GOP convention in NYC - First real test of Bloomberg era NYPD
O Deus
seems more than a little odd. Granted it gets them to the heart of the
war on terror, but it also gets them a fairly Democratic city with a
party which has never really paid much attention to New York (not that
the Clinton era Dems were any better) and one where there have been
plenty of anti-war, anti-WTO and anti-Bush protests already and a GOP
convention in NYC will lure every left wing loon from Massachusets on
downwards to come and rant about their own private causes making this
the first real test of whether the Bloomberg era NYPD is up to the job
or whether this ends up bringing back memories of Seattle. And with
the convention coinciding with the US Open we can expect complete
gridlock to boot.
A.C.
news:c6784f8f.0301...@posting.google.com...
> On the face of it the GOP choiche of New York for their convention
> seems more than a little odd. Granted it gets them to the heart of the
> war on terror, but it also gets them a fairly Democratic city with a
> party which has never really paid much attention to New York (not that
Other to lambast New Yorkers for not being "real Americans" (i.e. they tend
not to vote for right-wing candidates).
--
nomadi...@hotmail.com | http://nomadic.simspace.net
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand
Russell
Marilee J. Layman
<nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>"O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:c6784f8f.0301...@posting.google.com...
>> On the face of it the GOP choiche of New York for their convention
>> seems more than a little odd. Granted it gets them to the heart of the
>> war on terror, but it also gets them a fairly Democratic city with a
>> party which has never really paid much attention to New York (not that
>
>Other to lambast New Yorkers for not being "real Americans" (i.e. they tend
>not to vote for right-wing candidates).
But they get to be pictured with all the 9/11 stuff.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
O Deus
> "O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:c6784f8f.0301...@posting.google.com...
> > On the face of it the GOP choiche of New York for their convention
> > seems more than a little odd. Granted it gets them to the heart of the
> > war on terror, but it also gets them a fairly Democratic city with a
> > party which has never really paid much attention to New York (not that
>
> Other to lambast New Yorkers for not being "real Americans" (i.e. they tend
> not to vote for right-wing candidates).
That was more Hollywood than New York. New York was lambasted for
having sky-rocketing crime, debt and urban blight which a Republican
mayor was widely seen as reversing thus making New York more palatable
for conservative consumption. The Christian Coalition had even
considered holding its convention here pre-9-11.
The general problem is that New York and parts of the Northeast had
been taken for granted by both parties.
Robert Sneddon
Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes
>On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 04:28:38 GMT, "A.C."
><nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:c6784f8f.0301...@posting.google.com...
>>> On the face of it the GOP choiche of New York for their convention
>>> seems more than a little odd.
> >
>>Other to lambast New Yorkers for not being "real Americans" (i.e. they tend
>>not to vote for right-wing candidates).
>
>But they get to be pictured with all the 9/11 stuff.
And maybe the junior Senator could stop by to say hello -- I'm sure
they'd give her a friendly welcome.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Joshua Hesse
: And maybe the junior Senator could stop by to say hello -- I'm sure
:they'd give her a friendly welcome.
Polite, too. While the applause would be very brief, there
wouldn't be anything to apologize for later...
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
"My brothers turn up people quoting me on the net now and then. It's kind
of funny because my usual reaction is, 'When the hell did I say that?'"
-John Kensmark
O Deus
Unfortunately New York doesn't have a junior Senator at the moment,
the junior Senator from Arkansas is currently filling that spot. We
expect to remedy that situation in the next election.
Michalak
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : And maybe the junior Senator could stop by to say hello -- I'm sure
> :they'd give her a friendly welcome.
>
> Polite, too. While the applause would be very brief, there
> wouldn't be anything to apologize for later...
Though I have no doubt you believe it, I sincerely doubt that
assertion. Back when I was a Republican I volunteered at the local
party headquarters and happened to be there while the Monica Affair
was in the news. While there I cautiously voiced the opinion that
impeaching over this was a tactically poor move. The amount of
vitriol that poured fourth on everything related to the Clintons from
the other volunteers and staffers on that occasion was one of the
things that pushed me out of the party. If Senator Clinton showed up
at the Republican convention I think there would be 50% chance of
thrown objects and a 100% that enough delegates would shout insults
and scream that nothing could be heard until she left. There is this
huge amount of irrational antipathy towards both the Clintons from a
certain faction of the party faithful.
While I don't particularly like either of the Clintons (I think they
are prevaricating thieves who have misused public office for their own
enrichment) they are not particularly worse than many other
politicians.
Michalak
A.C.
news:c6784f8f.0301...@posting.google.com...
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<ja4ccJA7...@nojay.fsnet.co.uk>...
> > In article <5ssk1v88f7p3c35h0...@4ax.com>, Marilee J.
> > Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes
> > >On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 04:28:38 GMT, "A.C."
> > ><nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>"O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:c6784f8f.0301...@posting.google.com...
> > >>> On the face of it the GOP choiche of New York for their convention
> > >>> seems more than a little odd.
> >
> > > >
> > >>Other to lambast New Yorkers for not being "real Americans" (i.e. they
tend
> > >>not to vote for right-wing candidates).
> > >
> > >But they get to be pictured with all the 9/11 stuff.
> >
> > And maybe the junior Senator could stop by to say hello -- I'm sure
> > they'd give her a friendly welcome.
>
> Unfortunately New York doesn't have a junior Senator at the moment,
> the junior Senator from Arkansas is currently filling that spot.
Mark Pryor?
>We
> expect to remedy that situation in the next election.
I see no need for remedy. I voted for her last time, I'll vote for her next
time, she'll be elected. That's how democracy works.
Kip Williams
> While I don't particularly like either of the Clintons (I think they
> are prevaricating thieves who have misused public office for their own
> enrichment) they are not particularly worse than many other
> politicians.
Any examples? Real ones, I mean, apart from failing to volunteer the
information about his sex life.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!" --Kodos
Dave Weingart
>things that pushed me out of the party. If Senator Clinton showed up
>at the Republican convention I think there would be 50% chance of
>thrown objects and a 100% that enough delegates would shout insults
At the Concert for New York City, Senator Clinton was booed by a fair
chunk of the audience (interestingly, President Clinton got a rousing
round of applause).
For the record, when she came in, I stood up and applauded loudly.
But I voted for her, as did the majority of the people who voted.
(Yes, unlike the Shrub for whom they cheer, she was actually *elected*)
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Quinze Filk Festival (15th UK Filkcon)
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Feb 7-9,2003, Ipswich, England
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux http://www.contabile.org.uk/
ICQ 57055207 qui...@contabile.org.uk
O Deus
> One day in Teletubbyland, mich...@diac.com (Michalak) said:
> >things that pushed me out of the party. If Senator Clinton showed up
> >at the Republican convention I think there would be 50% chance of
> >thrown objects and a 100% that enough delegates would shout insults
>
> At the Concert for New York City, Senator Clinton was booed by a fair
> chunk of the audience (interestingly, President Clinton got a rousing
> round of applause).
>
> For the record, when she came in, I stood up and applauded loudly.
> But I voted for her, as did the majority of the people who voted.
> (Yes, unlike the Shrub for whom they cheer, she was actually *elected*)
Only by using a dirty tricks campaign to knock out the legitimate
candidate. Anyone seriously think she could have beaten Guliani?
O Deus
> > > And maybe the junior Senator could stop by to say hello -- I'm sure
> > > they'd give her a friendly welcome.
> >
> > Unfortunately New York doesn't have a junior Senator at the moment,
> > the junior Senator from Arkansas is currently filling that spot.
>
> Mark Pryor?
>
> >We
> > expect to remedy that situation in the next election.
>
> I see no need for remedy. I voted for her last time, I'll vote for her next
> time, she'll be elected. That's how democracy works.
The Clinton version of how democracy works involves the Clintons
setting up a war room and running a smear campaign against any
opposing candidate and finally being elected. It's how Bill Clinton
won the Democratic primary, it's how Hillary won the NYC Senate
election.
David Bilek
Yeah, damn that evil woman for giving Guliani cancer!!!!11!1!!1
-David
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
What, you think she gave Giuliani cancer? (As I think I remember Arthur
Hlavaty remarking at the time, "that's the kind of tough representation
New Yorkers deserve.)
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Michalak
> Michalak wrote:
> > While I don't particularly like either of the Clintons (I think they
> > are prevaricating thieves who have misused public office for their own
> > enrichment) they are not particularly worse than many other
> > politicians.
>
> Any examples? Real ones, I mean, apart from failing to volunteer the
> information about his sex life.
If I knew of anything solid Pres. Clinton would have had more trouble
than the idiocy that the Republican leadership pulled on him. However
my impression is that he engaged in some very questionable business
deals and gave a lot of favors to before and while he was in office.
From Whitewater to Marc Rich I don't like the look of things they were
involved in.
Michalak
Kevin J. Maroney
("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>What, you think she gave Giuliani cancer? (As I think I remember Arthur
>Hlavaty remarking at the time, "that's the kind of tough representation
>New Yorkers deserve.)
