Why are most musicians liberal Democrats?
Jeff Mills
left when it comes to politics. The rockers, the rappers tend to show
up for Democratic candidates and they campaign on left-wing issues. I
am not saying that is good or bad. It just is. But why are most
country singers Republican? Is it because the majority of country
songs reflect conservative values more so than pop or rock music? Is
it because of geography and where people are born? Most country
singers are from the south which is predominantly conservative. Most
pop and rock singers are from big cities like New York, Los Angeles,
Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia which are predominantly liberal
areas.
Danny Caccavo
<kavisd t...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Jeff Mills" <jm1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:979bfc75.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > But why are most
> > country singers Republican? Is it because the majority of country
> > songs reflect conservative values more so than pop or rock music? Is
> > it because of geography and where people are born? Most country
> > singers are from the south which is predominantly conservative.
>
> What about stuff like Farm-Aid? That would fall into the political
> category
> of the left, if it had to be categorized.
>
> --
Not so sure about that. Consider Neil Young....<g>
dc
--
Danny Caccavo
dcac...@nyc.rr.com
"For your information, it IS a baby eagle"
Dale Houstman
"Danny Caccavo" <dcac...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dcaccavo-864E51...@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <pdVM8.30125$M%1.725...@news.tor.primus.ca>, "Kavisd"
> <kavisd t...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> >
> > "Jeff Mills" <jm1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:979bfc75.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > > But why are most
> > > country singers Republican? Is it because the majority of country
> > > songs reflect conservative values more so than pop or rock music? Is
> > > it because of geography and where people are born? Most country
> > > singers are from the south which is predominantly conservative.
> >
> > What about stuff like Farm-Aid? That would fall into the political
> > category
> > of the left, if it had to be categorized.
> >
> > --
>
> Not so sure about that. Consider Neil Young....<g>
>
The division between "conservative/radical" is - like most dualisms - too
simple to really apply to complex systems, such as human beings. What is
Dylan for instance? Besides odd, that is? Much "conservative"-style
patriotism/nationalism was on display (often to odious depths: i.e. Tom
Petty's "I Won't Back Down") on the post-9/11 charity show. Many people who
are seen as radical may merely be of a libertarian bend, and libertarianism
is a strange blend at best. And so on. And no one who could accept a
Knighthood can rightly be seen as greatly radical, even if you forgive them
the error. As for country reflecting "conservative values" there are also
too many exceptions to that to really make a solid case. Johnny Cash opposed
the Vietnam War, and such luminaries as Emmylou Harris, Iris DeMent, Willie
Nelson, the late great Waylon Jennings, and on and on reflect a somewhat
different approach. Even that old curmudgeon Merle Haggard - who gave us the
anti-hippie anthem "I'm Proud To Be An Okie From Muskogee" - was a strong
supporter of changing drug laws, and of free speech. The notion is too broad
to be useful.
dmh
Mister Charlie
Same reason most media people lean away from the right.
They're smarter. Better educated. Answers your question about country
singers as well.
;-)
David Ray
conservatives possess.
It is no coincidence that liberals tend to be shallow thinkers who can't
comprehend the consequences of their liberalism. Barbara Streisand is a
fine singer; but she hasn't a clue about politics, foreign affairs, fiscal
matters. Same is true with most other performing artists. And with
journalists.
You asked <g>.
Now I'll sit back and watch the flames...
"Jeff Mills" <jm1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:979bfc75.02060...@posting.google.com...
Mister Charlie
"David Ray" <da...@timecalc.com> wrote in message
news:RE1N8.25676$dl1.2352476332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> I believe that artistic creativity usurps the sheer intellect that
most
> conservatives possess.
>
> It is no coincidence that liberals tend to be shallow thinkers who
can't
> comprehend the consequences of their liberalism. Barbara Streisand is
a
> fine singer; but she hasn't a clue about politics, foreign affairs,
fiscal
> matters. Same is true with most other performing artists. And with
> journalists.
Journalists lean to the left because they deal with the news all day
long, so are better informed than average folk. They are around
politicians all the time and see the sheer duplicity of every single one
of them. Better educated. Generally well spoken.
What does the right offer? O'Reilly? Riiiiight. Rush? BWAHAHAHAHA!
All in all, the exact opposite of what you claimed. (Except the
Streisand thing)
;-)
Dale Houstman
"Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:ae2984$38eg5$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "David Ray" <da...@timecalc.com> wrote in message
> news:RE1N8.25676$dl1.2352476332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> > I believe that artistic creativity usurps the sheer intellect that
> most
> > conservatives possess.
> >
> > It is no coincidence that liberals tend to be shallow thinkers who
> can't
> > comprehend the consequences of their liberalism. Barbara Streisand is
> a
> > fine singer; but she hasn't a clue about politics, foreign affairs,
> fiscal
> > matters. Same is true with most other performing artists. And with
> > journalists.
>
> Journalists lean to the left because they deal with the news all day
> long, so are better informed than average folk. They are around
> politicians all the time and see the sheer duplicity of every single one
> of them. Better educated. Generally well spoken.
>
Journalists are - for the most part - as dumb as napkins at a fundraiser.
"Dealing with the news all day" usually means learning your cues, or (in
print) having your staff polish your idiocies, and - if you're lucky -
getting to hang out with the rich and powerful: where you get your
information. And I've seen far too many "talkiing heads" praising politicans
for the stupidest actions to believe they "see through" anything but a gauze
veil. And being a registered Democrat these days doesn't put a "left
listing" in anyone's spine, and since almost all journalists (no matter what
their vague party choice may be) are employed by massively rich and usually
conservative bosses, what we get is warmed-over and half-baked poppycock for
the most part.
dmh
Mister Charlie
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@news.citilink.com> wrote in message
news:ug9hn4q...@corp.supernews.com...
sure.
Nothing to see here.
dlarsson
> left when it comes to politics. The rockers, the rappers tend to show
> up for Democratic candidates and they campaign on left-wing issues. I
> am not saying that is good or bad. It just is.
Well look what has happened in 2 years since the Republican's
(Kathrin Harris, Jeb Bush, Antonio Scalia, Clarence Thomas,
William Renquist, FOX News Network, et. all) highjacked Florida
away from Al Gore (the popular vote winner by a greater margin
than Nixon in '68 and Kennedy in '60):
Is our economy now stronger or is it weaker -?
Is our water cleaner or is it less regulated and more toxic -?
Do we have empowering budget surpluses or crippling budget deficits -?
Do you feel your job is more secure or less secure -?
Is it technology, or, (instead) the wishes of
and profitablity of Oil company monopolies
that determine U.S. Engery policy and consumer prices -?
Are we more engaged or less engaged in World Diplomacy -?
Is War less or more certain (than 1992 - 2000) -?
Is the World more or less stable -?
Are Prescription Drugs more or less attainable -?
Are you making more money or less money from savings, stock market -?
Is Government more open or more secretive -?
Do you trust the FBI and CIA more or trust them less -?
Do you have more or less freedom of speech -?
Is gun violence less or more likely -?
Is less or more taxpayer money diverted to
(specific) sanctioned Religious Institutions -?
Are we doing more or (instead) less to protect the environment -?
Is your quality of life better or worse -?
Is the quality of life for future generations better or worse -?
In short, by any yardstick you choose to apply, we were
far, far better off during the Clinton-Gore management
of this country .. than we are today under Bush/Cheney.
I think more than just Musician's will begin to realize
this ... as they are standing on the unemployment line,
filing for bankruptcy, watching their Electricity bills
artificially rise, watching their savings diminish,
choking on their drinking water, seeing TV shows like
"Politicially Incorrect" get canceled, or looking out
at a depressed country engaged in War without end
... which was preventable in the first place
(while Dick Cheney hid in his secret bunker).
"They don't want to just dismantle Clinton's policies,
they want to dismantle Roosevelt's (FDR) as well."
-Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton
- Derek Larsson
Sean Carroll
>Most musicians, singers, producers and songwriters tend to tilt to the
>left when it comes to politics. The rockers, the rappers tend to show
>up for Democratic candidates and they campaign on left-wing issues.
Since when are Democratic candidates on the left wing?? ;P
The Democratic Party is just the conservative wing of the
Anti-Progress Party that rules the US. (The Republicans are the
reactionary wing.) There are some liberal Democrats, but as far as I
can see none of them are candidates for or incumbents in high office.
David Ray
> Do you feel your job is more secure or less secure -?
>
I feel one HELL of a lot more secure than I would have if we had liberals in
office. Have you forgotten what Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton did to
this country? Total mismangement of foreign policy. One need only look at
the total amateurs Clinton had (Warren Christopher, Madelyn Albright, etc.)
to comprehend the mess we'd be in if Gore had been successful in stealing
the election.
Runnnerr
terrorists so that they wouldn't attack us again.
>Subject: Re: Why are most musicians liberal Democrats?
>From: "David Ray" da...@timecalc.com
>Date: 6/10/02 5:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <VU8N8.21811$KO7.211...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
Dale Houstman
"Runnnerr" <runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020610173720...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> No doubt about it. If Algore was in ofice, he'd be trying to negotiate
with the
> terrorists so that they wouldn't attack us again.
>
true. It's a nice cartoon image of a Democrat, but they've shown no
hesitation about using weapons lately, and Al Gore - after all - was the guy
who was constantly telling Clinton to move to the right on issues, so as to
de-power his opposition. And Al Gore's running mate, Lieberman, is easily as
rabid a "gun freak" as most Republicans. The real problem isn't that the
Republicans are "strong on defense" and the Democrats "spineless weenies"
but that there is essentially no difference to be found between the two
parties of corporate graft, and much of what we do militarily is decided by
weapons contractors and the need "to move product."
dmh
Jeff Mills
Bush won the election. Funny how the Democrats did not want those
overseas military ballots to be counted. I guess those votes don't
count, eh? What do you expect though from people who spat at Vietnam
veterans when they came home and called them "baby killers"?
derek_...@3com.com (dlarsson) wrote in message news:<cd359b2d.02061...@posting.google.com>...
Runnnerr
bombing, when our embassies in Africa were bombed, when the USS Cole was
bombed, they sure did a lot to make sure that those thigns never happened
again.
>Subject: Re: Why are most musicians liberal Democrats?
>From: "Dale Houstman" dm...@news.citilink.com
>Date: 6/10/02 6:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <uga91bf...@corp.supernews.com>
BballJunky
I am a conservative. But I think that in theory most of the good ideas are on
the side of the liberals. All the feel good ideas are on the side of the
liberals.
The problem is that many of the ideas for problem solving that come from the
liberal side don't work. Not that conservatives have a great track record at
solving problems either.
The main thing most of us should realize is that both sides need each other. It
is usually the squeeky wheel that gets the attention. The extreme elements of
both camps make the most noise and each side trys to paint the other by using
those extremists statements and deeds.
I wish that the arguments between the two sides would be less combative, but
that's not going to happen.
So far as musicians and actors, etc, being liberals. Hey, it feels good.
Everyone wants to end AIDS. Nobody wants world hunger. Most groups that support
these issues are seen as liberal groups, so that's who they side with. Make any
sense or am I rambling? Freddy
"In the battle between the rock and the stream, the stream wins. Not through
strength, but through perseverance."
David Ray
> with the
> > terrorists so that they wouldn't attack us again.
> >
> Actually, there's plenty of doubt about that. In fact, it's obviously not
> true. It's a nice cartoon image of a Democrat, but they've shown no
> hesitation about using weapons lately, and Al Gore - after all - was the
guy
> who was constantly telling Clinton to move to the right on issues, so as
to
> de-power his opposition.
This is utter nonsense. First of all, who said "using weapons" is the
solution to our current foreign policy crises? "Using weapons" is a
fraction of the total effort, one being flawlessly managed by the current
administration.
But the funny remark is the suggestion that Gore "TOLD" Clinton to do a
damned thing! Clinton, as we all know, does what the hell Clinton WANTS to
do. And he certainly doesn't need a nitwit like Gore to tell him what to do
politically.
I think you're illustrating the earlier point about the lack of intellect
possessed by many liberals.
BballJunky
Didn't we just have a major event that shook the stock market? Wasn't the
economy going into the doldrums before the elections? Yes to both. No matter
who was in office, the same things would be happening.
>> Is our water cleaner or is it less regulated and more toxic -?
Popular item to bring up. So, when Bush took office, the water got dirty?
>> Do we have empowering budget surpluses or crippling budget deficits -?
You are on to something there. But the problems that 9/11 brought are making us
spend more. And by the way, Bush rejected a plan by the house on the
anti-terrorism bill because they were spend more than he (his advisors) see
fit.
> Do you feel your job is more secure or less secure -?
My job is as secure as it's been since I took it.
>> Is it technology, or, (instead) the wishes of
>> and profitablity of Oil company monopolies
>> that determine U.S. Engery policy and consumer prices -?
Is it the middle east that has slowed production that drives up our oil costs?
Is it some future thinking Reps and Dems who want to look at what we can
develop here for fuel?
>> Are we more engaged or less engaged in World Diplomacy -?
Come on, you didn't just ask that, did you?
>> Is War less or more certain (than 1992 - 2000) -?
Wow.....are you aware of the attack that was launched on the US in September?
>> Is the World more or less stable -?
>>
Has the world ever been stable? Why didn't Clinton/Gore go ahead and solve the
problems in the mid-East when they had the chance? You know why they didn't?
Because only those involved will end that conflict.
>> Are Prescription Drugs more or less attainable -?
Is there a difference? Have any bills been passed that have made them more OR
less available? I'm not kidding...if there has been I'd like to know.
>> Are you making more money or less money from savings, stock market -?
>>
Less. Again, the stock market is shaken by world events, and we have had many
of those in recent months.
>> Is Government more open or more secretive -?
I'd say more secretive. In ways, I like that. In ways I don't. I LIKE the fact
that they didn't spill it that they arrested a US citizen for attempting to
make a "dirty bomb" and use it. I DON"T LIKE the fact that our government had
some evidence that there would be an attack on our soil and decided not to at
least let us know of the threat. You can blame this on the Clinton and Bush
administrations. It seems that things will be more streamlined from now on.
>> Do you trust the FBI and CIA more or trust them less -?
I don't know if it's trust.....the question may be do you have any faith that
they can protect the country more effectively.
>> Do you have more or less freedom of speech -?
Not much of an issue, there. You can say anything you want.
>> Is less or more taxpayer money diverted to
>> (specific) sanctioned Religious Institutions -?
I dont' mind so long as it's going to help people who need it. What's the
difference if a church uses money to feed the hungry or the government. The
church isn't putting restricitons on who gets the goods, if they are they
should be shut out of the program.
>> Are we doing more or (instead) less to protect the environment -?
>>
Maybe a little less.
>> Is your quality of life better or worse -?
My quality of life is fine. I've saved more money over the course of the last 2
1/2 years than I ever have before. I got a nice raise this year. Yeah it's
fine.
>> Is the quality of life for future generations better or worse -?
That is going to be determined by the middle East, our national security, and
the will of the people.
>> In short, by any yardstick you choose to apply, we were
>> far, far better off during the Clinton-Gore management
>> of this country .. than we are today under Bush/Cheney.
That's false, comparitively speaking. There is no way you can compare peace
time to war time. Clinton did a good job of not messing up what was a good time
for the country fiscally speaking. Bush has a basket full of problems. It's not
fair or right for the two to be compared at this point.
If you are bitter over the fact that Bush is in office, do your part and get
out and make sure he isn't back. If you don't like some problems we are having
as a nation, give your time and money to those things that will improve what
you see as faults. Saying one is better than the other is a waste of time. Take
your kids to the park and teach them things that will make them better people
and citizens. Make an example for others in yourself. You took the time to
write the questions, I thought I should answer them from my perspective. There
is no sense in flaming back, if what you want is a fight. I won't argue. It's
not worth the time and it doesn't help anything.
in)>seeing TV shows like
>> "Politicially Incorrect" get canceled,
Oh, come on. Was anyone watching Bill anymore?
FREDDY (lurker, that de-lurked....back to lurk mode)
David Ray
> I am a conservative. But I think that in theory most of the good ideas are
on
> the side of the liberals. All the feel good ideas are on the side of the
> liberals.
>
> The problem is that many of the ideas for problem solving that come from
the
> liberal side don't work. Not that conservatives have a great track record
at
> solving problems either.
It isn't a good idea if it isn't implementable. That's the problem. In an
ideal world, you could give everyone and endless supply of material items,
and everyone would still work hard to produce whatever they can. We know,
of course, that this doesn't work in real life. So, only capitalism works.
And the liberals can't stand capitalism. They want economic equality for
all, which is in direct opposition to the fundamental premise of capitalism.
>
> So far as musicians and actors, etc, being liberals. Hey, it feels good.
> Everyone wants to end AIDS. Nobody wants world hunger. Most groups that
support
> these issues are seen as liberal groups, so that's who they side with.
Make any
> sense or am I rambling? Freddy
Quoting Steve Miller:
"There's a solution ... I'm going to 'Fly Like an Eagle'". Now, THERE is a
solution for you!
dlarsson
> I feel one HELL of a lot more secure than I would have if we had liberals
in
> office. Have you forgotten what Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton did to
> this country? Total mismangement of foreign policy. One need only look
at
> the total amateurs Clinton had (Warren Christopher, Madelyn Albright,
etc.)
> to comprehend the mess we'd be in if Gore
Nonsense ... you have no grasp on reality.
It has been the -"amatuerish" - Bush-Cheney administration
that:
- withdrew from the Nuclear Arms testing treaty (inciting a new age
of world Nuclear tensions),
- withdrew from the Kyoto environmental treaty (making us the
laughing stock of much of the world),
-has been utterly clueless about how to handle the Middle-East
(from ignoring it completely, to advocating Israel retailiation,
mixing confusing messages of peace and violence on a daily basis),
-seeks to waste 200 billion - 400 billion dollars of taxpayer money we
do not have on a totally futile, unworkable, breakable, "Star Wars"
smoke and mirrors
show that provides no true "national security" and has just angered the
rest of the world,
-seeks to maintain a proven failed policy of blocking all trade,
supplies,
and travel with Cuba - despite reform being aided by open policy (the
exact opposite) ,
-... and ... if that isn't enough ..... this bonehead, son-of-a-Bush
administration had well in-advance several specific intelligence warnings
of
a terrorist attack before Sept. 11 2001 ... involving flying planes
into buildings, terrorists wanting to learn how to crash planes,
specific individuals .... and did -nothing- to stop it!!
Not even one phone call to an airport telling them what to watch out
for.
Nothing!!!
- oh yeah, in addition, it still has yet to find Osama Bin Laden ...
whooops...
yet we have bombed and killed over 5,000 innocent Afghanistan civilians
(while the actual terrorists were Saudi Arabians ... who we are -not-
bombing).
This adminstration is not only a total failure on foreign policy ... it's
hear-no-evil .. see-no evil .. handling of pre-Sept. 11 events followed
by direct lies to the public afterward ... borderlines on (geniune)
Treason and Abuse of Office.
In contrast:
Under Clinton/Gore we had 8 years of relative peace and positive
World relations, were admired internationally for our peace keeping
efforts, had several terrorist Y2K related plots stopped
dead in their tracks, and in addition, tyrant Sloabadon Milloshivic was
defeated and outsted from power.
As for Kennedy, he only prevented World War III itself ... during the
Missile Crisis,
created the first ever Nuclear (test ban) treaty, and instructed the
miliatry
to withdraw all troops from Vietnam (prior to the deployment of any ground
troops)
in 1963 (declassified documents prove this).
Carter had far more successes than failures .. with the "hostage crisis"
a fallout of clandestine CIA (right-wing) policy ... not Carter himself
and Carter the man responsible for actually negotiating their release
(with no loss of life). His post-Presidency has re-proven his
command of this arena. During Carter's 4 full years we were at peace.
-Derek
===========================================
Derek Larsson EMail: dlar...@rcn.com
===========================================
Jones
they have, or how they will support themselves in their old age. It's
interesting that the people who make culture have little or no interest
in preserving the civilization which nurtures it, and the people who
preserve civilization see the continuing evolution of culture as a
threat.
At any rate, liberals need conservatives more than conservatives need
liberals. Somebody has to ensure the petroleum supply while the free
spirits are off at Woodstock getting naked. Somebody has to stock the
fridge while myopic dreamers sit in their windows cradling their guitars
and stare at the park, wondering what chords to strum today.
Timothy J
David Ray
>
> It has been the -"amatuerish" - Bush-Cheney administration
> that:
>
> - withdrew from the Nuclear Arms testing treaty (inciting a new age
> of world Nuclear tensions),
The liberals, who have traditionally been the most squeemish about nuclear
proliferation, have been totally useless in doing anything about.
Meanwhile, strong conservative presidents like Reagan and now Bush have
actually DONE something about it. Don't give me that crap; Bush has done
more to reduce nuclear tensions in a year (a busy one, at that) than Clinton
did in his entire 8 years.
>
> - withdrew from the Kyoto environmental treaty (making us the
> laughing stock of much of the world),
Bush didn't cave and sign away our sovereignty like freaking liberals have
done for the last eight years. As to the rest of the world laughing, who
gives a crap?
> -has been utterly clueless about how to handle the Middle-East
> (from ignoring it completely, to advocating Israel retailiation,
> mixing confusing messages of peace and violence on a daily basis),
>
Huh? The MidEast crisis has been handled with absolute expertise. I
shudder to think what would have happened had we had a liberal (worse yet, a
totally incompetent one) at the helm. I'm not sure what you think you could
criticize Bush's handling of these huge crises about, but everytime the
liberals think they have something to beat him up about they end up
withdrawing their statements. At this point, neither Daschle nor Gephart
could say shit if they had a mouthful of it.
>
> This adminstration is not only a total failure on foreign policy ...
it's
> hear-no-evil .. see-no evil .. handling of pre-Sept. 11 events
followed
> by direct lies to the public afterward ... borderlines on (geniune)
> Treason and Abuse of Office.
This administration has accomplished more in 18 months than Clinton did in 8
years -- and at the same time managed the greatest foreign policy crisis
since WWII. Impressive, I'd say.
>
> In contrast:
> Under Clinton/Gore we had 8 years of relative peace and positive
> World relations, were admired internationally for our peace keeping
> efforts, had several terrorist Y2K related plots stopped
> dead in their tracks, and in addition, tyrant Sloabadon Milloshivic was
> defeated and outsted from power.
It is easy to have peace when you let the Saddam Husseins of the world run
over you, which is precisely what we did during the Clinton administration.
Clinton inherited a weak Saddam Hussein, and over eight years we saw Saddam
return to being a threat. How can you POSSIBLY make such a stupid
statement?
> As for Kennedy, he only prevented World War III itself ... during the
> Missile Crisis,
> created the first ever Nuclear (test ban) treaty, and instructed the
> miliatry
> to withdraw all troops from Vietnam (prior to the deployment of any
ground
> troops)
> in 1963 (declassified documents prove this).
FYI, Kennedy STARTED Vietnam, a war in which the liberals cost us 58,000
lives.
> Carter had far more successes than failures .. with the "hostage crisis"
> a fallout of clandestine CIA (right-wing) policy ... not Carter himself
> and Carter the man responsible for actually negotiating their release
> (with no loss of life). His post-Presidency has re-proven his
> command of this arena. During Carter's 4 full years we were at peace.
>
>
Carter was incompetent as a president (hell, I voted for him -- man, I must
have been a dumbass back then). He continues to be incompetent today.
David Ray
> >> Is Government more open or more secretive -?
>
> I'd say more secretive. In ways, I like that. In ways I don't. I LIKE the
fact
> that they didn't spill it that they arrested a US citizen for attempting
to
> make a "dirty bomb" and use it. I DON"T LIKE the fact that our government
had
> some evidence that there would be an attack on our soil and decided not to
at
> least let us know of the threat. You can blame this on the Clinton and
Bush
> administrations. It seems that things will be more streamlined from now
on.
>
I don't have a problem with more secrecy in certain areas. But it is absurd
for anyone who witnessed the corruption of the Clinton administration to
criticize the current administration on this issue. Remember, it was
Clinton who sold pardons to the highest bidder in the final hours of his
failed presidency. It was Clinton who lied under oath. It was Clinton who
lied about the missing documents. The list goes on.
dlarsson
> And time after time again the same result comes back that George W.
> Bush won the election. Funny how the Democrats did not want those
> overseas military ballots to be counted. I guess those votes don't
> count, eh?
Jeff, this is just totally 180-degress wrong and inaccurate.
I suggest you read the full report about this (carefully):
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/071601a.html
1) Miltary ballots that were sent in postmarked -after- the
election (with some also having improper address information)
and were -edited by Republican operatives- and counted for
George Bush despite clear violation of election laws.
Patriotism was never the issue.
Were these at any time legal votes -?
Answer: No ..
2) Legally registered voters (in just Democratic counties)
were stopped and prevented from voting after being
unkowingly -purged and deleted- from the voter rolls
prior to the election by the Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris
operation.
3) The recount "results" were reported incompletely in newspapers
(without factoring-in the counting of overvotes) .. the full
recount
process - yielded the verdict that Gore won Florida by
-any standard- applied (chads, etc.) -and- this did not even
take into account the thousand or more Democratic voters that
were deleted and purged from the voter rolls by Katherine Harris
and Jeb Bush's operation (before the election) denying them
the -right-
to participate or the use of improper absentee ballots to pad the
Bush total.
Read the articles ....... you've got it wrong .here .....
> What do you expect though from people who spat at Vietnam
> veterans when they came home and called them "baby killers"?
This is a separate issue of course .... nothing to do with the
events of 2000 - 2002 and the clear mess this country is in now
both domestically and on the world stage (under Republican leadership).
- Derek
___________________________________________________________________________
dlarsson
> No doubt about it. If Algore was in ofice, he'd be trying to negotiate
with the
> terrorists so that they wouldn't attack us again.
It was George Bush who LET THE TERRORISTS attack us
despite numerous, specific intelligence warnings (then lied
to us about it).
If Al Gore was President ... we'd be driving high-technology cars,
be far less dependent on pirating the World's international Oil Supplies
(via CIA, Wars, and sponsering terrorists themselves) .... as a result
we
would not have terroristsc 'hating'c the U.S. in the first place.
-Derek
dlarsson
> > It has been the -"amatuerish" - Bush-Cheney administration
> > that:
> >
> > - withdrew from the Nuclear Arms testing treaty (inciting a new age
> > of world Nuclear tensions),
> Bush has done
> more to reduce nuclear tensions in a year than Clinton
> did in his entire 8 years.
How ignorant.
Tell that to people in Pakistan, India, Korea, or China
Tell that to "Star Wars" concerned Russia.
f.y.i., the reported "Nuclear reduction" pact between Russia and the
U.S.
only implemented a portion of what was already negoiated during the
Clinton adminstration. Meanwhile, "Star Wars" and hostile dialog
with Korea has set back real progress and re-ignited Nuclear tensions.
> > - withdrew from the Kyoto environmental treaty (making us the
> > laughing stock of much of the world),
>
> Bush didn't cave and sign away our sovereignty
"Sovereignty" has nothing to do with it.
Saving the planet from greenhouse gases is a mutual cause.
> > -has been utterly clueless about how to handle the Middle-East
> > (from ignoring it completely, to advocating Israel retailiation,
> > mixing confusing messages of peace and violence on a daily basis),
> Huh? The MidEast crisis has been handled with absolute expertise.
Now .. you are just being silly.
The Middle-East has been a total mess and a rudderless Bush adminstration
mixing messages and actions every day ... has been an illustration of
total incompetence.
> > This adminstration is not only a total failure on foreign policy ...
> it's
> > hear-no-evil .. see-no evil .. handling of pre-Sept. 11 events
> followed
> > by direct lies to the public afterward ... borderlines on
(geniune)
> > Treason and Abuse of Office.
>
> This administration has accomplished more in 18 months than Clinton did in
8
> years
Well on this we can agree.
This adminstration got some 3,500 - 4000 U.S. people killed within our
own borders creating the worst embarassment since the Pearl Harbor
attack.
We never had a foreign disaster like that during the Clinton years ...
> managed the greatest foreign policy crisis
> since WWII. Impressive, I'd say.
Bombing over 5,000 innocent civilians in Afghanistan
.. while the real terrorists were Saudi Arabian's and
letting Osama Bin Laden escape ... oh yeah ... that's
really 'managing' the crisis (he helped create) real well ...
Oh yeah and more secrecy in Government ... that's a heathly thing....
Impressive as an Enron stock collapse.
> > In contrast:
> > Under Clinton/Gore we had 8 years of relative peace and positive
> > World relations, were admired internationally for our peace keeping
> > efforts, had several terrorist Y2K related plots stopped
> > dead in their tracks, and in addition, tyrant Sloabadon Milloshivic
was
> > defeated and outsted from power.
> It is easy to have peace when you let the Saddam Husseins of the world run
> over you,
Clinton directed bombing runs against Saddam Hussein ..
.... meanwhile the CIA's George H.W.Bush helped
create and sponser Saddam Hussein in the first place
(as was also the case with Osama Bin Laden - who we've
decided we're not really going to kill after all).
If it was so simple for Clinton to dispose of Hussein than how come
neither G. Bush Sr. nor .. two years of W-bonzo failed?
> FYI, Kennedy STARTED Vietnam,
Nonsense, the policy against Laos and Southeast Asia was inherited
from the Eisenhower administration. During Kennedy's presidency
we only had military advisors there .... no ground troops at any time
... no combat ... no carpet bombing ..no napalm. Kennedy also
knew South Vietnam would ultimately have to stand on its own
and instructed a full withdrawal of all U.S. forces in 1963.
Declassified documents prove this. There would have been
no Vietnam War at all had Kennedy not been killed.
> > Carter had far more successes than failures .. with the "hostage
crisis"
> > a fallout of clandestine CIA (right-wing) policy ... not Carter
himself
> > and Carter the man responsible for actually negotiating their release
> > (with no loss of life). His post-Presidency has re-proven his
> > command of this arena. During Carter's 4 full years we were at
peace.
> Carter was incompetent as a president.
> He continues to be incompetent today.
Carter was a stronger diplomat and negoitator than
a day to day politician. But he was also honest.
And we never had any kind of a totally preventable
forwarned, Sept. 11-like attack on our country
while he was preseident.
-Derek
David Ray
>
> It was George Bush who LET THE TERRORISTS attack us
> despite numerous, specific intelligence warnings (then lied
> to us about it).
> If Al Gore was President ... we'd be driving high-technology cars,
> be far less dependent on pirating the World's international Oil
Supplies
> (via CIA, Wars, and sponsering terrorists themselves) .... as a
result
> we
> would not have terroristsc 'hating'c the U.S. in the first place.
Yeh, Yeh, Yeh.
Another Yellow Dog has spoken...
The Rooster
news:dcaccavo-864E51...@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> > > country singers Republican? ...
I don't think they are.
David Ray
Bush Administration for 9/11.
There's no sense in discussing these issues with you. It is clear you don't
have the intellect.
"dlarsson" <dlar...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:ae3l7d$dks$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
The Rooster
+- +- +- +-news:J9dN8.27563$wO1.245...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Ehtue
Please don't crosspost your articles to rec.music.beatles. They belong in a
political realm, not a music one.
-Ehtue
Ehtue
Please don't crosspost your ariticles to rec.music.beatles. They belong in a
political realm, not a music-related one. Thanks.
-Ehtue
The Rooster
> C'mon. You can't possibly be as stupid as these remarks sound. Blaming
the
> Bush Administration for 9/11.
The Bush administration didn't fly airplanes in the WTC.
*BUT*, apparently when the Bush admistration took office, it downgraded
terrorism as the main enemy (which the Clinton administration was supposedly
concentrating on) and refocused on the war/straw man on drugs. And
supposedly failed to heed a warning from Clinton's transistion team - that
Bin Laden would end up being the focus of the Bush administration.
dlarsson
> >> Is our economy now stronger or is it weaker -?
>
> Didn't we just have a major event that shook the stock market? Wasn't the
> economy going into the doldrums before the elections? Yes to both. No
matter
> who was in office, the same things would be happening.
Not exactly.
From the day Bush was (illegitimately) selected the "winner"
(despite having fewer votes and an obvious partisan Florida recount
process
under the control of Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush's campaign
people) .... Dick Cheney and Bush began TALKING DOWN the
economy and world markets ... in an effort to provide justification
for their tax-cut bonanza to wealthy ellitists.
Two things happened. The psychology of the economy was sent
into turmoil (after the optimistic Clinton-Gore growth years) and
secondary, the tax cut itself ... was easily demonstrated to return
the U.S. Government back into deficit spending ... thereby
creating the Red-Ink economy we now have today.
> >> Is our water cleaner or is it less regulated and more toxic -?
>
> Popular item to bring up. So, when Bush took office, the water got dirty?
No. When Bush took office we had a rollback of water standards
(such as Arsenic) and new laws replacing mandatory toxic cleanups
with "voluntary" toxic cleanups .... Less regulated means
ultimately poorer quality and .. yes "dirtier" water.
> >> Do we have empowering budget surpluses or crippling budget
deficits -?
>
> You are on to something there. But the problems that 9/11 brought are
making us
> spend more. And by the way, Bush rejected a plan by the house on the
> anti-terrorism bill because they were spend more than he (his advisors)
see
> fit.
The real issue is total fiscal mismanagment.
Wasting billions of dollars on "Estate Tax" relief for
multi-millionaires
(while your kids can't afford to even go to college) ... helps
nobody.
Much of the 9/11 spending (100 billion bonanza for the defense dept.
and clandestine intelligence agencies) was unnecessary ... since the
root problem was that people heard the warnings ... and simply
failed to take actions to alert airports or capture the hijackers on
student visa's. The real problem was either incompetence
or corruption .... not a lack of an extra 100 billion dollars out of
taxpayers pockets!!
> > Do you feel your job is more secure or less secure -?
>
> My job is as secure as it's been since I took it.
Consider yourself lucky.
Unemployment is now pushing -7- percent.
The highest since the last time a Bush was running the show......
> >> Is it technology, or, (instead) the wishes of
> >> and profitablity of Oil company monopolies
> >> that determine U.S. Engery policy and consumer prices -?
>
> Is it the middle east that has slowed production that drives up our oil
costs?
No ... it is Dick Cheney huddling in secret with Enron executives
creating the California energy crisis (and blackouts) and driving
up consumer costs by manipulating supply ... if the truth be
told. This was done to make California Gov. Gray Davis
"look bad" (who the Republican's wish to overthrow) and
and to create economic havic intentionally to bloster the
support for the illogical "give money to people who don't need it"
Republican tax policy.
> >> Are we more engaged or less engaged in World Diplomacy -?
>
> Come on, you didn't just ask that, did you?
Abdication of the Nuclear Test Ban treaty with Russia,
Abdication of the Kyoto Environment treaty,
Disengagement with the Middle-East (until a bloodbath erupted),
Promotion of "Star Wars" creating new hostilities and new Nuclear
tensions,
Clearly we are less engaged and less wise ... with this drunk driver
running the show.
> >> Is War less or more certain (than 1992 - 2000) -?
>
> Wow.....are you aware of the attack that was launched on the US in
September?
Read Above .... (which made War more certain prior to Sept. 11)
And how can you not factor in the fact that this War ... was totally
preventable.
Nothing like this ever happen when anybody else was President ...
(since
Pearl Harbor). Bush is responsible for the total non-action to
detailed and specific warnings of flying planes into buildings.
> >> Is the World more or less stable -?
> >>
>
> Has the world ever been stable?
In relative terms we had 8 years or peace and prosperity under
Clinton-Gore.
We no longer live in such an optimistic age .... 5,0000 innocent
Afghanistan civilians
are dead ... while the true terrorists, the Saudi Arabians, go free as
also goes
Osama Bin Laden himself.
> >> Are Prescription Drugs more or less attainable -?
>
> Is there a difference? Have any bills been passed that have made them more
OR
> less available?
This, full-covereage, was a priority for Al Gore and the Democratic
Party.
It is a non-priority for Bush and the Republicans and when
even some of them refer to this topic ... they only address
"catastrophic" coverage .... not coverage help that would
help 80% of senoir citizens ... trying to choose between
paying mortagages, paying for food, or getting their medication.
> >> Are you making more money or less money from savings, stock
market -?
> >>
>
> Less. Again, the stock market is shaken by world events, and we have had
many
> of those in recent months.
Not the least of which was:
1. A talking down of the economy
2. The Enron manipulated Energy and Blackout Crisis
3. The Enron collaspe itself
4. The Bush Tax Cut and a return back to U.S. Budget deficits
5. An attack on our country ... that was preventable by the
adminstration
6. Confusing statements and hostile remarks made against other
countries
(not involved in the terrorists attacks)
7. Plans for a "Star Wars" buildup .. and a new era of Nuclear cat and
mouse.
> >> Is Government more open or more secretive -?
>
> I'd say more secretive. In ways, I like that.
Secrecy and Democracy are opposing concepts.
Secrecy exists only to protect the CIA (terrorism activity of its own)
protect the military (mistakes or horror), protect the adminstration.
If the sex life minutia of Bill Clinton was so damn important that
-THAT- had to be disclosed and published and broadcast (despite
being part of Grand Jury testimony) .... then we need to monitor
and know about the real policies and real actions our Government
is taking ... and FAILED TO TAKE prior to September 11.
Lives and freedom are at stake here.
> >> Do you trust the FBI and CIA more or trust them less -?
>
> I don't know if it's trust.....the question may be do you have any faith
that
> they can protect the country more effectively.
Are they truthful? Do they disclose their errors (when they happen)
or try and cover it up?
> >> Do you have more or less freedom of speech -?
>
> Not much of an issue, there. You can say anything you want.
Tell that to Bill Maher of TV's Politically Incorrect
who was first admonished by Ari Fletcher (Bush Press Secretary)
and then just like the old "Smother Brothers" TV show
... had his show canceled on him.
I don't call that freedom of speech... in addition, any time
someone in congress questions the administration actions
(which have proven to be extremely dubious) ... Dick Cheney
goes on TV and badmouths them as traitors and anti-Amercians.
The most patriotic thing someone can do ... is be a
whistleblower ... and alert people to danger and try
and improve the actions our Government is taking.
> >> Is less or more taxpayer money diverted to
> >> (specific) sanctioned Religious Institutions -?
>
> I dont' mind so long as it's going to help people who need it.
You mean like multi-billionaire Pat Robertson?
or these Tax - Exempt religion fronts that act as Political arms
of the Republican Party?
In any case, Government sponsered religion is a long ways away from
freedom of thought .... freedom of speech ... religious freedom.
> >> Are we doing more or (instead) less to protect the environment -?
>
> Maybe a little less.
Something that may effect your kids ... far more one day than yourself
> >> Is your quality of life better or worse -?
>
> My quality of life is fine. I've saved more money over the course of the
last 2
> 1/2 years than I ever have before. I got a nice raise this year. Yeah it's
> fine.
Consider yourself lucky ... meanwhile -7- unemployment
is a clear sign of the point I am making (as well as all other
economic barometers of significance).
> >> In short, by any yardstick you choose to apply, we were
> >> far, far better off during the Clinton-Gore management
> >> of this country .. than we are today under Bush/Cheney.
>
> That's false, comparitively speaking. There is no way you can compare
peace
> time to war time. Clinton did a good job of not messing up what was a good
time
> for the country fiscally speaking. Bush has a basket full of problems.
It's not
> fair or right for the two to be compared at this point.
Clinton inherited a "basket full of problems" when he took office.
He was staring at a 300 billion dollar annual budget deficit.
High unemployment, Low confidence in the economy.
His policies reverse the "Reaganomics"
rob-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich model and
brought prosperity to the middle class and working class
and fiscal solvency to the U.S. Government.
Bush took over in boom times and turned budget surpluses
back into budget deficits, fostered a bankrupt economy
and rising consumer costs via cooperations like Enron
and Halliburton. Recreated the Reaganomics Tax policy model
and roiled and shocked the markets and economy to the point
of a meltdown far more serious than anything we have yet
faced. The collaspe of the Nasdaq from 5000 (year 2000)
down to (1500) is a 75% collaspe .... far greater than the
stock market crash of 1929.
The War itself was preventable by this administration ... all
someone had to do was pick up a phone and alert the airports
on what the intelligence reports already made clear.
> in)>seeing TV shows like
> >> "Politicially Incorrect" get canceled,
>
> Oh, come on. Was anyone watching Bill anymore?
His ratings never varied too much.
For that time slot ... his show did very well.
The Rooster
greccogirl
while Clinton was in office? Ummmmmmmmm
The Rooster
news:3D056C3F...@yahoo.com...
> Warning from Clinton? Let's see, HOW many times did Osama attack us
> while Clinton was in office? Ummmmmmmmm
Enough for former President Clinton to know he was a problem (and to pass
that info onto President Bush), so it appears.
Stan,
www.thesequencers.com
nl: Coal Chamber on Rockline! (later Joe Satrioni!!!!)
David Ray
"Ehtue" <eh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020610225714...@mb-mq.aol.com...
Dale Houstman
"The Rooster" <St...@NeverFalls.com> wrote in message
news:DD3BE32AFEE6B57C.ECAE86FB...@lp.airnews.net...
> "greccogirl" <grecc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D056C3F...@yahoo.com...
> > Warning from Clinton? Let's see, HOW many times did Osama attack us
> > while Clinton was in office? Ummmmmmmmm
>
> Enough for former President Clinton to know he was a problem (and to pass
> that info onto President Bush), so it appears.
>
>
Another question: how many dollars and weapons did the Reagan and Bush team
pass on to Osama when he was just another of our "friends"? There's always
plenty of blame to go around, and attempts to divide the shame up between
Democrats/Republicans is a losing game that takes your eye off the real
crimes. Actually, most political and military problems have a long lineage
and are impossible to pin on one donkey - or elephant. It is overall policy
that guides the process, and there are certain weapons policies, and foreign
adventurism policies that are accepted as "just the way it is" by both
parties, no matter who occupies that Punch And Judy stage called the White
House, or who has minimum control of that pack of grafters and liars and
sycophants called the Congress.
dmh
Mister Charlie
"Kavisd" <kavisd t...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:mg5N8.31746$pA4.76...@news.tor.primus.ca...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:ae2984$38eg5$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...> > news:RE1N8.25676$dl1.2352476332@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> > > I believe that artistic creativity usurps the sheer intellect that
> > most
> > > conservatives possess.
> > >
> > > It is no coincidence that liberals tend to be shallow thinkers who
> > can't
> > > comprehend the consequences of their liberalism. Barbara
Streisand is
> > a
> > > fine singer; but she hasn't a clue about politics, foreign
affairs,
> > fiscal
> > > matters. Same is true with most other performing artists. And
with
> > > journalists.
> >
> > Journalists lean to the left because they deal with the news all day
> > long, so are better informed than average folk.
>
> That depends if the stories are approved by a few people in charge,
though.
> Even stories from around the world are filtered depending on whether
certain
> people at AP, Reuters, etc... feel that they are worth printing in the
US.
To a degree. The raw newswires spit out content all day, but you're
right, someone somewhere on the other end has made the editorial
decision to present this story or not, and to a degree how.
But that's not the point. Neither was Dales pretty and shallow anchor
assertion (not tha I'm saying that was wrong). Most hard working news
people and reporters and journalists are immersed in whats going on.
They don't blindly follow leaders (usually) when they've seen enough to
know what the sucker bets are all about.
It's an education of the highest order, real life (again, more or less).
Mister Charlie
"AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs" <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com>
wrote in message news:ae2sr...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 06:22:48 -0700, in article
> <ae2984$38eg5$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de>, "Mister stated:
>
>
> >Journalists lean to the left because they deal with the news all day
> >long, so are better informed than average folk.
>
>
bias
> exists. I suppose its gotten to the point where its impossible to be
blind to
> it.
>
>
Well, 'utterly silly *is* a rather nice way to tell me I'm full of it.
Of course, with 24 hour news operations and cable channels desperate for
sellable content, there is plenty of bias in the media now. It's
encouraged. Right or left, whatever, it's all a shell game. It boils
down to what "news" has been since its invention hundreds of years ago.
A vehicle to propagate advertising. Not truth, but to deliver scores of
readers/listeners/viewers/surfers to the advertisers.
They craft whole newschannels now to be 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
Like trolls, they can generate mini-faux-controversies (and the
occasional real one) and garner some ad bucks.
Mister Charlie
"Jones" <tlcr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17219-3D0...@storefull-2395.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Ain't it great?
I wonder what I'll play today.
Mister Charlie
Imaginary, I'd say. But keep on bleating it, someone might buy it if
you say it enough times.
Mister Charlie
"BballJunky" <bball...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020610190553...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> I think the argument of liberal vs conservative is just a no win
situation.
>
> I am a conservative. But I think that in theory most of the good ideas
are on
> the side of the liberals. All the feel good ideas are on the side of
the
> liberals.
>
> The problem is that many of the ideas for problem solving that come
from the
> liberal side don't work. Not that conservatives have a great track
record at
> solving problems either.
>
other. It
> is usually the squeeky wheel that gets the attention. The extreme
elements of
> both camps make the most noise and each side trys to paint the other
by using
> those extremists statements and deeds.
>
> I wish that the arguments between the two sides would be less
combative, but
> that's not going to happen.
>
> So far as musicians and actors, etc, being liberals. Hey, it feels
good.
> Everyone wants to end AIDS. Nobody wants world hunger. Most groups
that support
> these issues are seen as liberal groups, so that's who they side with.
Make any
> sense or am I rambling? Freddy
through
> strength, but through perseverance."
Good for you, son. Very well and plainly stated. I'd shake your hand
but then I would get conservative cooties.
But you understand, right?
;-))
>
>
>
Mister Charlie
"BballJunky" <bball...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >> Is our economy now stronger or is it weaker -?
>
> Didn't we just have a major event that shook the stock market? Wasn't
the
> economy going into the doldrums before the elections? Yes to both. No
matter
> who was in office, the same things would be happening.
True. It should be pointed out that Clinton more or less inherited an
economy that was just starting its recovery swing. George Senior was
unable to utilyze this trend in his rather inept campaign (thankfully).
But Billy didn't invent the economy. No one person (save perhaps Alan
Greenspan) has the ability to affect the complex interactions that go
into the daily fluctuations.
.
>
> >> Are you making more money or less money from savings, stock
market -?
> >>
>
> Less. Again, the stock market is shaken by world events, and we have
had many
> of those in recent months.
Correct. This was a doubly traumatic wallop for Wall Street and as much
as I dislike Bush I can't see blaming him for the crisis. Now the
*recovery* efforts he comes up with will be in his lap.
>
> That's false, comparitively speaking. There is no way you can compare
peace
> time to war time. Clinton did a good job of not messing up what was a
good time
> for the country fiscally speaking. Bush has a basket full of problems.
It's not
> fair or right for the two to be compared at this point.
Well, again, that is more true than not.
Generally, reasoning should win out in the end, but flaming does garner
attention. Good all around post (even though I sense we are on opposite
poles politcally).
Mister Charlie
> >
> >
> > But that's not the point. Neither was Dales pretty and shallow
anchor
> > assertion (not tha I'm saying that was wrong). Most hard working
news
> > people and reporters and journalists are immersed in whats going on.
> > They don't blindly follow leaders (usually) when they've seen enough
to
> > know what the sucker bets are all about.
> >
>
would
> never have found out about Nixon's involvement with the Watergate
break-in.
> I'm just concerned that in the wake of 9/11, the journalists will
start
> blindly accepting everything the Gov't is saying as being the utter
and
> complete truth.
Boy it sure seems like it, dunnit?
Just this morning, as the news was breaking about the dirty bomb arrest,
they had few details and I caught the local anchor filling with a
patently absurd statement 'well, the government is working hard to fight
terorism' ot something to that effect. I doubt she even knows she said
it. But it's that solemn and subtle reinforcement that does get
worrisome.
Whatever happened to REAL war reporting anyway?
>
> --
>
> _______
> | /______ |8__________
> ( }B-) > -----(O) | ________(_| Peace Out!!!!
> ___^__ /-------------|__________(_|
> 8_|______/-----------
>
>
paramucho
<AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:13:18 -0700 (PDT), in article
><17219-3D0...@storefull-2395.public.lawson.webtv.net>, tlcr...@webtv.net
>stated:
>
>>At any rate, liberals need conservatives more than conservatives need
>>liberals. Somebody has to ensure the petroleum supply while the free
>>spirits are off at Woodstock getting naked. Somebody has to stock the
>>fridge while myopic dreamers sit in their windows cradling their guitars
>>and stare at the park, wondering what chords to strum today.
>>
>>Timothy J
>>
>
>
>I think that pretty much says it all.
>
>I just wish there was a label different than "liberal" to refer to the kind of
>people you're talking about. It's a shame that this grand old word, once full
>of such rich connotations, has come to be identified with the a left that's as
>reactionary as anything on the right ever was. These aren't "liberals" at all,
>really.
History has taken a different path in Australia. Over here the main
right of center party is called, you guessed it, the "Liberal Party".
Anyway, the difference between Left Of Center and Right Of Center is
pretty minimal these days. Voters don't get much of a real choice.
Ian
BballJunky
> creating the California energy crisis (and blackouts) and driving
> up consumer costs by manipulating supply
I just won't accept that as a viable answer. Your speculation on "secret
huddling" is just that, your speculation.
> Promotion of "Star Wars" creating new hostilities and new Nuclear
>tensions,
There are not any new nuclear tensions over that. And if there were, too bad.
We, as a nation should look in to ways to defend our soil. Especially with
India, and China (and others) not being on the most friendly terms with us and
having nukes.
> Nothing like this ever happen when anybody else was President
So it wouldn't have happened if Clinton was in office? Rubbish.
>Bush is responsible for the total non-action to
> detailed and specific warnings of flying planes into buildings.
So, that stuff was available in 1998....who was President?
> In relative terms we had 8 years or peace and prosperity under
>Clinton-Gore.
Perhaps had they been more astute in dealings around the world, hostility may
not have grown so large. Remember, the terrorists wanted to hurt our capitalist
society....which Clinton/Gore were very much apart of. And are you saying there
was NO terrorism against Americans while Clinton/Gore were in office?
> This, full-covereage, was a priority for Al Gore and the Democratic
>Party.
It wasn't much of a priority......Gore was the veep for 8 years and hell the
Democratic party has been around for quite awhile.
> .... not coverage help that would
> help 80% of senoir citizens ... trying to choose between
> paying mortagages, paying for food, or getting their medication.
Now you are in lock step with the DNC. That's garbage.
> Clinton inherited a "basket full of problems" when he took office.
> He was staring at a 300 billion dollar annual budget deficit.
If you are on who wants the world to be a safer and better place, you should
than Reagan for upping defense spending and crippling the Soviet Union.
>rob-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich model and
> brought prosperity to the middle class and working class
> and fiscal solvency to the U.S. Government.
Standard lines. It's not happening. I don't consider myself that lucky, as you
keep saying I am. I go out and work every day. I take care of my child and try
not to be wasteful. That's not luck, that's trying to do things right. Clinton
nor Bush have had very much control over my life. Don't let your hate for Bush
and Republicans, cloud common sense. Freddy
BballJunky
>terrorism as the main enemy (which the Clinton administration was supposedly
>concentrating on)
I've read it all now......
BballJunky
>while Clinton was in office? Ummmmmmmmm
How do you know that the attacks made on Americans overseas wasn't the plan of
BinLaden?
BballJunky
> despite numerous, specific intelligence warnings
Ridiculous.......and you know it is.
Runnnerr
remember. There were probably some others too. Perhaps bin Laden was behind the
first Trade Center bombing in 1994.
Let's not forget that the Sudanese made at least 2 offers to the great
stainmaker to hand over bin Laden.
I hope this answers your question, nitwit.
BlackMonk
I have to go to work in a little while. I guess that means I'm a
conservative. I never knew.
Dale Houstman
"Runnnerr" <runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020611074748...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> Well, let's see there were the embassies in Africa and the USS Cole that I
can
> remember. There were probably some others too. Perhaps bin Laden was
behind the
> first Trade Center bombing in 1994.
>
> Let's not forget that the Sudanese made at least 2 offers to the great
> stainmaker to hand over bin Laden.
And the Taliban made at least 2 offers to Bush to do exactly the same thing.
And did you know that on the day of the attacks, the U.S. government
chartered a plane to fly all of Osama's relatives out of the U.S.? Why?
Cause they're rich, and they were part of an ongoing deal to allow Cheney's
companies to build an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.
"I hope this answers your question, nitwit."
>
dmh
Dale Houstman
"BballJunky" <bball...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >No ... it is Dick Cheney huddling in secret with Enron executives
> > creating the California energy crisis (and blackouts) and driving
> > up consumer costs by manipulating supply
>
> I just won't accept that as a viable answer. Your speculation on "secret
> huddling" is just that, your speculation.
>
You yourself make a wilder speculation - with NO evidence - later, when you
ask how do we know the attacks on America overseas "weren't planned by
Osama"? How do we know they weren't planned by Hitler's clone, for that
matter?
> > Promotion of "Star Wars" creating new hostilities and new Nuclear
> >tensions,
>
> There are not any new nuclear tensions over that.
Actually there are, and it is such a prominent (and widely-reported) part of
the relations between Russia and China (and between other European and Asian
countries) that it is surprising you haven't heard of it. Shocking even! It
has been the subject of many conversations between our diplomats and
"their's" and so must be counted as a new tension. But it's all a moot
point: in the opinion of most respected scientists NOT paid for by the
government or the defense industry, the plan is unworkable. Put it this way:
even if we did get this marvelous "shield" up, where do you think the
radiactive material from the explosion of all those warheads would go? Into
a secret magic land where elves would clean it up and return it as garden
mulch and face powder? Nope: into your breakfast.
dmh
paramucho
<AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:51:58 GMT, in article
><3d088f9a...@news.supernews.com>, i...@beathoven.com stated:
>
>>History has taken a different path in Australia. Over here the main
>>right of center party is called, you guessed it, the "Liberal Party".
>>
>>Anyway, the difference between Left Of Center and Right Of Center is
>>pretty minimal these days. Voters don't get much of a real choice.
>
>
>In all likelihood, that reflects the composition of the populace.
>
>Clustering about the center may be fairly boring, and it may frustrate
>reactionaries and progressives, but the center is often a good place to be.
>Witness the polarization in France, which has essentially been dead in its
>tracks, doing nothing but navel-staring, for the last 40 years.
The center is where the votes are :-)
So, I think it's more a reflection of how democracy works in a media-
dominated electorate which shares generally similar goals.
Ian
83LowRider
"greccogirl" <grecc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Warning from Clinton? Let's see, HOW many times did Osama attack us
> while Clinton was in office? Ummmmmmmmm
How about the original attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, the attack of
our foreign embassy (i believe in one of the south african countries).
Clinton should be strung up in public for his letting these things pass.
Strabbo
news:ae3jch$6q7$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
> If Al Gore was President ... we'd be driving high-technology cars,
> be far less dependent on pirating the World's international Oil
> Supplies (via CIA, Wars, and sponsering terrorists themselves)
> .... as a result
> we
> would not have terroristsc 'hating'c the U.S. in the first place.
Already?
Gore would have wiped out America's dependance on oil within two years?
Wow.... he's, like, a god!
Marty
fiend999
83LowRider <da...@dot.com> wrote:
Are you uninformed or just lying?
Check out these links, then remember who was shrieking "wag the dog"
when Clinton DID try to do something.
1. 1993 WTC bombing: The perpetrators were hunted down, captured, put
on trial and summarily sentenced. Here's the news link to prove it -
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef/index.html - Too bad ditto-monkeys
are so blinded by hatred for Clinton they can't take the time to do a
little bit of fact finding.
2. 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia: They're referring to Riyadh. There
were arrests in this case and eventually it turned out that these
perpetrators were aligned with the same people who committed the Khobar
bombing a year later. Here's the news link -
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/28/saudi.probe.pm/ - Once again a little
fact finding reveals the lie behind the ditto-monkey charge that Clinton
did nothing.
3. 1996 Khobar Towers bombing: The investigation which started in the
Clinton administration ended up in indictments in June of this year.
Here's the news link -
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/21/khobar.indictments/ - And the silly
ditto-monkeys will try to give all the credit to Dumbya Bush I'm sure.
4. African embassy bombings: Two arrests in July of 1999.
Investigation shows links to Bin Laden. Here's the news link -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/eafri
cabo
mbing.htm
-
5. USS Cole bombing: An investigation (started by Clinton) resulted
in the arrest of 5 in Yemen including 2 Egyptians in January of this
year. Same investigation details links to Bin Laden and his group.
Here's the (yawn) news link -
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/yemen_usscole010111.html
David Ray
> people and reporters and journalists are immersed in whats going on.
> They don't blindly follow leaders (usually) when they've seen enough to
> know what the sucker bets are all about.
>
> It's an education of the highest order, real life (again, more or less).
Ridiculous statement. Have you never seen the media pile on, as in the case
of Chandra Levy, the current story on the missing child in Utah, or any of
thousands of other stories? It is a pasture full of cows wandering around
behind the "leader" -- whoever got the story out first.
These people don't think. Just watch the White House news conference a few
times and judge the quality (lack thereof) of the questions Ari gets asked.
Journalists, taken as a group, are T-Total idiots. From Sam Donaldson to
Wolf Blitzer to Peter Jennings to Dan Rather. There are occasional
exceptions (Bob Woodward, for example), but largely, these people have no
gumption whatsoever. They are just expressing their liberal views behind a
cloak of "journalism".
David Ray
the public having CNN's, NBC's, CBS's, & ABC's liberalism shoved down their
throats.
But the problem is ubiquitous. Look at Reuters' refusal to classify suicide
bombers as "terrorists". That pretty much says it all, I'd say...
"Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:ae3tpl$3o99u$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
David Ray
"buying" it.
Eramon1
discussion of some other subject. Hopefully we'll all forget this very quickly
because it is bringing out the absolute worst in us.
-Eric
Mister Charlie
There's no arguing with one as convinced of your mental superiority, so
I won't bother.
And truth be told, I only advanced that 'argument' to watch the usual
suspects (save for I/5) fall all over themselves frothing. I wasn't
disappointed.
Beyond the few figureheads and obvious targets mentioned, you all insult
the hard working people who do their stuff in total anonimity, but do it
honestly.
But then, generalizations are always easier than fact.
>
Mister Charlie
> The one "right" news channel (FOX) was created only in response to
years of
> the public having CNN's, NBC's, CBS's, & ABC's liberalism shoved down
their
> throats.
>
> But the problem is ubiquitous. Look at Reuters' refusal to classify
suicide
> bombers as "terrorists". That pretty much says it all, I'd say...
The average computer monitor can display 16 million colors.
Of which black and white are only two.
Learn to quit focusing on two colors.
Mister Charlie
> I think it is clear the American public, fed up with Democrat scandal,
is
> "buying" it.
You may think what you wish.
reality, however, grinds on within you and without you.
Mister Charlie
"Eramon1" <era...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020611112214...@mb-bd.aol.com...
especially if someone wants to tie the politics of knighthood and the
Queen into recent McCartney events. And no one is going to change
anyone else's mind so it gives the political animals a chance to yell
out their Very Important Thoughts on the state of the world, and then
recede into the woodwork for the real reason RMB is here, which is
music.
However, if we have anyone to thank for this latest blast of
controversy, it would be Jeff Mills.
I guess it was just too quiet over at Beatleland.
dlarsson
> pretty minimal these days. Voters don't get much of a real choice.
>
> Ian
This was the misguided thinking by some Nader-ites in the
2000 election. The differences are quite dramatic and
we have seen them play out already since the 2000 election.
- For starter's, the Republican's seek to waste 200-400 billion
dollars (that we don't have) on a futile, breakable
"Star Wars" military program ... which only destablizes the
world, encourages a new global nuclear technology race,
and provides no actual workable "security" to anyone.
Not only is this a waste of money ... it is also
not an illustration of "smaller government".
This is "big spending" with no social benefit.
- Another huge difference is Tax policy. Virtually all
Republican-based "tax cut" plans are based on
shifting large amounts of money to the top wealthiest 2%.
The plans are -recessionary- by definition
(creating large U.S. deficits, failing to provide any
benefit to the majority of americans, and prevents
the U.S. Gov. from allocating funds for growth-oriented
initiatives such as college education assistence,
job-training programs, investments in technological innovation,
workers benefits .. things that actually help people's
lives out (and thereby the tax-revenue-base/economy).
It is no coincidence that the two largest recessions
we have ever had .. occurred during the periods of the
highest U.S. deficits (created by Reaganomics and
the Bush tax plans) .. and our largest economic
boom period occurred during the reduction of U.S.deficits
and transition to surpluses (under the Clinton 1993 plan).
The words "Bush" and "recession" will be linked forever
in history no matter which decade or which person we are
talking about. That ideology is a proven failure.
Democrates, on the other hand, have typically
proposed more strategic, sensible, and workable,
Tax plans ... which involve credits and cuts
to help the middle class (majority of Americans)
and in some cases increases to the very top 1%
or rollbacks of -loopholes- (that only the wealthy
can exploit) ... which, factually, is no hardship
to anyone at all .. but succeeds in the mission of
getting the U.S. out of debt and improving the economy.
- Under Republican leadership, Enron and other Oil company
lobbists and executives met secretely with Republican
Dick Cheney to corrupt our U.S. Energy policy
(based on Oil interests and profits).
- Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties .. because education
funds and farm subsidies were being cut by Republicans.
If there is no "real choice" between Republican policies
and Democratic policies .. then why did Jeffords
switch parties (and Senate control) -?
Answer: To change policy ... i.e., a "real" choice!!
- The McCain-Fiengold bill passed -only- because
the Democratic Senate brought up the bill.
Republican Trent Lott wanted it killed (and it
never would have been voted on in the Senate
has Jim Jeffords -not- switched parties and changed
the Senate leadership).
- The Republicans have tried to turn protecting the
environment into a "4 letter" word (just as they
did with the word "liberal" .. which comes from
"liberty" ) and their scorched-earth, anti-regulation,
pro-cooperate polluter, environmental policies are a big setback.
Democrate Al Gore, on the other hand, wrote a detailed
book about protecting the environment (which included
replacing the internal combustion engine with modern
technological advances). A huge (global) difference.
- Under Republican Bush, the U.S. walked away from
the Nuclear weapon testing treaty .. setting
off a multi-country increase in nuclear tension
and nuclear development.
- Oh yeah, and good luck paying for your prescription drugs
when you get old at $300 a bottle .. if the Republican's
are writing the policies (with their Insurance-company friends)
... or hoping for a social security check.
- Derek
King Pineapple
>
> Check out these links, then remember who was shrieking "wag the dog"
> when Clinton DID try to do something.
Just curious, what exactly does Clinton's fecal matter taste like?
"I took a Semtex today. I feel fantastic"-Liberal dim-bulb Bill Maher,
babbling about plastic explosives.
fiend999
Pineapple <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bubba Publicist "fiend999" <dontspam...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Check out these links, then remember who was shrieking "wag the dog"
> > when Clinton DID try to do something.
>
> Just curious, what exactly does Clinton's fecal matter taste like?
Can't refute some facts huh? I am far from a Clinton apologist, but I
am getting pretty sick of the revisionist history surrounding his
administration, particulary the repeated lie about Clinton's supposed
inaction regarding bin Laden. If you can provide some support for the
claims that "Clinton did nothing" then go right ahead. Otherwise, keep
your obsession with things in Bill Clinton's pants to yourself.
Sagebrush
"Jeff Mills" <jm1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:979bfc75.02060...@posting.google.com...
> Most musicians, singers, producers and songwriters tend to tilt to the
> left when it comes to politics. The rockers, the rappers tend to show
> up for Democratic candidates and they campaign on left-wing issues. I
> am not saying that is good or bad. It just is. But why are most
> country singers Republican? Is it because the majority of country
> songs reflect conservative values more so than pop or rock music? Is
> it because of geography and where people are born? Most country
> singers are from the south which is predominantly conservative. Most
> pop and rock singers are from big cities like New York, Los Angeles,
> Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia which are predominantly liberal
> areas.
The reason musicians, etc. are "lefties" is because they are artist, i.e.
they can empathize with their fellow human beings and understand beauty and
truth. By nature, people who are like this will tend to believe that
treating other human beings with generosity and love. Conservatives, on the
hand, are materialistic, non-artistic and dis-interested in their fellow
human beings. For that reason there are virtually no really great
'conservative' artist. It's not very hard to figure out.
Sagebrush
The Chicken
*CROSSPOST* unnecessarily:
St...@NeverFalls.com> wrote in message news:<02F71F0719CD25E5.5BCFC3C6...@lp.airnews.net>...
> The "Ehtue" <eh...@aol.com> right-wing extremist censor-nazi whines -
> > dlarsson wrote:
> >
> > >> And time after time again the same result comes back that George W.
> > >> Bush won the election. Funny how the Democrats did not want those
> > >> overseas military ballots to be counted. I guess those votes don't
> > >> count, eh?
> > >
> > > Jeff, this is just totally 180-degress wrong and inaccurate.
> > >
> > > I suggest you read the full report about this (carefully):
> > >
> > > http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
> > >
> > > http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html
> > >
> > > http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/071601a.html
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) Miltary ballots that were sent in postmarked -after- the
> > > election (with some also having improper address information)
> > > and were -edited by Republican operatives- and counted for
> > > George Bush despite clear violation of election laws.
> > > Patriotism was never the issue.
> > > Were these at any time legal votes -?
> > > Answer: No ..
> > >
> > > 2) Legally registered voters (in just Democratic counties)
> > > were stopped and prevented from voting after being
> > > unkowingly -purged and deleted- from the voter rolls
> > > prior to the election by the Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris
> > >operation.
> > >
> > > 3) The recount "results" were reported incompletely in newspapers
> > > (without factoring-in the counting of overvotes) .. the full
> > >recount
> > > process - yielded the verdict that Gore won Florida by
> > > -any standard- applied (chads, etc.) -and- this did not even
> > > take into account the thousand or more Democratic voters that
> > > were deleted and purged from the voter rolls by Katherine Harris
> > > and Jeb Bush's operation (before the election) denying them
> > >the -right-
> > > to participate or the use of improper absentee ballots to pad
> the
> > > Bush total.
> > >
> > > Read the articles ....... you've got it wrong .here .....
> >
> > Please don't crosspost your articles to rec.music.beatles. They belong in
> a
> > political realm, not a music one.
> >
> > -Ehtue
> >
Robert A. Walker
> Yeh, Yeh, Yeh.
>
> Another Yellow Dog has spoken...
Said the fascist.
Ashland Henderson
> I believe that artistic creativity usurps the sheer intellect that most
> conservatives possess.
Don't dislocate your elbow while patting yourself on the back. Proof
of that "sheer intellect" you speak of doesn't appear to be all that
easy nor is any particular evidence of it obvious.
> It is no coincidence that liberals tend to be shallow thinkers who can't
> comprehend the consequences of their liberalism. Barbara Streisand is a
> fine singer; but she hasn't a clue about politics, foreign affairs, fiscal
> matters. Same is true with most other performing artists. And with
> journalists.
Watch out for those strawmen, they're springing up everywhere.
> You asked <g>.
>
> Now I'll sit back and watch the flames...
Mostly deserved ones. But then there's plenty of proof on usenet
that conservatives have their fair share, and possibly more, of
shallow thinkers.
dlarsson
> > creating the California energy crisis (and blackouts) and driving
> > up consumer costs by manipulating supply
>
> I just won't accept that as a viable answer. Your speculation on "secret
> huddling" is just that, your speculation.
It is fact .. and not something I invented or "speculated" about.
Please Read:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/052902a.html
( ...both.... pages )
> > Promotion of "Star Wars" creating new hostilities and new Nuclear
> >tensions,
>
> There are not any new nuclear tensions over that.
Tell that to China and Russia and Korea.
In addition, it can't even pass the most rudimentary tests
much less distinguish between real-time missiles, decoys,
and decoys which launch missiles. So the idea of
this providing any fail-proof security to begin with
is total folly of catastrophic proportions ... and it will
only bankrupt the country by $200 - $400 billion dollars.
This comes out of your paycheck (and mine)
clearly ... a foolish waste of money!
> > Nothing like this ever happen when anybody else was President
>
> So it wouldn't have happened if Clinton was in office? Rubbish.
The facts show .. that it did -not- happen when Clinton was
in office as President. Various Y2K terrorists threats were
thwarted in advance then and I am sure the Clinton adminstration
would not have -ignored- the intelligence reports .. with terrorism
being a stated focus of the adminstration's (and -not- one
when Bush took over the office).
> >Bush is responsible for the total non-action to
> > detailed and specific warnings of flying planes into buildings.
>
> So, that stuff was available in 1998....who was President?
Right, and it did -not- occur then.
It happened only in 2001 .. when a different adminstration
was running the FBI.
> > In relative terms we had 8 years or peace and prosperity under
> >Clinton-Gore.
> Perhaps had they been more astute in dealings around the world, hostility may
> not have grown so large.
Hostility occurred when Bush began flying planes over China;
Withdrew from the Nuclear Arms testing treaty; Promoted
a new "Star Wars" Nuclear Technology Arms race; Withdrew
from the Kyoto treaty; disengaged from the Middle East (before
the bloodbath); and otherwise conducted a belligerent foreign policy.
> And are you saying there
> was NO terrorism against Americans while Clinton/Gore were in office?
I agree terrorism was a big problem then.
And so did Clinton/Gore himself.
But Bush DID NOT prior to the Sept. 11 attack, ignoring
all the recommendations from the Rudman-Hart commission study,
and then ignorning the terrorists attack warnings themselves!!
This is where the "ball was dropped".
The information was there ... but it was ignored!
It happened THEN! ( on Bush's watch )
> > This, full-covereage, was a priority for Al Gore and the Democratic
> >Party.
>
> It wasn't much of a priority......Gore was the veep for 8 years and hell the
> Democratic party has been around for quite awhile.
The Democratics could not get a 2/3rd vote through Congress
with all of the Republicans opposing them. You cannot
seriously blame the non-action on the guys who wanted
to pass a bill ... the blames lies on the guys who stopped it
from passing (or even bringing up for a vote ... i.e., Trent Lott)
> > .... not coverage help that would
> > help 80% of senoir citizens ... trying to choose between
> > paying mortagages, paying for food, or getting their medication.
>
> Now you are in lock step with the DNC. That's garbage.
No ... it is factually correct - that's all Bush proposed
(during the election) was a "catastrophic coverage" plan
or .. a plan than only covers just those who "qualify" as being
in poverty.
This doesn't help my parents ... and it won't help me ..
and it won't help about 80% of seniors.
> > Clinton inherited a "basket full of problems" when he took office.
> > He was staring at a 300 billion dollar annual budget deficit.
>
> If you are on who wants the world to be a safer and better place, you should
> than Reagan for upping defense spending and crippling the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union was crippled by their own economy.
All Reagan did was spend money and create U.S. deficits
(which crippled OUR economy in the late-80s and early 90s)
It was Michale Gorbechev who undertook the bold steps
to restructure the Soviet Union and negotiate a reduction
in weapons and an end to the Cold War. That was all his
initiative ... all Reagan did was say " sure .. ok".
> >rob-from-the-poor-and-give-to-the-rich model and
> > brought prosperity to the middle class and working class
> > and fiscal solvency to the U.S. Government.
> I go out and work every day. I take care of my child and try
> not to be wasteful. That's not luck, that's trying to do things right.
> Clinton nor Bush have had very much control over my life
When you are laid-off ... it is not a matter of "choice"
or simply "wanting to work" or doing the "right thing".
When high-tech companies are not hiring anyone anymore
... it is not a matter of of "choice" or simply "wanting to work".
The Bush-economic mess is real - unemployment is the
highest in -9 years- . (coincidence? answer: no)
> Don't let your hate for Bush
> and Republicans, cloud common sense
Common sense indicates that consistent trend of
the high-unemployment, debt, and economic depression
during -both- periods of Republican policy making
(80s-1991 and 2001-2002) were not merely "coincidental".
and, conversely, the great prosperity and surpluses
created during the Clinton policy years (1992-1999)
(a reversal of "Reaganomics") .. was not
simply "luck" or "Alan Greenspan".
Greenspan, has lowered interest rates 9 times and still
cannot save the Bush economy from depression and debt.
The policies do matter ....
- Derek
paramucho
<AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On 11 Jun 2002 09:07:56 -0700, in article
><cd359b2d.02061...@posting.google.com>, derek_...@3com.com
>stated:
>OK, are you finished?
I don't think Derek even understands that I don't live in the U.S.
>Gee, I thought in Australia "Bush" meant something completely different.
It's been almost exactly a year since I "went Bush". One salutory
affect has been a reduction in my interest in the daily political
circus.
On the negative side I do seem to notice my gaze lasting considerably
longer than the expected ten or twenty milliseconds when I pass a TV
channel with the footy on.
Am I becoming a Man?
Will I finally grow hair on my chest?
Is that all there is?
Ian
David Ray
>
> - For starter's, the Republican's seek to waste 200-400 billion
> dollars (that we don't have) on a futile, breakable
> "Star Wars" military program ... which only destablizes the
> world, encourages a new global nuclear technology race,
> and provides no actual workable "security" to anyone.
> Not only is this a waste of money ... it is also
> not an illustration of "smaller government".
> This is "big spending" with no social benefit.
What a crock. Only nitwits find this to be a "waste". It is one more
instance of how Republican vision leads us out of the horrible situations
(nuclear proliferation) that the Democrats have gotten us into. SDI helped
end the Cold War, and today's Star Wars will serve to protect us for decades
to come. All the while, idiot Democrats like Carl Sagan are saying, "it can
never work" (this was about the same time he was saying that Saddam's
setting the Kuwait oilfields on fire would cause a "nuclear winter". What
liberal crap). One more example of the way in which Democrats are unable to
think clearly.
> - Another huge difference is Tax policy. Virtually all
> Republican-based "tax cut" plans are based on
> shifting large amounts of money to the top wealthiest 2%.
What an idiot. How is it "shifting" when a person gets to keep his money
instead of having it confiscated by big-spending liberal Democrats?
> It is no coincidence that the two largest recessions
> we have ever had .. occurred during the periods of the
> highest U.S. deficits (created by Reaganomics and
> the Bush tax plans) .. and our largest economic
> boom period occurred during the reduction of U.S.deficits
> and transition to surpluses (under the Clinton 1993 plan).
Where were you in the late 70s when Carter destroyed our economy, after
which Reagan's tax cuts brought it back?
> The words "Bush" and "recession" will be linked forever
> in history no matter which decade or which person we are
> talking about. That ideology is a proven failure.
>
The so-called "Clinton expansion" actually began under Bush I. The current
economic downturn is a direct result of the bogus "bubble" created under
Clinton's mismangement.
This is what I'm referring to when I talk about liberals not having the
ability to think clearly. You obviously are challenged.
David Ray
> There's no arguing with one as convinced of your mental superiority, so
> I won't bother.
You can argue, but you won't win. It isn't my mental superiority -- it is
that of MOST conservatives.
David Ray
are constantly drawn in to rationalizing bad decisions. The way you make
consistently good decisions is to envision the choices as black and white
with a huge gulf in between.
You have precisely pinpointed what is wrong with liberalism. By constantly
bluring the difference between right and wrong, liberals can get the answer
they want without taking responsibility for their actions. I have discussed
this subject extensively in the AMD forum at SI. I suggestion you spend a
few hours catching up on it...
David Ray
> Don't dislocate your elbow while patting yourself on the back. Proof
> of that "sheer intellect" you speak of doesn't appear to be all that
> easy nor is any particular evidence of it obvious.
>
With all due respect, I believe it is self-evident.
> > It is no coincidence that liberals tend to be shallow thinkers who can't
> > comprehend the consequences of their liberalism. Barbara Streisand is a
> > fine singer; but she hasn't a clue about politics, foreign affairs,
fiscal
> > matters. Same is true with most other performing artists. And with
> > journalists.
>
> Mostly deserved ones. But then there's plenty of proof on usenet
> that conservatives have their fair share, and possibly more, of
> shallow thinkers.
>
Conservatives are not immune. But in my experience, shallow thinking is a
far greater problem amongst the Alec Baldwins of the world than it is the
John Waynes....
Dale Houstman
"dlarsson" <derek_...@3com.com> wrote in message
news:cd359b2d.02061...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > If you are on who wants the world to be a safer and better place, you
should
> > than Reagan for upping defense spending and crippling the Soviet Union.
>
> The Soviet Union was crippled by their own economy.
> All Reagan did was spend money and create U.S. deficits
> (which crippled OUR economy in the late-80s and early 90s)
> It was Michale Gorbechev who undertook the bold steps
> to restructure the Soviet Union and negotiate a reduction
> in weapons and an end to the Cold War. That was all his
> initiative ... all Reagan did was say " sure .. ok".
>
You might also mention that one of the great factors leading to the collapse
of the Soviet Union was an expensive and ultimately failed campaign in
Afghanistan: their Vietnam as it were. And who gave the Soviets all that
trouble? The Taliban! And who was receicing money and weapons from the U.S.
at the time to oppose the Soviets? The Taliban and Osama! America is great
for solving short-term problems by bolstering the power of longterm
problems.
dmh
BballJunky
> "Star Wars" military program ...
Yeah, the only benefit would be that millions of Americans wouldn't get
dissolved in an instant if there were a nuclear attack launched.
> Tax plans ... which involve credits and cuts
> to help the middle class
Targeted tax plans that give cuts to who they want to give cuts to. Everyone in
America is entitled to a tax cut if one is to be given. I'm not wealthy and I
got a tax rebate check and my check is a little bigger. Thanks for keeping a
promise GW.
> - Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties ..
No, he went independent. He didn't become a Democrat. But you would think he
did, the way the Dems reacted.
>Democrate Al Gore, on the other hand, wrote a detailed
> book about protecting the environment
And it's pie in the sky. Freddy
"In the battle between the rock and the stream, the stream wins. Not through
strength, but through perseverance."
BballJunky
I think they are healthy, so long there isn't a bunch of name calling. The
facts of any matter can be manipulated to give the person presenting them the
upperhand in argument.
Example:
The Clinton recovery began during the last year of the 1st Bush administration.
Statistics show it.
But, the Clinton recovery got rolling big time while Clinton was in office.
Statistics show it.
So, either way you slice it, depending on who you like best, it can work for
you. Just remember, that regardless of how you feel about someones' politics,
they are people too, and probably don't live their lives a whole lot
differently than you do. FREDDY
BballJunky
>ask how do we know the attacks on America overseas "weren't planned by
>Osama"? How do we know they weren't planned by Hitler's clone, for that
>matter?
No, you turn it that way. I'm speculating with a question, letting you (the
reader) know that I DON"T know that to be the case. You on the other hand,
write a sentence about secret meetings as if you KNOW they took place and there
is all kinds of proof of it.
>prominent (and widely-reported) part of
>the relations between Russia and China (and between other European and Asian
>countries) that it is surprising you haven't heard of it.
I know that China and Russia are concerned (it was reported they were, must be
true) about Star Wars, and they should be. It forces them to think that they
may not be able to annihilate us in a nuclear attack. They don't like the fact
that we are moving towards protecting ourselves....it seems you don't like it
either. I don't understand it. Freddy
BballJunky
>> huddling" is just that, your speculation.
>
> It is fact .. and not something I invented or "speculated" about.
Derek, you sent me a link to a liberal "news" site. That's like me quoting the
American Spectator or Limbaugh letter to you.
>Tell that to China and Russia and Korea.
> In addition, it can't even pass the most rudimentary tests
> much less distinguish between real-time missiles, decoys,
> and decoys which launch missiles.
Too bad if they don't like that we are trying to protect ourselves. Did the
first phone work? Did the first car work? Did the first light bulb work?
That's why you test.
> I agree terrorism was a big problem then.
> And so did Clinton/Gore himself.
>
> But Bush DID NOT prior to the Sept. 11 attack,
That's just Bush hate, I think. There was nobody coming out in public manner
saying that a terrorist attack on our soil was inevitable at any time. So it's
not like Clinton had this public policy on terrorism (homeland) that comforted
us all.
And you make it seem as though, the terrorists waited until Clinton got out of
office to attack. What, they threw the plan together over dinner? This thing
was in the works for years. Where was Clinton on that? He couldn't do anything
about it, and neither could Bush.
> This, full-covereage, was a priority for Al Gore and the Democratic
>> >Party.
>>
>> It wasn't much of a priority......Gore was the veep for 8 years
> The Democratics could not get a 2/3rd vote through Congress
> with all of the Republicans opposing them.
The Democrats help both houses of congress AND the White House for two years
and did NOTHING. Whether they were held up by Reps or not, they got nothing
done. Clinton got many of the bills he wanted passed by a Rep controlled
congress and senate.
> The Soviet Union was crippled by their own economy.
Yes, and they tried to keep up with the US in the arms race and it caused
upheaval.
<<It was Michale Gorbechev who undertook the bold steps
to restructure the Soviet Union
> That was all his
> initiative ... all Reagan did was say " sure .. ok".
End of argument. I didn't see where you were coming from until now, Derek. When
you act like Gorvachev was some visionary and Reagan was his "yes man", I can
see you just can't stop and look objectively at a situation.
> When you are laid-off ... it is not a matter of "choice"
> or simply "wanting to work" or doing the "right thing".
I will go out and find work. There is work out there. I don't see any soup
kitchens or signs saying "vagrants move on, no work here" in every town. My
uncle was laid off by Ford Motor Company at one point and he waited tables at
night and sold cars during the day to support his family. He didn't cry and
live on the government tit, he did what he had to do until Ford called him
back. If I lost my job tomorrow, I would take the day off and get another job
the next day. And if it didn't pay enough, I would find another part time job.
There is a percentage of the unemployment rate that doesn't want to work. They
won't "settle" for a lower paying job when they lose their job or get layed
off. There are no promises or entitlements in this life. You make for yourself.
> Greenspan, has lowered interest rates 9 times and still
> cannot save the Bush economy from depression
Depression??????? Come on.....
Mister Charlie
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Really, please, pull the other one....
>
>
>
Mister Charlie
> By providing for innumerable shades between "right" and "wrong",
liberals
> are constantly drawn in to rationalizing bad decisions. The way you
make
> consistently good decisions is to envision the choices as black and
white
> with a huge gulf in between.
>
> You have precisely pinpointed what is wrong with liberalism. By
constantly
> bluring the difference between right and wrong, liberals can get the
answer
> they want without taking responsibility for their actions. I have
discussed
> this subject extensively in the AMD forum at SI. I suggestion you
spend a
> few hours catching up on it...
Oh, YEAH Ray...THAT's the way I want to spend my spare reading
hours....delving deeper into YOUR psyche.
Thanks. I'll pass.
David Ray
totally consistent with Clinton's behavior to allow a terrorist organization
to walk all over our country. Look at Saddam. Made a total mockery of the
Clinton administration, KICKING OUT our weapons inspectors. