with President Clinton, the talking points are widely seen as the
proverbial "smoking gun" apt to bring the administration down.

Newsweek, which broke the story, put it this way in its Feb. 2 issue:
"Onits face, 'points to make in an affidavit' is what lawyers call
subornation of perjury. Lewinsky was giving Tripp a road map to lying
under oath . . . [W]hen Tripp handed Starr's deputies 'points to make
in an affidavit,' the prosecutors knew they had been given a powerful
tool to squeeze Lewinsky.

What's more, Starr strongly doubted that Lewinsky had drafted those
talking points herself. That meant she was getting coaching--from
whom?"

Supposedly, the talking points instruct Tripp to lie about Kathleen
Willey's claim that Clinton groped her in the Oval Office. "You now do
not believe that what she claimed happened reallyhappened," they say.
"You now find it completely plausible that she herself smeared her
lipstick, untucked her blouse, etc. You never saw her go into the Oval
Office, or come out of the Oval Office. You have never observed the
President behaving inappropriately with anybody."

On TV talk shows devoted to Monica Madness, the rhetorical question
"Who wrote the talking points?" has become a Republican trump card.
Because unanswerable, it's presented as decisive proof of Clinton's
guilt. The "Clinton scandals" have worked that way from the start.
Don't know who did it? Then Clinton's henchmen did. In that spirit,
Philip Weiss of The New York Observer recently wrote what William
Safire called a "brilliant exegesis . . . speculating that [White
House aide Bruce] Lindsey may be the suborn-again author."

The Washington Times made it official. According to a June 22,
article, "[I]ndependent counsel Kenneth W. Starr has focused on White
House Deputy Counsel Bruce R. Lindsey as the possible source of the
controversial 'talking points' Monica Lewinsky gave to Linda R. Tripp,
sources told The Washington Times. . . . [T]he independent counsel's
office is trying to gather evidence to bolster the following scenario:
Mrs. Tripp relayed her concerns to Miss Lewinsky, who mentioned them
to Mr. Clinton. The president then briefed Mr. Lindsey, his closest
adviser, who responded by arranging for Miss Lewinsky to give Mrs.
Tripp the talking points."

A skeptic might notice that no evidence exists to confirm that such
conversations among Clinton, Lewinsky and Lindsey ever took place.
Also that Lindsey makes a real convenient suspect from Starr's
political point of view.

Neither Monica nor Clinton has testified. Lindsey has, and has
publicly denied any knowledge of the talking points. He's almost
certain to have told the grand jury exactly that--unless Starr found a
way not to ask him.

A cautious, meticulous man without a blot on his professional record,
Lindsey is a Little Rock native who followed Clinton to Washington;
hence, unlike, say, the president's private attorneys, Bob Bennett and
David Kendall, he can be accused by Starr's press allies without
offending any permanent vested interests inside the Beltway. A
"notorious consigliere," Safire calls him.

Pointing to Lindsey also provides Starr a legal smoke screen. By
asking Lindsey, a member of the White House Counsel's staff, direct
questions about his conversations with the president, Starr
deliberately provoked a lawyer-client privilege fight. Should he lose
in the Supreme Court, as he recently lost a similar attempt to get his
hands on Vince Foster's lawyer's notes, Starr's got his alibi: the
cover-up worked. If Starr wins, but the evidence still fails to
materialize, he'll nevertheless have prolonged Monica Madness for
months and gained time to construct more ingenious diversions. That's
what the recent Webb Hubbell and Susan McDougal indictments are all
about. After the White House recently withdrew a claim of executive
privilege regarding Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, Starr's sleuths
posed him this question:

"Does the president's religion include sexual intercourse?"

Is that more juvenile or more offensive? It's your call.

A skeptic might also argue that nothing known about Lindsey indicates
he'd be dumb enough to entrust anything ticklish to Monica Lewinsky
for delivery to Linda Tripp. (Actually, there's no sign Lindsey and
Monica have ever met.) Both women repoertedly had been fired by the
White House and exiled to the Pentagon partly due to their respective
fascination with the president's sex life.

And this ain't Tripp's first rodeo, either. She was CNN's source for
its public querying of President Bush about his alleged mistress back
in 1992, as well as one of Newsweek's sources for the Willey tale.
Extreme caution in dealing with her would clearly have been indicated.
Meanwhile, Newsweek has been scuttling away from the "subornation of
perjury" angle in an oddly crablike manner. Why? Perjury involves the
deliberate misstatement of material facts. By definition, Tripp's
opinion of Willey's credibility doesn't qualify.

Secondly, if Newsweek's own earlier coverage of the Willey tale is to
be believed, Tripp never did see the fair Kathleen enter or leave the
Oval Office. On May 26, her lawyer, Anthony Zaccagnini, told Larry
King that "what happened is Kathleen Willey had come down to Linda's
office at a different location in the West Wing." (Meaning,
incidentally, that Willey walked clear across the crowded West Wing
and took an elevator to the second floor without anybody noticing her
disheveled appearance.) As for witnessing the president "behaving
inappropriately," Tripp has never claimed that.

Now it turns out that Tripp sent Newsweek an unpublished letter in
August 1997 indicating strong skepticism about Willey's claims.

"Whatever happened that day in the Oval Office, if anything," Tripp
wrote, "is known to only two people. One must wonder, however, how
such disparate allegations spanning a period of four years could have
much, if any, credibility."

In short, Tripp's stated position regarding Willey not only appears
perfectly congruent with the talking points, but always has, a fact
Newsweek editors were uniquely qualified to know. While flogging
Monica Madness for all it's worth, the magazine has been sitting on a
key piece of evidence that gave the lie to its own feverish
speculation.

In the July 13 issue, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas, the pair of
aces who've covered the presidential sex beat since 1992, inform us
that "Starr may have trouble proving that the talking points were an
attempt to make Tripp lie if they closely track the language and
sentiments that Tripp used five months earlier."

Get this: "In the end," these geniuses think, "Tripp may have tried to
frame a guilty man."

A friend from my own days at Newsweek recently warned me that
skepticism about the Lewinsky business would damage my reputation. My
response? So far, I'm 2-0 on Whitewater and Paula Jones; Newsweek is
0-2. And I haven't had to sweep anything under the carpet.

DeZyN

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to

HOOVER wrote in message <35B04B...@global.net>...

She came and went so fast it's easy to forget her....
I heard she is shacking up with Marion Barry.
After all, her son was his pusher.

DeZyN

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to

Spee...@nsm.htp.org wrote in message
<1998071818250...@nsm.htp.org>...

>On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 07:15:08 +0000 HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote:
>
>>DeZyN wrote:
>>>
>>> HOOVER wrote in message <35A8EE...@global.net>...
>>> >Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>>> >We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>>> >will it ever end?
>
>In a little less than two years.
>
>But I don't think you're going to like Al Gore's cabinet any better.
>


The 2x4 stumps medicine cabinet is hardly an issue.
Mr. Bush's cabinet will whip this society back into shape as it so
desperately wants and needs.


>
>
>

ROCS

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace time
expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are just
a couple of the great achievments of Reagan. As for the debt, you have the
democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also, they
never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar spent.
I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
which we had to spend money for.

Robert

DeZyN wrote in message <6op35e$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...


>
>Yatsu <*ya...@nospam.geocities.com"> wrote in message
><01bdadf8$8e76ffe0$8208...@gibbsjoh.user.msu.edu>...
>>
>>

>>HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote in article <35A8EE...@global.net>...


>>> Has there ever been a bigger bunch of losers in an administration.
>>

>>Definitely, how about the Reagan Administration. Oliver North, John
>>Poindexter, and the senile president Reagan himself, just to name a few.
>>This bunch of guys was much worse than the Clinton administration, from
>>multiplying our debt to looking the other way while crack made it's way
>>into America.
>>
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>You aren't to bright are you?
>LOLOL
>
>
>
>
>>

>>> We've had to put up with these bunch of boobs now for six years, when
>>> will it ever end?

DeZyN

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Hey ROCS, are you new here?
If so, you aren't going to believe the depths of the depravity of some of
the liberals on here.
They are hillarious and hysterical !!!
I agree with your post.
Unfortunately for liberals it takes more than 2 braincells to understand
what you said, so ALL the liberals are automatically disqualified.

ROCS wrote in message <35b2b...@newsman.viper.net>...

Eric Chomko

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the

: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan

Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?

: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace time


: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are just
: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.

Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
mostly domestic problems.

: As for the debt, you have the


: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also, they
: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar spent.
: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
: which we had to spend money for.

Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
neither did the threat.

Eric

Michael Beck

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:

>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>
>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?

First quarter and counting....
And then he grew up.


>
>: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace time
>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are just
>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>
>Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
>mostly domestic problems.

As a result of being 'bled" by the proactive engagement of the US.


>
>: As for the debt, you have the
>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also, they
>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar spent.
>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
>: which we had to spend money for.
>
>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>neither did the threat.

You dimwit. Go across the old wall in Berlin and see if you get shot.
How many *did* during the glory days of the USSR?
>
>Eric


Carl Spakler

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to

Eric.

Get real

Carl


Donald L Ferry

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Michael.B...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:

A lot less people got shot at the wall than our heros in Indonesia
killed in East Timor. Seems to me the Republicans just want to spend
money. They are up for the Missle defense system again in an age of
increasing Cruse Missle tech = Not that after billions they can shoot
down even one missle from a know launch point and trajectory!

A Corbett

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Eric Chomko wrote:
> Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?

Who cares if he was a liberal till the day he was inaugurated. The point is that his
administration was conservation as were his economic and foreign policies.

> Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
> mostly domestic problems.

Of course he didn't single-handedly tear apart their domestic economy. That's just
naturaly follows too many years in an ill-designed communist system, and he didn't "end
the Cold War". However, his policy of peace-through-strength gave the USSR the
incentive to cut down on nuclear proliferation and come to the bargaining table.

> Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
> the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
> neither did the threat.

You know that's bull shit! Just like a liberal... blame the in-power Republicans for the
negative changes and claim that the positive changes were luck.
Gipper


Joe

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:

>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>

>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?

So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
brain."

>
>: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace time
>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are just
>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>

>Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
>mostly domestic problems.
>

>: As for the debt, you have the
>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also, they
>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar spent.
>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
>: which we had to spend money for.
>

>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>neither did the threat.
>

>Eric


Donald L Ferry

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
big_...@hotmail.com (Joe) wrote:

>On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>>
>>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>
>So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
>you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
>If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
>brain."

Yes!! Well I see the British threw Brainy out after WWII. I don't
think Churchill had a liberal stadge!

John Alway

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Michael Beck wrote:

> On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:

[...]

> >Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
> >mostly domestic problems.

> As a result of being 'bled" by the proactive engagement of the US.

I'd say you're both right. The USSR was going to implode and would
have sooner had the West not given them aid, but Reagan's pressure did
accelerate the process.

Btw, I've always like the liberal epithet "raygun". He should be
proud of that one.

...John

dana raffaniello

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to

Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p04af$a...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...

>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
>
>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>
>: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace time
>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war are
just
>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>
>Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
>mostly domestic problems.
>
>: As for the debt, you have the
>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in the
>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget. Also,
they
>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new dollar
spent.
>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger problem in
>: which we had to spend money for.
>
>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something
>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>neither did the threat.
>
>Eric
Ignorant liberals will not face the facts that Reagan did cause the downfall
of communist russia. At the same time they pat bill boy kkklinton on the
back for starting a new arms race in asia.

ROCS

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a
liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
spend, and big government radicals that they are now. The main reason he
had to change parties was because he realized that the democrats punished
achievment. They did this with tax rates of up to 70 percent.

If you recall, when Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was the
strongest and most dangerous country on earth. Had it not been for the arms
race and Reagan's strong leadership there is no telling what would have
happened.

Robert

DeZyN

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to

Joe wrote in message <35b3cfb7....@news.supernews.com>...

>On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
>>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The
Reagan
>>
>>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>
>So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
>you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
>If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
>brain."
>

I think this is one of the best quotes I've ever read.
Thank you.

Michael Beck

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 19:05:13 -0500, John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
wrote:

>Michael Beck wrote:
>
>> On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>

> [...]


>
>> >Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
>> >mostly domestic problems.

>> As a result of being 'bled" by the proactive engagement of the US.
>
> I'd say you're both right. The USSR was going to implode and would
>have sooner had the West not given them aid, but Reagan's pressure did
>accelerate the process.
>
> Btw, I've always like the liberal epithet "raygun". He should be
>proud of that one.
>
>
>
> ...John

OK. I agree with you.


Eric Chomko

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In alt.politics.org.cia Joe <big_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: On 20 Jul 1998 19:03:43 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:

: >In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
: >: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with the
: >: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The Reagan
: >
: >Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?

: So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
: you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
: If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
: brain."

Yes, it is as old as dirt and just as useful. Since my tomato garden is in
place, do you have anything else to offer?

Eric

Eric Chomko

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In alt.politics.org.cia A Corbett <ae...@gte.net> wrote:

: Eric Chomko wrote:
: > Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?

: Who cares if he was a liberal till the day he was inaugurated. The point is that his

: administration was conservation as were his economic and foreign policies.

I wa wondering how would answer this one. Corbett, you?! ok. He switched
after he made his first million. If you don't own a million $$$, then you
should be a democrat!


: > Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of factors,
: > mostly domestic problems.

: Of course he didn't single-handedly tear apart their domestic economy. That's just

: naturaly follows too many years in an ill-designed communist system, and he didn't "end
: the Cold War". However, his policy of peace-through-strength gave the USSR the
: incentive to cut down on nuclear proliferation and come to the bargaining table.

Table? Where is the Reagan book? Oh that's right, Reagan is nuts...I mean
he suffers from Altzheimers (gotta be politically correct on this one).
Where is the Reagan Book? There isn't one? From his colleagues? Nothing!
That's right, no one could keep that great story straight. Why? IT NEVER
FUCKING OCCURRED. Better, let's here his kids tell it?!

Cheap shot?! Ask their kids!!


: > Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just something


: > the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
: > neither did the threat.

: You know that's bull shit! Just like a liberal... blame the in-power Republicans for the

: negative changes and claim that the positive changes were luck.

Nothing happened, except that Reagan's kids have always said that their
dad is an asshole. What else?

Where the hell is their book describing how their dad won the Cold War.
Hell, I can write one and you don't even know my dad's first name!


Eric

: Gipper


Eric Chomko

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
: Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a

: liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
: spend, and big government radicals that they are now. The main reason he
: had to change parties was because he realized that the democrats punished
: achievment. They did this with tax rates of up to 70 percent.

He made his first million! He was a bledding heart until he had $$$, then
he switched.


: If you recall, when Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was the


: strongest and most dangerous country on earth.


No, our nuclear strike force far exceeded their power. Conventionally, in
Europe, maybe. But never a threat at home.


: Had it not been for the arms


: race and Reagan's strong leadership there is no telling what would have
: happened.

The USSR would have imploded, and it would look like what we have today.
Regan did nothing.

Eric

Eric Chomko

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In alt.politics.org.cia dana raffaniello <danaraf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[...]
: Ignorant liberals will not face the facts that Reagan did cause the downfall

: of communist russia. At the same time they pat bill boy kkklinton on the
: back for starting a new arms race in asia.

And not Bush?! Surely, you are a moron! Reagan's great legacy surly would
have Bush win a second term. Didn't happen? Then I guess we never had a
the great Reagan legacy. I want to hear his kids tell the story.....


ROFLOL....

Eric

Eric Chomko

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In alt.politics.org.cia DeZyN <creative...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

: Joe wrote in message <35b3cfb7....@news.supernews.com>...


: >Eric Chomko wrote:
: >>
: >>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
: >

: >So was I. There is a famous quote (Winston Churchill?): "If
: >you're not a Liberal when you're young you don't have a heart.
: >If you're not a Conservative when you grow up you don't have a
: >brain."

: >

: I think this is one of the best quotes I've ever read.
: Thank you.

It is as old as dirt. And as such, do you want to buy some?

My garden is in. But I can use some fertilizer. The kicker is that
Churchill would be laughing with me, and eating my tomatoes.

Eric


Eric Chomko

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
In alt.politics.org.cia nob...@nsm.htp.org wrote:

: On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:33:53 -0500 "ROCS" <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:

: >Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a
: >liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
: >spend, and big government radicals that they are now.

: No, back then they were "New Deal" Democrats, who wrought the most
: far-ranging changes to the way the federal government interacts with
: the states since the civil war.

: Please ask you teacher to review your posts before sending them.
^^^


My teacher only pointed out that your usage in the above sentence was
wrong. You should have used 'your'instead of 'you'.. And then he said that
you were an asshole for completely missing the Great Depression, but
blamed it upon you being a brain-dead conservative.

I quickly stated that "braindead conservative" was a redundant statement.
He laughed and agreed.

Eric

DeZyN

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p16s6$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...

>In alt.politics.org.cia A Corbett <ae...@gte.net> wrote:
>: Eric Chomko wrote:
>: > Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>

Michael Reagan has a show on talk radio and he mentions his dad frequently.
Patty is so messed up from her drug days she doesn't know which way is up.

>Hell, I can write one and you don't even know my dad's first name!
>


Yeah, the book would be called:

'The Chumpko Jellyfish'


>
>Eric
>
>
>
>: Gipper
>

DeZyN

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
Eat this...
It's from your garden : A large zuchini and 2 tomatoes....


Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p17pg$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...


>In alt.politics.org.cia DeZyN <creative...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>: Joe wrote in message <35b3cfb7....@news.supernews.com>...

>: >Eric Chomko wrote:
>: >>
>: >>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>: >

DeZyN

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

nob...@nsm.htp.org wrote in message
<1998072103461...@nsm.htp.org>...

>On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:33:53 -0500 "ROCS" <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>
>>Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a
>>liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
>>spend, and big government radicals that they are now.
>
>No, back then they were "New Deal" Democrats, who wrought the most
>far-ranging changes to the way the federal government interacts with
>the states since the civil war.
>
>Please ask you teacher to review your posts before sending them.
>


Is that who reviews yours?

>
>
>

DeZyN

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p17cb$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...

>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>: Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a
>: liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax
&
>: spend, and big government radicals that they are now. The main reason
he
>: had to change parties was because he realized that the democrats punished
>: achievment. They did this with tax rates of up to 70 percent.
>
>He made his first million! He was a bledding heart until he had $$$, then
>he switched.
>
>
>: If you recall, when Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was the
>: strongest and most dangerous country on earth.
>
>
>No, our nuclear strike force far exceeded their power. Conventionally, in
>Europe, maybe. But never a threat at home.
>
>
>: Had it not been for the arms
>: race and Reagan's strong leadership there is no telling what would have
>: happened.
>
>The USSR would have imploded, and it would look like what we have today.
>Regan did nothing.
>
>Eric

And this comes from the person that said that Reagan never said :
'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'

Hey, Mr. Lack O'Credibility, got any more good ones ? LOL


DeZyN

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p17j6$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>...


Why do you keep bringing up his kids?
Is that all you have?
Apparently it is.


>
>ROFLOL....
>
>
>
>Eric

Carl J. Hudecek

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

The tax rates for millionaires were over NINETY percent, and
believe me, it WORKED. There was no incentive to rape the customers.

We had our greatest growth with these rates in effect.

What we need is a 110% tax on ALL INCOME ABOVE $200 K. That fixes
EVERY remaining USA economic problem, and cuts the price of tickets
to the ball game to $5.

******************************************************************

In <35b3f...@newsman.viper.net> "ROCS" <ro...@entercomp.com> writes:
>
>Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not
a
>liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart,
tax &
>spend, and big government radicals that they are now. The main
reason he
>had to change parties was because he realized that the democrats
punished
>achievment. They did this with tax rates of up to 70 percent.
>

>If you recall, when Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was the

>strongest and most dangerous country on earth. Had it not been for


the arms
>race and Reagan's strong leadership there is no telling what would
have
>happened.
>

>Robert
>
>
>Eric Chomko wrote in message <6p04af$a...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...


>>In alt.politics.org.cia ROCS <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:

>>: What idiot even dared try to compare the Reagan Administration with
the
>>: Clinton Administration? Obviously it's a brain dead liberal. The
Reagan
>>

>>Reagan was a liberal the first half of his life. Did you know that?
>>

>>: years were the best this country has ever seen. The longest peace
time
>>: expansion in history and the downfall of communism and the cold war
are
>just
>>: a couple of the great achievments of Reagan.
>>

>>Reagan did not end the Cold War. The USSR fell due to a number of
factors,
>>mostly domestic problems.
>>

>>: As for the debt, you have the
>>: democrats to blame more than Reagan. Although Reagan does share in
the
>>: blame, the democrats never, ever, sent Reagan a balanced budget.
Also,
>they
>>: never delivered on the $2 spending cut for each additonal new
dollar
>spent.
>>: I, for one, believe that defeating communism was a much bigger
problem in
>>: which we had to spend money for.
>>

>>Defeating communism didn't require us to do anything. It's just
something
>>the Republicans want to feel good about. The nukes didn't go away and
>>neither did the threat.
>>

>>Eric
>
>


Bruce Campbell

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

nob...@nsm.htp.org wrote in message
<1998072103461...@nsm.htp.org>...
>On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:33:53 -0500 "ROCS" <ro...@entercomp.com> wrote:
>
>>Reagan may have been a democrat early in his life; however, he was not a
>>liberal. Back in those days democrats were not the bleeding heart, tax &
>>spend, and big government radicals that they are now.
>
>No, back then they were "New Deal" Democrats, who wrought the most
>far-ranging changes to the way the federal government interacts with
>the states since the civil war.
>
>Please ask you teacher to review your posts before sending them.


An interesting quote from FDR about welfare;

This is for widows and orphans, we have no intention of supporting bastards.


John LaBrecque

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

Because Chumpko, like Reagan's kids, live in the shadow of his father's
accomplishments.

--
Semper Fi

Jack L
http://members.aol.com/jitb/stand.htm
CIS-[GO ATTNCR]
My son, Marc, is now one of the few, the proud,
a United States Marine.
"Some people live their entire lifetime and wonder if
they ever made a difference to the world. Marines don't
have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1995

Bruce Campbell

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98