One of the people-on-the-street in The Onion's "What Do You Think?"
had this to say: "Go up against her and get ball cancer. That's
tough."
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
A.C.
> opposing candidate and finally being elected. It's how Bill Clinton
> won the Democratic primary, it's how Hillary won the NYC Senate
> election.
Ludicrous. Can you give us ANY examples? Hillary won because she focused
exclusively on the issues, while all Lazio did was go around sputtering "but
it's Hillary Clinton", and assuming everyone else had the same hatred for
her that the right-wing Republican leadership did.
Daniel R. Reitman
>The Clinton version of how democracy works involves the Clintons
>setting up a war room and running a smear campaign against any
>opposing candidate and finally being elected. It's how Bill Clinton
>won the Democratic primary, it's how Hillary won the NYC Senate
>election.
Hello, I represent the Brooklyn Bridge Sales Company . . . .
Dan, ad nauseam
O Deus
> "O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:c6784f8f.03010...@posting.google.com...
>
> > opposing candidate and finally being elected. It's how Bill Clinton
> > won the Democratic primary, it's how Hillary won the NYC Senate
> > election.
>
> Ludicrous. Can you give us ANY examples? Hillary won because she focused
> exclusively on the issues, while all Lazio did was go around sputtering "but
> it's Hillary Clinton", and assuming everyone else had the same hatred for
> her that the right-wing Republican leadership did.
Hillary won because her dirty tricks campaign, complete with claims
that Guliani's father had worked for the mob, caused him to leave the
race.
O Deus
> In article <c6784f8f.03010...@posting.google.com>, od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) writes:
> >phyd...@liii.com (Dave Weingart) wrote in message news:<avi245$og7$1...@eri0.s8.isp.nyc.eggn.net>...
> >> One day in Teletubbyland, mich...@diac.com (Michalak) said:
> >> >things that pushed me out of the party. If Senator Clinton showed up
> >> >at the Republican convention I think there would be 50% chance of
> >> >thrown objects and a 100% that enough delegates would shout insults
> >>
> >> At the Concert for New York City, Senator Clinton was booed by a fair
> >> chunk of the audience (interestingly, President Clinton got a rousing
> >> round of applause).
> >>
> >> For the record, when she came in, I stood up and applauded loudly.
> >> But I voted for her, as did the majority of the people who voted.
> >> (Yes, unlike the Shrub for whom they cheer, she was actually *elected*)
> >
> >Only by using a dirty tricks campaign to knock out the legitimate
> >candidate. Anyone seriously think she could have beaten Guliani?
>
> What, you think she gave Giuliani cancer?
He didn't resign from the race because of the cancer. It made for a
good explanation for leaving the race but his treatment did not
require him to drop out of the race.
Arthur D. Hlavaty
("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>What, you think she gave Giuliani cancer? (As I think I remember Arthur
>Hlavaty remarking at the time, "that's the kind of tough representation
>New Yorkers deserve.)
I admitted that I stole that one from The Onion. This is what I wrote:
The New York Senate race is amusing. The Onion asked its Persons in
the Street, and one replied, "Mess with Hillary, get cancer. That's
the kind of tough representation New York needs!" I don't really
believe that, nor do I really believe a theory that points the
fingerbone of suspicion at the mother of Patrick Dorismond, the black
man who was shot to death by plainclothes cops for turning down a dope
deal. Mrs. Dorismond is Haitian, and is alleged to be familiar with
certain religious practices of her native land. As both the mayor and
the police commissioner have been diagnosed with prostate cancer since
the shooting, one might hazard a guess as to where she is sticking the
pins.
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
A.C.
> He didn't resign from the race because of the cancer. It made for a
> good explanation for leaving the race but his treatment did not
> require him to drop out of the race.
Then tell us why he withdrew.
Kip Williams
So you don't like him because of things you have an impression he
might have done, and you have that impression because you don't like
him.
May I just say that if there had been a solid shred of -anything- in
any of that, that it would have been branded on all our retinas by
now by the liberalmediaptooey and sound trucks would be driving
through the streets blasting it at 750 decibels all day?
Instead, they have to resort to crappy innuendo and impressions.
That's pretty weak.
A.C.
> that Guliani's father had worked for the mob, caused him to leave the
> race.
Again, can you give us any examples? What dirty tricks were these? Or are
these the usual vague anti-Clinton accusations popular among the tinfoil hat
crowd?
Giuliani dropped out for a few reasons:
First of all, his popularity wasn't especially high in NY at the time.
Secondly, the shameful way he treated his wife turned a lot of people
against him. Thirdly, he'd have to resign the mayoralty if he won, which
would mean Mark Green would succeed him as mayor, a man who he hates almost
pathologically. Fourthly, losing to Hillary would have been a crushing blow
to him personally, and his stock among Republicans would have fallen.
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote...
Well, that's the sad silly irony. The overt conservatives and
'moderates' keep saying the Democrats have to go to their right, pick
somebody who is in the American 'mainstream' and has been engaged in
business and so on. So the Democrats pick their most conservative
candidate, and: lo and behold! He's been in business, and has engaged
in questionable deals and given favors to people! What a surprise!
Dammit, you can't have it both ways! Modern American business practices
are full of ethical ambiguities and moral dubieties. If you want a
moderate, pro-business Democratic candidate, then accept that they are
gonna be compromised. The Democrats that are upright and above question
are the ones that get rejected as too radical for the American
electorate.
Republicans who do that sort of thing aren't held to the same standard,
apparently because it's accepted that Republicans do that sort of thing;
it's what they are, it's what they do.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
weary of double standards
Neil Belsky
"Michalak" <mich...@diac.com> wrote in message
news:859bef64.03010...@posting.google.com...
> If I knew of anything solid Pres. Clinton would have had more trouble
> than the idiocy that the Republican leadership pulled on him. However
> my impression is that he engaged in some very questionable business
> deals and gave a lot of favors to before and while he was in office.
> From Whitewater to Marc Rich I don't like the look of things they were
> involved in.
>
> Michalak
Sorry, but like many people have already said, I am bloody tired of the "I
don't like him/her, or I don't like the look of them or something they did".
Going back thirty years or so to Watergate we had the smoking gun traceable
right up to Tricky Dick's doorstep.
Nothing people like you have ever shown the Clinton's to be guilty of has
been proven (except for the blow job and Bill's lying to cover up questions
that SHOULD NEVER have been asked in the first place).
Neil
--
Rowan, It was a stray bomb!
Thank you Adolph!
Del Cotter
Michalak <mich...@diac.com> said:
>Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote
>> Michalak wrote:
>> > While I don't particularly like either of the Clintons (I think they
>> > are prevaricating thieves who have misused public office for their own
>> > enrichment)
>>
>> Any examples? Real ones, I mean, apart from failing to volunteer the
>> information about his sex life.
>
>If I knew of anything solid Pres. Clinton would have had more trouble
>than the idiocy that the Republican leadership pulled on him. However
>my impression is that he engaged in some very questionable business
>deals and gave a lot of favors to before and while he was in office.
The "idiocy that the Republican leadership pulled on him" *was* to give
you vague impressions that you couldn't pin down and he couldn't refute.
It wasn't so idiotic, since it clearly worked.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:BujoldDiplomaticImmunity:NeilGaimanAmericanGods:GwynethJonesBol
dAsLove:KenMacLeodDarkLight:DamonKnightWhyDoBirds:JRRTolkienTheTwoTowers
ToRead:RobertCharlesWilsonBios:ChinaMievilleTheScar:ChristopherPriestFug
Kevin J. Maroney
<oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>So the Democrats pick their most conservative
>candidate, and: lo and behold! He's been in business, and has engaged
>in questionable deals and given favors to people!
If by "engaged in questionable deals" you mean "has been swindled by
someone he thought was a friend", yes, that's absolutely right.
Kevin J. Maroney
<nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>Again, can you give us any examples? What dirty tricks were these?
The Republicans consider it "dirty tricks" whenever anyone publishes
the truth about them. Mentioning that Trent Lott is a racist is the
same as "lynching" him. Pointing out that Rudy Giuiliani's father
spent 16 years in prison for armed robbery is "lying".
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> "Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
> >So the Democrats pick their most conservative
> >candidate, and: lo and behold! He's been in business, and has engaged
> >in questionable deals and given favors to people!
>
> If by "engaged in questionable deals" you mean "has been swindled by
> someone he thought was a friend", yes, that's absolutely right.
Remember, this is Southern (Arkansas) politics; it's practically
illegal to be a politican (left or right, Dem or Rep, black or white)
down there without being involved in what this adopted Wisconsinite
considers 'questionable deals'! I was thinking, in particular, of that
oh-so-cozy futures trade that just happened to work out well for
Hillary; but there are the usual fudges and cozy arrangements in their
portfolio, though not much by Southern (read: lax) standards. That's
the point: from the day he was elected, Clinton was held to a standard
to which none of his opponents could live up, least of all the
Gingriches of the world. Hell, if Clarence Thomas was as liberal as he
is reactionary, and Bill had tried to appoint him to the Supreme Court,
Clarence would probably have been impeached and imprisoned.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
escaped Southerner
Michalak
> 'moderates' keep saying the Democrats have to go to their right, pick
> somebody who is in the American 'mainstream' and has been engaged in
> business and so on. So the Democrats pick their most conservative
> candidate, and: lo and behold! He's been in business, and has engaged
> in questionable deals and given favors to people! What a surprise!
A) I don't believe being in business is a good qualification to hold
office unless it is treasurer, and really I would only favor someone
with accounting experience, not some nebulous "he's a businessman".
B) Although some conservidiots define being "pro-business" as letting
business people do whatever they wish I suspect this is not exactly a
mainstream position. C) I know a lot of business people who have not
compromised good business ethics.
The trouble with Clinton has nothing to do with business, but instead
with his continued pattern of pushing the edge of the ethical
envelope. Once or twice in the past I can understand, but he kept on
doing it as long as he was in public life.
> Dammit, you can't have it both ways! Modern American business practices
> are full of ethical ambiguities and moral dubieties. If you want a
> moderate, pro-business Democratic candidate, then accept that they are
> gonna be compromised. The Democrats that are upright and above question
> are the ones that get rejected as too radical for the American
> electorate.
>
> Republicans who do that sort of thing aren't held to the same standard,
> apparently because it's accepted that Republicans do that sort of thing;
> it's what they are, it's what they do.
I do hold them to the same standard. I avoided saying anything about
them because I didn't want to pull in unrelated issues, like that I
think G.W. Bush is an even worse thief and he isn't as skillful a liar
about it. He clearly abused the public in his money making scheme in
the Texas Rangers. The final straw for me in abandoning the
Republican Party was the nomination of G.W. Bush over John McCain.
And there, by the way, is an example of the right way. He was part of
the Keating Five and he admitted he screwed up and has tried to do
everything since then to make up for his error. In his words and
actions he is the model of how to fix the problem of being involved
with questionable business. He didn't just say, "that's in the past,"
he actually walks the walk.
Michalak
Kip Williams
> The trouble with Clinton has nothing to do with business, but instead
> with his continued pattern of pushing the edge of the ethical
> envelope. Once or twice in the past I can understand, but he kept on
> doing it as long as he was in public life.
You keep saying that, and then avoid giving an example when asked
for one. What did he do? What's your basis for believing he's over
the ethical edge?
mike weber
>Michalak wrote:
>> The trouble with Clinton has nothing to do with business, but instead
>> with his continued pattern of pushing the edge of the ethical
>> envelope. Once or twice in the past I can understand, but he kept on
>> doing it as long as he was in public life.
>
>You keep saying that, and then avoid giving an example when asked
>for one. What did he do? What's your basis for believing he's over
>the ethical edge?
Ken Starr leaked the information.
--
mike weber mike....@electronictiger.com
==========================================================
The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns
something that will always be useful and which never will
grow dim or doubtful. -- Mark Twain.
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
mike weber
Wait a minute.
The *Clintons* setting up a war room and running a smear campaign
against opposition...?
Is there oxygen in the atmosphere of your home planet?
Keith F. Lynch
> Pointing out that Rudy Giuiliani's father spent 16 years in prison
> for armed robbery is "lying".
Why? Did he? And what does it have to do with anything if it's true?
Surely you don't think guilt is hereditary?
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
O Deus
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:42:34 GMT, "A.C."
> <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
> >Again, can you give us any examples? What dirty tricks were these?
>
> The Republicans consider it "dirty tricks" whenever anyone publishes
> the truth about them. Mentioning that Trent Lott is a racist is the
> same as "lynching" him. Pointing out that Rudy Giuiliani's father
> spent 16 years in prison for armed robbery is "lying".
It's funny how Democrats consider bringing up the Clinton's actions as
being 'unfair attacks' while Guliani's dead father is somehow fair
game.
O Deus
> "O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:c6784f8f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > Hillary won because her dirty tricks campaign, complete with claims
> > that Guliani's father had worked for the mob, caused him to leave the
> > race.
>
> Again, can you give us any examples? What dirty tricks were these? Or are
> these the usual vague anti-Clinton accusations popular among the tinfoil hat
> crowd?
>
> Giuliani dropped out for a few reasons:
>
> First of all, his popularity wasn't especially high in NY at the time.
It wasn't at its peak but he was still a good deal more popular than
his opponent.
> Secondly, the shameful way he treated his wife turned a lot of people
> against him.
Only to those who sympathized with his desperate publicity seeking
wife who had all the acting talent of a raddish and had developed
close ties to his political opponents.
> Thirdly, he'd have to resign the mayoralty if he won, which
> would mean Mark Green would succeed him as mayor, a man who he hates almost
> pathologically.
It seemed inevitable that this would have happened anyway because of
term limits.
> Fourthly, losing to Hillary would have been a crushing blow
> to him personally, and his stock among Republicans would have fallen.
His stock among Republicans was never high and he could never have
lost to Hillary.
O Deus
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 01:18:00 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Michalak wrote:
> >> The trouble with Clinton has nothing to do with business, but instead
> >> with his continued pattern of pushing the edge of the ethical
> >> envelope. Once or twice in the past I can understand, but he kept on
> >> doing it as long as he was in public life.
> >
> >You keep saying that, and then avoid giving an example when asked
> >for one. What did he do? What's your basis for believing he's over
> >the ethical edge?
>
> Ken Starr leaked the information.
Yes when all else fails smear the messenger...
Daniel R. Reitman
>It's funny how Democrats consider bringing up the Clinton's actions as
>being 'unfair attacks' while Guliani's dead father is somehow fair
>game.
Consider how often the half-vast right wing conspiracy cried Wolf (and
I don't mean Blitzer) when you discuss Clinton.
Dan, ad nauseam
A.C.
news:c6784f8f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> "A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<e%eT9.11712$Oj7.2...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>
> It wasn't at its peak but he was still a good deal more popular than
> his opponent.
No, he wasn't. His popularity in NYC hit 37% in 2000.
> > Secondly, the shameful way he treated his wife turned a lot of people
> > against him.
>
> Only to those who sympathized with his desperate publicity seeking
> wife who had all the acting talent of a raddish and had developed
> close ties to his political opponents.
No, also to those people who think it's a pretty nasty thing for your wife
to find out about your separation from a press conference. And also a lot
of people don't have a high opinion of infidelity, especially when you're
not particularly discreet about it. Oh, that's right, infidelity is only
bad if a Democrat does it.
> > Thirdly, he'd have to resign the mayoralty if he won, which
> > would mean Mark Green would succeed him as mayor, a man who he hates
almost
> > pathologically.
>
> It seemed inevitable that this would have happened anyway because of
> term limits.
Mark Green wasn't guaranteed the mayoralty. You can tell because he lost.
> > Fourthly, losing to Hillary would have been a crushing blow
> > to him personally, and his stock among Republicans would have fallen.
>
> His stock among Republicans was never high and he could never have
> lost to Hillary.
Again, don't just make up things because you want to believe them.
Statewide polls showed Hillary and Giuliani neck and neck for months leading
up to his withdrawal.
David G. Bell
k...@KeithLynch.net "Keith F. Lynch" wrote:
> Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Pointing out that Rudy Giuiliani's father spent 16 years in prison
> > for armed robbery is "lying".
>
> Why? Did he? And what does it have to do with anything if it's true?
> Surely you don't think guilt is hereditary?
If it was true (and arguably irrelevant), it says something about the
people involved in the campaign if they claimed it was a lie. And that
should be relevant.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
A.C.
--
nomadi...@hotmail.com | http://nomadic.simspace.net
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand
Russell
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:avlge3$nha$1...@panix2.panix.com...
A.C.
news:avlge3$nha$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > Pointing out that Rudy Giuiliani's father spent 16 years in prison
> > for armed robbery is "lying".
>
> Why? Did he? And what does it have to do with anything if it's true?
> Surely you don't think guilt is hereditary?
It came out in a biography about him, not from Hillary's campaign. It made
very little impact, and even his most vocal critics didn't really care about
it.
I don't really see how writing about his father in Giuliani's biography is a
"smear". I'm not sure what exactly the biographer was expected to do when
writing a book on the man's life. Not talk about his father? Refer to him
as an "entrepreneur"? Arrange to have a printer's "accident" that leaves
the pages out?
And I really wonder how a book that came out after Giuliani dropped out of
the race can be considered a campaign tactic.
O Deus
Ah yes that vast conspiracy of people who choose to excercise their
right to vote for the 'other' party. Funny how the Democratic party's
name can come to sound so ironic.
Neil Belsky
""David G. Bell"" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20030110.08...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk...
>
> If it was true (and arguably irrelevant), it says something about the
> people involved in the campaign if they claimed it was a lie. And that
> should be relevant.
>
>
>
> --
> David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
>
> "Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
> of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
> From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
This is a popular recurring issue in politics these days.
Must the candidate respond with truth to questions that have no bearing on
their fitness for the job (yes, like the famous "Blow Job" that propelled a
number of people to fame for example). There have been cases where
information can be used as a means of predicting behavior (say, for example,
Neil Bush and the S.&L. affair), but in most cases, stuff going back a few
generations, and other facts and rumors more current, but lacking relevance
to the issues should not be asked and if asked, can be responded to with
lies. Using the "public's right to know" is not only a poor excuse, but no
excuse at all. If the public wants personal bile, they can watch
"...Springer.."
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Pointing out that Rudy Giuiliani's father spent 16 years in prison
> > for armed robbery is "lying".
>
> Why? Did he?
No; only a year and a half. He reportedly later spent some years as a
mob enforcer, but was never subsequently convicted.
> And what does it have to do with anything if it's true?
> Surely you don't think guilt is hereditary?
There is considerable reason to believe that Rudy's father Harold, and
one of his mother's brothers, were minor members of the Mafia, although
Harold seems to have decided to go legit during Rudy's childhood. Some
silly people think this is relevant to evaluating Rudy.
--
Michael J. Lowrey
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>The Republicans consider it "dirty tricks" whenever anyone publishes
>the truth about them. Mentioning that Trent Lott is a racist is the
>same as "lynching" him. Pointing out that Rudy Giuiliani's father
>spent 16 years in prison for armed robbery is "lying".
Brain fart. That should have been "16 months".
Ed Dravecky III
> phyd...@liii.com (Dave Weingart) wrote:
> > For the record, when she came in, I stood up and applauded
> > loudly. But I voted for her, as did the majority of the
> > people who voted. (Yes, unlike the Shrub for whom they cheer,
> > she was actually *elected*)
>
> Only by using a dirty tricks campaign to knock out the legitimate
> candidate. Anyone seriously think she could have beaten Guliani?
Yes, how dare the Clinton campaign induce prostate cancer in
Rudy so as to force him to drop from the race. (Huh?)
--
Ed Dravecky III - Addison, Texas
Happy New Year, if that's okay.
Kip Williams
> O Deus <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>phyd...@liii.com (Dave Weingart) wrote:
>>
>>>For the record, when she came in, I stood up and applauded
>>>loudly. But I voted for her, as did the majority of the
>>>people who voted. (Yes, unlike the Shrub for whom they cheer,
>>>she was actually *elected*)
>>
>>Only by using a dirty tricks campaign to knock out the legitimate
>>candidate. Anyone seriously think she could have beaten Guliani?
>
>
> Yes, how dare the Clinton campaign induce prostate cancer in
> Rudy so as to force him to drop from the race. (Huh?)
I want to know how they found my sketches for the new superhero,
"Carcino-Man" and his secret power.
Keith F. Lynch
> Brain fart. That should have been "16 months".
For armed robbery? I thought even 16 years sounded a little low for
sticking a gun in someone's face and threatning to blow them away.
Michalak
> Michalak wrote:
> > The trouble with Clinton has nothing to do with business, but instead
> > with his continued pattern of pushing the edge of the ethical
> > envelope. Once or twice in the past I can understand, but he kept on
> > doing it as long as he was in public life.
>
> You keep saying that, and then avoid giving an example when asked
> for one. What did he do? What's your basis for believing he's over
> the ethical edge?
Hello, raised more campaign money than anyone until the present
ethically challenged president. I don't believe the bits about the
Lincoln bedroom, but he certainly did pedal access to the presidency
in near the same way that I've been complaining that the Bush
Administration has been doing with big contributors. Beyond that, I
would have to go look up the transcripts of NPR programs, as that is
one of my major sources. And I wouldn't exactly say that they are a
conservidiot sort of new organization.
Michalak
Keith F. Lynch
> Hello, raised more campaign money than anyone until the present
> ethically challenged president.
Hasn't every president raised more campaign money than any previous
president? At least for the past half century or so?
I'm not real thrilled by this, but I can't see any alternative
that wouldn't be worse. Candidates not getting their message out?
Candidates having to pay for publicity out of pocket, which would
favor the richer ones? Taxpayers being forced to pay to disseminate
messages they disagree with?
> I don't believe the bits about the Lincoln bedroom, ...
Better to sell use of the White House as a high class hotel than to
sell pardons or legislative vetoes.
Nothing in the above should be construed as support for Clinton or any
other president or candidate.
Kip Williams
Raising campaign money is evil? Okay, I guess he was sort of evil in
-that- respect then. Which is to say, he engaged in the political
process in the 20th century. I expect we'll just have to disagree on
this one -- I think letting GHW Bush have the presidency unopposed
would have been worse.
But thanks for the answer, anyway. At least we're trying to
communicate, eh?
David G. Bell
k...@KeithLynch.net "Keith F. Lynch" wrote:
> Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Brain fart. That should have been "16 months".
>
> For armed robbery? I thought even 16 years sounded a little low for
> sticking a gun in someone's face and threatning to blow them away.
Without knowing any details, I'd just remark that "armed robbery"
doesn't even have to involve a gun or knife.
mike weber
wrote:
>
>""David G. Bell"" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:20030110.08...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> If it was true (and arguably irrelevant), it says something about the
>> people involved in the campaign if they claimed it was a lie. And that
>> should be relevant.
>
>This is a popular recurring issue in politics these days.
>Must the candidate respond with truth to questions that have no bearing on
>their fitness for the job (yes, like the famous "Blow Job" that propelled a
>number of people to fame for example). There have been cases where
>information can be used as a means of predicting behavior (say, for example,
>Neil Bush and the S.&L. affair), but in most cases, stuff going back a few
>generations, and other facts and rumors more current, but lacking relevance
>to the issues should not be asked and if asked, can be responded to with
>lies. Using the "public's right to know" is not only a poor excuse, but no
>excuse at all. If the public wants personal bile, they can watch
>"...Springer.."
>
If the candidate [or his campaign] (apparently reflexively) lies
about something that can be disproven by simple consultation of public
records, no matter how irrelevcant to the campaign or the candidate
himself, it certainly says something about his intelligence and good
sense.
I don't believe the blow job was a matter of public record.
The Gary Hart case is sort of relevant: I didn't give a damn about
what he was alleged to have done. What convinced me that i didn't
want the man for President was his apparent inability to react well
under pressure.
mike weber
Not what was referred to.
Quit trying to evade the issue.
mike weber
wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Brain fart. That should have been "16 months".
>
>For armed robbery? I thought even 16 years sounded a little low for
>sticking a gun in someone's face and threatning to blow them away.
"Armed robbery" generally has a fairly stiff minimum sentence; p'haps
it was such a short stay because he had political pull...
Vicki Rosenzweig
-0600:
And some people who noticed that he spent years as a prosecutor in an
office whose operating theory included the idea that relatives of Mafia
members are automatically suspect. *If* someone believes that relatives
of criminals are automatically suspect, and that person is related to
former organized criminals, he may reasonably be asked why it applies
to other people but not to him.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Mark Atwood
>
> And some people who noticed that he spent years as a prosecutor in an
> office whose operating theory included the idea that relatives of Mafia
> members are automatically suspect. *If* someone believes that relatives
> of criminals are automatically suspect, and that person is related to
> former organized criminals, he may reasonably be asked why it applies
> to other people but not to him.
I would say that probably the DA's office would consider the statement
"people related to someone in the mob are also involved in the mob"
both "probably true" and a "rebutable presumption".
And who better to know and understand how usually but not universally
true it would be than a "relative of a minor member of the mob".
Also, he "spent years as a prosecutor" in the office that held that
theory. During that time, how much of it was spent as staff prosecutor
doing the work, and how much of it was as the DA, making policy?
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
O Deus
> "O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:c6784f8f.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > "A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<e%eT9.11712$Oj7.2...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> > > First of all, his popularity wasn't especially high in NY at the time.
> >
> > It wasn't at its peak but he was still a good deal more popular than
> > his opponent.
>
> No, he wasn't. His popularity in NYC hit 37% in 2000.
Which is pretty good for a controversial politician and still higher
than Hillary's.
> > > Secondly, the shameful way he treated his wife turned a lot of people
> > > against him.
> >
> > Only to those who sympathized with his desperate publicity seeking
> > wife who had all the acting talent of a raddish and had developed
> > close ties to his political opponents.
>
> No, also to those people who think it's a pretty nasty thing for your wife
> to find out about your separation from a press conference. And also a lot
> of people don't have a high opinion of infidelity, especially when you're
> not particularly discreet about it. Oh, that's right, infidelity is only
> bad if a Democrat does it.
The seperation had been in place long ago. It had been widely reported
before this. The press conference only made it official, Donna
Hannover certainly knew about it long before. Guliani was no longer
married to her in practice and so the charge of infidelity is also
meaningless.
> > > Thirdly, he'd have to resign the mayoralty if he won, which
> > > would mean Mark Green would succeed him as mayor, a man who he hates
> almost
> > > pathologically.
> >
> > It seemed inevitable that this would have happened anyway because of
> > term limits.
>
> Mark Green wasn't guaranteed the mayoralty. You can tell because he lost.
At that time he was and there was no credible Republican candidate who
could have beaten him.
> > > Fourthly, losing to Hillary would have been a crushing blow
> > > to him personally, and his stock among Republicans would have fallen.
> >
> > His stock among Republicans was never high and he could never have
> > lost to Hillary.
>
> Again, don't just make up things because you want to believe them.
> Statewide polls showed Hillary and Giuliani neck and neck for months leading
> up to his withdrawal.
Those polls still showed him ahead and the campaign hadn't even begun
yet.
O Deus
Yes you've found out Guliani's secret. He was in the mob all along.
All his work fighting the mob was just a cover for his plan to become
mayor of New York.
Read about it at http://www.skolnicksreport.com/great_secrets.html
A.C.
> "A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<XLwT9.13078$Oj7.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>
> Which is pretty good for a controversial politician and still higher
> than Hillary's.
No, it's horrible for any politician and was in fact lower than Hillary's.
> The seperation had been in place long ago. It had been widely reported
> before this. The press conference only made it official, Donna
> Hannover certainly knew about it long before. Guliani was no longer
> married to her in practice and so the charge of infidelity is also
> meaningless.
Do you think, just maybe, that Giuliani telling his wife would have been the
right way to make it "official"?
As for your comment on infidelity, it's so patently absurd that I have no
need to contest it. It's ridiculous on its face.
> At that time he was and there was no credible Republican candidate who
> could have beaten him.
In your opinion, which seems to be based on...I don't know. It's certainly
not reality.
> Those polls still showed him ahead and the campaign hadn't even begun
> yet.
Your propensity for making assumptions is amazing. You can see the Marist
polls at:
http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nyspolls/trackHC.htm
Obviously in many of them she was ahead.
According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/706115.stm Hillary
had pulled ahead just prior to his dropping out.
Obviously he wasn't "guaranteed" the election.
A.C.
> > office whose operating theory included the idea that relatives of Mafia
> > members are automatically suspect. *If* someone believes that relatives
> > of criminals are automatically suspect, and that person is related to
> > former organized criminals, he may reasonably be asked why it applies
> > to other people but not to him.
>
> Yes you've found out Guliani's secret. He was in the mob all along.
> All his work fighting the mob was just a cover for his plan to become
> mayor of New York.
That's a non-sequitur. Her point was about hypocrisy; will you address it,
or simply throw out more nonsensical remarks?
Dale
>
> > opposing candidate and finally being elected. It's how Bill Clinton
> > won the Democratic primary, it's how Hillary won the NYC Senate
> > election.
>
> Ludicrous. Can you give us ANY examples? Hillary won because she focused
> exclusively on the issues, while all Lazio did was go around sputtering "but
> it's Hillary Clinton", and assuming everyone else had the same hatred for
> her that the right-wing Republican leadership did.
Exactly. I admitedly would have voted for her anyway because I am a
good old fashioned Yellow Dog Democrat (I will vote for a Yellow Dog
as long as they are a Democrat.) However Hillary did her homework even
on upstate farming issues (at least according to my upstate friends)
However we should remember that O.Deus has that Ann Coulter right-wing
hatred for any Democrat and he would probably associate Joe Liberman
with the second coming of FDR. What is interesting is that O.Deus just
seems to think Republican equals Okay. He is basically ignoring that
Mike Bloomberg is a liberal democrat, who runs the city like a liberal
Democrat. He only became a Republican because the NYC Dems could run
actual civil servants and politicians like Alan Hevesi and Mark Green.
Hell Giulliani and Pataki aren`t even close to the national standard
of the Republican party. There is no way either of them could win a
Republican primary outside of the NY-NJ area with their policies.
O Deus
> "O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:c6784f8f.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> wrote in message
> > > And some people who noticed that he spent years as a prosecutor in an
> > > office whose operating theory included the idea that relatives of Mafia
> > > members are automatically suspect. *If* someone believes that relatives
> > > of criminals are automatically suspect, and that person is related to
> > > former organized criminals, he may reasonably be asked why it applies
> > > to other people but not to him.
> >
> > Yes you've found out Guliani's secret. He was in the mob all along.
> > All his work fighting the mob was just a cover for his plan to become
> > mayor of New York.
>
> That's a non-sequitur. Her point was about hypocrisy; will you address it,
> or simply throw out more nonsensical remarks?
She was trying to justify a smear campaign by accusing Guliani of
hypocrisy because he didn't consider himself a mobster because his
father was one. As far as tangled justifications go, that one takes
some kind of prize.
mike weber
She was pointing out that the fact that the man lied -- and about
something easily checked -- is a legitimate political point.
This applies to all politicians, even the ones of whom i approve (a
vanishingly small number, i must admit).
A.C.
news:127e4692.03011...@posting.google.com...
> Exactly. I admitedly would have voted for her anyway because I am a
> good old fashioned Yellow Dog Democrat (I will vote for a Yellow Dog
> as long as they are a Democrat.) However Hillary did her homework even
> on upstate farming issues (at least according to my upstate friends)
A fact which even Lazio admitted after the election.
> However we should remember that O.Deus has that Ann Coulter right-wing
> hatred for any Democrat and he would probably associate Joe Liberman
> with the second coming of FDR. What is interesting is that O.Deus just
> seems to think Republican equals Okay. He is basically ignoring that
> Mike Bloomberg is a liberal democrat, who runs the city like a liberal
> Democrat. He only became a Republican because the NYC Dems could run
> actual civil servants and politicians like Alan Hevesi and Mark Green.
> Hell Giulliani and Pataki aren`t even close to the national standard
> of the Republican party. There is no way either of them could win a
> Republican primary outside of the NY-NJ area with their policies.
Yep, my distaste for Giuliani has nothing to do with his ideological bent,
and has more to do with his tendency for extreme vindictiveness (like when
he ordered all those community gardens to be bulldozed for no apparent
reason). That said he was a decent, competent mayor, just like Bloomberg is
proving himself to be. I still would have preferred if Mark Green had won,
mainly because the poor bastard deserves it; it's a shame how he has so much
trouble winning elections.
As for O. Deus I guess you're right. I thought maybe I could change his
mind when he uttered such easily disprovable facts such as Giuliani led in
the polls and had no chance of losing, but when he declared that a 37%
approval right was "good", I realized it was a losing battle.
Pierre Jelenc
> Yep, my distaste for Giuliani has nothing to do with his ideological bent,
> and has more to do with his tendency for extreme vindictiveness (like when
> he ordered all those community gardens to be bulldozed for no apparent
> reason).
What about the apartment buildings that were built on the lots? Are plants
more important than houses?
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc | H o m e O f f i c e R e c o r d s
| * Marwood * Pawnshop * The Cucumbers *
T h e G i g o m e t e r | * The Dan Emery Mystery Band * RAW Kinder *
www.thegigometer.com | www.homeofficerecords.com
Avram Grumer
rc...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
> A.C. <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> writes:
> > Yep, my distaste for Giuliani has nothing to do with his
> > ideological bent, and has more to do with his tendency for extreme
> > vindictiveness (like when he ordered all those community gardens to
> > be bulldozed for no apparent reason).
>
> What about the apartment buildings that were built on the lots? Are
> plants more important than houses?
Yes, because in a world with no houses people living in temperate parts
of the world would still be able to survive, while in a world with no
plants we'd all suffocate.
You probably had some other question in mind, though. It probably
wasn't "Since there are 11,000 vacant lots in NYC, why did the Giulini
administration choose to develop specifically on 126 of the 700 or so
lots that have community gardens on them?"
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
They that can give up your essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety are running the US Justice Department.
Daniel R. Reitman
>I want to know how they found my sketches for the new superhero,
>"Carcino-Man" and his secret power.
The truth is out there. :-)
Dan, ad nauseam
Arthur D. Hlavaty
>> > All his work fighting the mob was just a cover for his plan to become
>> > mayor of New York.
Putting aside mere fact, one could suggest a Whitey Bulger scenario:
Giuliani specialized in fighting *rival* mobsters.
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
Neil Belsky
"Pierre Jelenc" <rc...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:avtjo6$n3i$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> What about the apartment buildings that were built on the lots? Are plants
> more important than houses?
>
> Pierre
> --
> Pierre Jelenc | H o m e O f f i c e R e c o r d s
> | * Marwood * Pawnshop * The Cucumbers *
> T h e G i g o m e t e r | * The Dan Emery Mystery Band * RAW Kinder *
> www.thegigometer.com | www.homeofficerecords.com
When I lived in New York City (granted , a number of years ago) Carol
Bellamy was running for mayor. It was her belief that it would hve been
cheaper to rennovate existing properties (and the neighborhoods they were
in) then to build from scratch. Koch painted her as silly and out of touch.
Personally, I think that plants ar more important then houses, especially if
houses are already there or the rennovating.
Neil (who admits that there may not be buildings suitable for rennovation
but doubts the possibility especially in a city as big as New York)
--
Rowan, It was a stray bomb!
Thank you Adolph!
Kevin J. Maroney
<nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>(like when [Giuliani]
>ordered all those community gardens to be bulldozed for no apparent
>reason).
Because community garden lots were meeting grounds where people could
talk and organize.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
A.C.
news:n8862v48n2vpc7gq6...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 21:01:30 GMT, "A.C."
> <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >(like when [Giuliani]
> >ordered all those community gardens to be bulldozed for no apparent
> >reason).
>
> Because community garden lots were meeting grounds where people could
> talk and organize.
Oops, I guess that is IS a reason...
Neil Belsky
> talk and organize.
>
> --
> Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
> Games are my entire waking life.
And I thought I was paranoid.....
NARF!!
Neil
O Deus
> >> "O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >> news:c6784f8f.03011...@posting.google.com...
> >> > Yes you've found out Guliani's secret. He was in the mob all along.
> >> > All his work fighting the mob was just a cover for his plan to become
> >> > mayor of New York.
>
> Putting aside mere fact, one could suggest a Whitey Bulger scenario:
> Giuliani specialized in fighting *rival* mobsters.
Well facts certainly tend to be rather inconvenient.
O Deus
> However we should remember that O.Deus has that Ann Coulter right-wing
> hatred for any Democrat and he would probably associate Joe Liberman
> with the second coming of FDR.
Actually I would associate him with moral censorship ala the moral
majority in which he seems to act as an unofficial member.
> What is interesting is that O.Deus just
> seems to think Republican equals Okay. He is basically ignoring that
> Mike Bloomberg is a liberal democrat, who runs the city like a liberal
> Democrat.
Currently Bloomberg is a liberal democrat running the city like a CEO,
coldly, impersonally and with a view towards the bottom line.
> He only became a Republican because the NYC Dems could run
> actual civil servants and politicians like Alan Hevesi and Mark Green.
Or more accurately because NYC Dems could run clubhouse politicians
like Hevesi and Green who were the type of politician responsible for
NYC going down the toilet in the first place before more radical and
results oriented mayors like Koch and Guliani took over.
> Hell Giulliani and Pataki aren`t even close to the national standard
> of the Republican party. There is no way either of them could win a
> Republican primary outside of the NY-NJ area with their policies.
Pataki is an empty suit, Guliani might win on sheer force of
personality. Not in Virginia perhaps or the Bible Belt, but he could
win in the Northeast and the West Coast because the GOP isn't nearly
as moral majority as the popular Dem propoganda says.
O Deus
> I still would have preferred if Mark Green had won,
> mainly because the poor bastard deserves it; it's a shame how he has so much
> trouble winning elections.
Yeah well clubhouse politics in which the favorite son finally gets
the nod even though he doesn't belong in the job, hasn't exactly meant
home runs for the Democrats lately.
> As for O. Deus I guess you're right. I thought maybe I could change his
> mind when he uttered such easily disprovable facts such as Giuliani led in
> the polls and had no chance of losing, but when he declared that a 37%
> approval right was "good", I realized it was a losing battle.
By comparison Bloomberg's currentl approval rating is now at about the
same level. Koch's and Guliani's approval ratings both bounced up and
down. Furthermore you quoted a NYC poll where no Republican candidate
for statewide office can really hope to win. Hell Koch couldn't do it
when he ran for governor.
O Deus
> A.C. <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> writes:
> > Yep, my distaste for Giuliani has nothing to do with his ideological bent,
> > and has more to do with his tendency for extreme vindictiveness (like when
> > he ordered all those community gardens to be bulldozed for no apparent
> > reason).
>
> What about the apartment buildings that were built on the lots? Are plants
> more important than houses?
The 'community garden' issue is actually a disguised case of NIMBY in
which community activists wanted to prevent the city from building
public housing near their buildings or building newer more upscale
buildings that would raise property values and gentrify the
neighborhood. It was never about the gardens.
The gardens in questions varied from moderately nice to lots filled
with garbage and dying plants and chickens and ducks running around.
A.C.
> "A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KIkU9.16753$yi6.4...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>
> > I still would have preferred if Mark Green had won,
> > mainly because the poor bastard deserves it; it's a shame how he has so
much
> > trouble winning elections.
>
> Yeah well clubhouse politics in which the favorite son finally gets
> the nod even though he doesn't belong in the job, hasn't exactly meant
> home runs for the Democrats lately.
Weird, since it seems to work for the Republicans so well.
> > As for O. Deus I guess you're right. I thought maybe I could change his
> > mind when he uttered such easily disprovable facts such as Giuliani led
in
> > the polls and had no chance of losing, but when he declared that a 37%
> > approval right was "good", I realized it was a losing battle.
>
> By comparison Bloomberg's currentl approval rating is now at about the
> same level. Koch's and Guliani's approval ratings both bounced up and
> down. Furthermore you quoted a NYC poll where no Republican candidate
And 37% is certainly "down" by most people's standards, but I guess not
yours.
A.C.
> The 'community garden' issue is actually a disguised case of NIMBY in
> which community activists wanted to prevent the city from building
> public housing near their buildings or building newer more upscale
> buildings that would raise property values and gentrify the
> neighborhood. It was never about the gardens.
You're completely and utterly wrong. They were going to be auctioned off to
the highest bidder, who could do whatever they wanted with them. If you
really think that a developer is going to build affordable housing in an
upscale neighborhood, when they could build vastly more profitable apartment
buildings, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
If the idea was to raise property values in depressed neighborhoods,
bulldozing the only green space is not the way to do it. Many of these
neighborhoods were dramatically improved by these gardens. One in alphabet
city became essentially the neighborhoods community center; people in the
neighborhood had put in a pond and a gazebo. One garden was so successful
it had been featured in National Geographic.
Giuliani called for their destruction because he really is a vindictive man.
You justify his actions because you've identified the people who volunteered
so much time and energy to beautifying their neighborhood as part of the
Great Liberal Enemy, though only god knows why.
You might want to do a little soul-searching, and ask yourself why do you
relish this destruction? A lot of these neighborhoods were devastated by
white flight and the extinction of the manufacturing industry in the 60s and
70s, and then the drug epidemic in the 80s, and finally the people who
remained made such a huge effort to pull their neighborhoods out of this
hole, and this makes you feel malice. Why?
Kevin J. Maroney
<nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>If the idea was to raise property values in depressed neighborhoods,
>bulldozing the only green space is not the way to do it.
In more than one case, there were two vacant lots on a single block,
and the lot chosen for "rehabilitation" was the lot with the community
garden. It was never the case that the decision went the other way.
Giuliani targeted the gardens because he is a petty vindictive shit.
Neil Belsky
>
> You might want to do a little soul-searching, and ask yourself why do you
> relish this destruction? A lot of these neighborhoods were devastated by
> white flight and the extinction of the manufacturing industry in the 60s
and
> 70s, and then the drug epidemic in the 80s, and finally the people who
> remained made such a huge effort to pull their neighborhoods out of this
> hole, and this makes you feel malice. Why?
>
> --
> nomadi...@hotmail.com | http://nomadic.simspace.net
> "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
> certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand
> Russell
>
>
O deus is one again inspiring intellectual cohesion in the group by being
argumentative.
Go monster go!
Kip Williams
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:23:41 GMT, "A.C."
> <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If the idea was to raise property values in depressed neighborhoods,
>>bulldozing the only green space is not the way to do it.
>
>
> In more than one case, there were two vacant lots on a single block,
> and the lot chosen for "rehabilitation" was the lot with the community
> garden. It was never the case that the decision went the other way.
>
> Giuliani targeted the gardens because he is a petty vindictive shit.
Not at all like that nice "Guliani" fellow.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Why, what a splendid trifle, young man! You and your friends may
travel for free!" "Cor!" "Hooray for Tommy!" --Tommy and his Trifle
O Deus
> "O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:c6784f8f.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > The 'community garden' issue is actually a disguised case of NIMBY in
> > which community activists wanted to prevent the city from building
> > public housing near their buildings or building newer more upscale
> > buildings that would raise property values and gentrify the
> > neighborhood. It was never about the gardens.
>
> You're completely and utterly wrong. They were going to be auctioned off to
> the highest bidder, who could do whatever they wanted with them. If you
> really think that a developer is going to build affordable housing in an
> upscale neighborhood, when they could build vastly more profitable apartment
> buildings, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
We're hardly talking about upscale neighborhoods. In fact you can have
apartments in one building renting for 2,500 a month and the other for
350 a month. And for every high end building that goes up, there's
usually city sponsored low income housing being built too. And the
reality is that sooner or later the boom is going to end and the 2,500
a month apartments are going to be low income housing too.
> If the idea was to raise property values in depressed neighborhoods,
> bulldozing the only green space is not the way to do it. Many of these
> neighborhoods were dramatically improved by these gardens. One in alphabet
> city became essentially the neighborhoods community center; people in the
> neighborhood had put in a pond and a gazebo. One garden was so successful
> it had been featured in National Geographic.
I never denied that some of those gardens were nice, others however
were trash heaps. If you live in Lower Manhattan and have seen enough
of these gardens, you must know it's the case. Some are award winners
and some are just grotesque collections of welded metal described as
abstract sculpture with a few weeds and some trash. And I tend to
think that a neighborhood needs new housing more than it needs a
little garden for some old ladies to putter around in, especially not
on the taxpayer dime. Rooftop gardens on the other hand are a good
idea and they don't deprive anyone of living space.
> Giuliani called for their destruction because he really is a vindictive man.
> You justify his actions because you've identified the people who volunteered
> so much time and energy to beautifying their neighborhood as part of the
> Great Liberal Enemy, though only god knows why.
The 'Everything the Mayor Does is Because He's A BlackHearted Villain'
theory has been used frequently on Koch and Guliani and while both of
them had their mean streaks, the fact is that they also had the public
interest at heart. Adding me to the conspiracy of mayoral
spitefullness doesn't really prove anything either. The fact of the
matter is that if greenspaces are the issue, then a lot of those
community gardens would be better served by being managed by the city
parks department. They could be used as dog runs too, which would do
more to improve the neighborhood than a chicken coop and attempts by
retired schoolteachers to grow orchids.
> You might want to do a little soul-searching, and ask yourself why do you
> relish this destruction? A lot of these neighborhoods were devastated by
> white flight and the extinction of the manufacturing industry in the 60s and
> 70s, and then the drug epidemic in the 80s, and finally the people who
> remained made such a huge effort to pull their neighborhoods out of this
> hole, and this makes you feel malice. Why?
I don't relish the destruction. I have no idea why you keep accusing
me of that. I just tend to think that new housing is more likely to
improve a neighborhood than the usual community activist tactic of
maintaining the status quo at all costs. Yes I support chain stores
coming into the city, I support new housing, I support skyscrapers and
for that matter, like Koch, I support a casino too. New York survives
by growing and some of the same people who were far too emboldened by
their victory against Robert Moses, now feel they have a mandate from
some higher power to keep their block just the way they remember it
and all else be damned.
O Deus
> "O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:c6784f8f.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > "A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<KIkU9.16753$yi6.4...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> >
> > > I still would have preferred if Mark Green had won,
> > > mainly because the poor bastard deserves it; it's a shame how he has so
> much
> > > trouble winning elections.
> >
> > Yeah well clubhouse politics in which the favorite son finally gets
> > the nod even though he doesn't belong in the job, hasn't exactly meant
> > home runs for the Democrats lately.
>
> Weird, since it seems to work for the Republicans so well.
Except that Bloomberg certainly isn't and Guliani never fit into the
Republican party. In New York, it's worked for Pataki.
> > > As for O. Deus I guess you're right. I thought maybe I could change his
> > > mind when he uttered such easily disprovable facts such as Giuliani led
> in
> > > the polls and had no chance of losing, but when he declared that a 37%
> > > approval right was "good", I realized it was a losing battle.
> >
> > By comparison Bloomberg's currentl approval rating is now at about the
> > same level. Koch's and Guliani's approval ratings both bounced up and
> > down. Furthermore you quoted a NYC poll where no Republican candidate
>
> And 37% is certainly "down" by most people's standards, but I guess not
> yours.
It's down but it's well within the natural ups and downs that most
mayors have had over the years.
O Deus
> <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >(like when [Giuliani]
> >ordered all those community gardens to be bulldozed for no apparent
> >reason).
>
> Because community garden lots were meeting grounds where people could
> talk and organize.
As were their apartments, the local eatery, the local party clubhouse
and well in the village, just about every place is a place that people
can talk and organize.
But I can see that some people's fanatical hatred for Guliani hasn't
ended even when he's left office.
A.C.
> apartments in one building renting for 2,500 a month and the other for
> 350 a month. And for every high end building that goes up, there's
> usually city sponsored low income housing being built too. And the
> reality is that sooner or later the boom is going to end and the 2,500
> a month apartments are going to be low income housing too.
Then why are you insisting that it's purely a case of NIMBYism?
> I never denied that some of those gardens were nice, others however
> were trash heaps. If you live in Lower Manhattan and have seen enough
Then why destroy the nice ones too?
> of these gardens, you must know it's the case. Some are award winners
> and some are just grotesque collections of welded metal described as
> abstract sculpture with a few weeds and some trash. And I tend to
> think that a neighborhood needs new housing more than it needs a
> little garden for some old ladies to putter around in, especially not
Not necessarily. There isn't, and wasn't at the time, a housing shortage.
You can make the argument that there's a an AFFORDABLE housing shortage, but
as we've established these lots were being sold for any use.
As for the quality of the gardens, that's not the point. If Giuliani and
the housing department had gone around to the gardens, picked ones that they
felt weren't being legitimately used, and sold those, most people wouldn't
have a problem with that. You're lumping the
vacant-lots-masquerading-as-gardens in with the true gardens to justify
bulldozing all of them, which makes no sense.
> on the taxpayer dime. Rooftop gardens on the other hand are a good
> idea and they don't deprive anyone of living space.
For small gardens, certainly, but if you're talking about community meeting
places, they don't do.
> The 'Everything the Mayor Does is Because He's A BlackHearted Villain'
Where did I say this? I've publicly admitted that Giuliani has on the whole
done an excellent job, and while I voted for Dinkins I'm not unhappy
Giuliani won. That said I don't appreciate the vindictive spirit he's shown
on several occasions, like the gardens, or his attempts to completely close
down the Brooklyn Museum.
> spitefullness doesn't really prove anything either. The fact of the
> matter is that if greenspaces are the issue, then a lot of those
> community gardens would be better served by being managed by the city
> parks department. They could be used as dog runs too, which would do
That's what the people who created the gardens WANTED. It was Giuliani who
transferred them from the Parks Department to the Department of Housing
Preservation and Development.
> more to improve the neighborhood than a chicken coop and attempts by
> retired schoolteachers to grow orchids.
A place for yuppies to walk their dogs isn't better than vegetation.
> I don't relish the destruction. I have no idea why you keep accusing
> me of that. I just tend to think that new housing is more likely to
Because you keep bringing up easily disproved points to support your
justification of the gardens' destruction. A reasonable person, even a
reasonable conservative who feels that a lot of these places should go back
on the tax rolls, would make some attempt to distinguish good use of the
lots from bad. But you feel because a few are run-down, they must be
destroyed citywide.
There was no good reason to do this mass destruction of the gardens, a fact
which everyone except Giuliani recognized. Fortunately Bloomberg seems to
be able to distinguish between hard-nosed leader and vindictive martinet,
and he's agreed to help protect the remaining gardens.
> improve a neighborhood than the usual community activist tactic of
> maintaining the status quo at all costs. Yes I support chain stores
> coming into the city, I support new housing, I support skyscrapers and
As do I.
> for that matter, like Koch, I support a casino too. New York survives
Bad idea.
> by growing and some of the same people who were far too emboldened by
> their victory against Robert Moses, now feel they have a mandate from
> some higher power to keep their block just the way they remember it
> and all else be damned.
This isn't Woody Allen complaining about his view, these are people who have
dedicated their time and effort to beautifying their neighborhood watching
it go up in a plume of dust.
Dave Weingart
I'm going against my better judgment in feeding someone with trollish
tendencies here, but...
One day in Teletubbyland, od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) said:
>The Clinton version of how democracy works involves the Clintons
>setting up a war room and running a smear campaign against any
>opposing candidate and finally being elected. It's how Bill Clinton
>won the Democratic primary, it's how Hillary won the NYC Senate
>election.
Umm..no.
Hillary Clinton won the election by campaigning to be a United States
Senator againt Rick Lazio, an opponent who ran by campaigning to be
"Not Hillary"
The People of the State of New York thought that being "Not Hillary"
was insufficient reason to elect someone to the US Senate.
Nice try, though.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Quinze Filk Festival (15th UK Filkcon)
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Feb 7-9,2003, Ipswich, England
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux http://www.contabile.org.uk/
ICQ 57055207 qui...@contabile.org.uk
mike weber
They certainly were for the Republicans as they tried to pin
*anything* substantive on the Clintons and make it stick...
O Deus
> "O Deus" <od...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:c6784f8f.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > We're hardly talking about upscale neighborhoods. In fact you can have
> > apartments in one building renting for 2,500 a month and the other for
> > 350 a month. And for every high end building that goes up, there's
> > usually city sponsored low income housing being built too. And the
> > reality is that sooner or later the boom is going to end and the 2,500
> > a month apartments are going to be low income housing too.
>
> Then why are you insisting that it's purely a case of NIMBYism?
It's not all NIMBY but that's a major element of it. The same
activists fighting for the gardens are also fighting homeless
shelters, methadone clinics, large scale housing projects. It's not
about the embattled activists vs the powerfull interests but people
who oppose change on principle.
> > I never denied that some of those gardens were nice, others however
> > were trash heaps. If you live in Lower Manhattan and have seen enough
>
> Then why destroy the nice ones too?
Because there's no standard for distinguishing them and because if one
key person dies or moves away, a nice garden can often become a trash
heap. It's happened before. Gardens under the authority of the Parks
Department comply with certain standards, community gardens don't. So
it's arguable whether there is anything to actually preserve.
> > of these gardens, you must know it's the case. Some are award winners
> > and some are just grotesque collections of welded metal described as
> > abstract sculpture with a few weeds and some trash. And I tend to
> > think that a neighborhood needs new housing more than it needs a
> > little garden for some old ladies to putter around in, especially not
>
> Not necessarily. There isn't, and wasn't at the time, a housing shortage.
> You can make the argument that there's a an AFFORDABLE housing shortage, but
> as we've established these lots were being sold for any use.
There was a high demand for housing, witness the high prices. And
building more housing would do more to lower prices than building
government subsidized housing which just creates slums.
> As for the quality of the gardens, that's not the point. If Giuliani and
> the housing department had gone around to the gardens, picked ones that they
> felt weren't being legitimately used, and sold those, most people wouldn't
> have a problem with that. You're lumping the
> vacant-lots-masquerading-as-gardens in with the true gardens to justify
> bulldozing all of them, which makes no sense.
I've seen no evidence that activists were prepeared to make such
compromises.
> > on the taxpayer dime. Rooftop gardens on the other hand are a good
> > idea and they don't deprive anyone of living space.
>
> For small gardens, certainly, but if you're talking about community meeting
> places, they don't do.
They serve to improve the neighborhood and add greenspace and they use
space that would otherwise go to waste. Considering that the better
community gardens that are used as meeting places tend to be closed
much of the time and have strict rules regarding their usage, it's
arguable whether they're anything more than a clubhouse for a few
locals. The solution is still to add more city parks.
> > The 'Everything the Mayor Does is Because He's A BlackHearted Villain'
>
> Where did I say this? I've publicly admitted that Giuliani has on the whole
> done an excellent job, and while I voted for Dinkins I'm not unhappy
> Giuliani won. That said I don't appreciate the vindictive spirit he's shown
> on several occasions, like the gardens, or his attempts to completely close
> down the Brooklyn Museum.
I don't necesarilly think he was wrong about the Museum and it seems
doubtfull that he would have been opposed by liberals if there had
been a painting of Mohammed there with dung on it.
> > spitefullness doesn't really prove anything either. The fact of the
> > matter is that if greenspaces are the issue, then a lot of those
> > community gardens would be better served by being managed by the city
> > parks department. They could be used as dog runs too, which would do
>
> That's what the people who created the gardens WANTED. It was Giuliani who
> transferred them from the Parks Department to the Department of Housing
> Preservation and Development.
I mean managed full time by parks service personnel and under parks
service regulations. Henry Stern's Parks Department has actually done
great work around the city.
> > more to improve the neighborhood than a chicken coop and attempts by
> > retired schoolteachers to grow orchids.
>
> A place for yuppies to walk their dogs isn't better than vegetation.
Depends for whom. Dogs have needs too and so do their owners. And dog
ownership is hardly limited to yuppies.
> > improve a neighborhood than the usual community activist tactic of
> > maintaining the status quo at all costs. Yes I support chain stores
> > coming into the city, I support new housing, I support skyscrapers and
>
> As do I.
>
> > for that matter, like Koch, I support a casino too. New York survives
>
> Bad idea.
So instead we lose money and tourists to Atlantic City and to Foxwoods
and to any Indian tribe of rather questionable origin that files for
status as a tribe and lets some corporation set up a casino.
> > by growing and some of the same people who were far too emboldened by
> > their victory against Robert Moses, now feel they have a mandate from
> > some higher power to keep their block just the way they remember it
> > and all else be damned.
>
> This isn't Woody Allen complaining about his view, these are people who have
> dedicated their time and effort to beautifying their neighborhood watching
> it go up in a plume of dust.
It's part and parcel of a culture of neighborhood activism which views
a chain store with a large sign as the anti-christ and argues against
any construction whatsoever as a disruption to the neighborhood. It's
the same class of people fighting Cooper Union and NYU, the same
people who want Ground Zero to be rebuilt to 'human scale' and seem as
if they'd be a lot happier living in a suburb than in one of the
busiest cities in the world.
O Deus
> On 13 Jan 2003 17:51:20 -0800, od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) wrote:
>
> >Arthur D. Hlavaty <hla...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<dvb52vomvgebgpa9t...@4ax.com>...
> >> >> > Yes you've found out Guliani's secret. He was in the mob all along.
> >> >> > All his work fighting the mob was just a cover for his plan to become
> >> >> > mayor of New York.
> >>
> >> Putting aside mere fact, one could suggest a Whitey Bulger scenario:
> >> Giuliani specialized in fighting *rival* mobsters.
> >
> >Well facts certainly tend to be rather inconvenient.
>
> They certainly were for the Republicans as they tried to pin
> *anything* substantive on the Clintons and make it stick...
Speaking of things sticking to the Clintons, Almon Glenn Braswell one
of the Clinton's pardonees who paid a six figure sum for his pardon
has been arrested on tax evasion charges.
Personally I blame the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Kevin J. Maroney
Weingart) wrote:
>Hillary Clinton won the election by campaigning to be a United States
>Senator againt Rick Lazio, an opponent who ran by campaigning to be
>"Not Hillary"
That wasn't the entire campaign. You forgot "I'm from Long Island,
just like Al D'Amato! Ttherefore I understand by magic what is
important to people New York City and Upstate!" As opposed to his
opponent, who actually made it a priority to *learn* what is important
to people from the City and upstate.
Dave Weingart
>On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:38:07 +0000 (UTC), phyd...@liii.com (Dave
>Weingart) wrote:
>>Hillary Clinton won the election by campaigning to be a United States
>>Senator againt Rick Lazio, an opponent who ran by campaigning to be
>>"Not Hillary"
>
>That wasn't the entire campaign. You forgot "I'm from Long Island,
>just like Al D'Amato! Ttherefore I understand by magic what is
>important to people New York City and Upstate!" As opposed to his
>opponent, who actually made it a priority to *learn* what is important
>to people from the City and upstate.
Hmm...I'm from Long Island and I missed that part. But that's because
I already magically understand what's important to all the rest of
you lot.
Vicki Rosenzweig
+0000 (UTC):
>
>I'm going against my better judgment in feeding someone with trollish
>tendencies here, but...
>
>One day in Teletubbyland, od...@bigfoot.com (O Deus) said:
>>The Clinton version of how democracy works involves the Clintons
>>setting up a war room and running a smear campaign against any
>>opposing candidate and finally being elected. It's how Bill Clinton
>>won the Democratic primary, it's how Hillary won the NYC Senate
>>election.
>
>Umm..no.
>
>Hillary Clinton won the election by campaigning to be a United States
>Senator againt Rick Lazio, an opponent who ran by campaigning to be
>"Not Hillary"
>
>The People of the State of New York thought that being "Not Hillary"
>was insufficient reason to elect someone to the US Senate.
We already had a senator who wasn't Hilary Clinton; one is sufficient.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Kevin J. Maroney
Weingart) wrote:
>One day in Teletubbyland, Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> said:
>>That wasn't the entire campaign. You forgot "I'm from Long Island,
>>just like Al D'Amato! Ttherefore I understand by magic what is
>>important to people New York City and Upstate!" As opposed to his
>>opponent, who actually made it a priority to *learn* what is important
>>to people from the City and upstate.
>
>Hmm...I'm from Long Island and I missed that part. But that's because
>I already magically understand what's important to all the rest of
>you lot.
I was translating Lazios' "I'm a real New Yorker" into plain English.
Dave Weingart
>>Hillary Clinton won the election by campaigning to be a United States
>>Senator againt Rick Lazio, an opponent who ran by campaigning to be
>>"Not Hillary"
>>
>>The People of the State of New York thought that being "Not Hillary"
>>was insufficient reason to elect someone to the US Senate.
>
>We already had a senator who wasn't Hilary Clinton; one is sufficient.
Yeah, but he didn't run on the "I'm not Hillary" line.
For the record, I voted for Hillary, and I hope to do so when she's up for
re-election.
Neil Belsky
> A place for yuppies to walk their dogs isn't better than vegetation.
You will pry my dog OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS!
Neil (hey maw! we done be yuppies! A.C. said so!)
A.C.
> "A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:JFgV9.24808$Oj7.5...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> > A place for yuppies to walk their dogs isn't better than vegetation.
>
> You will pry my dog OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS!
Note: yuppies don't walk their dog, the walk their dogs, plural. If
you live in a one bedroom walk-up in Manhattan and have a pair of
purebred Malamutes, you're a yuppy.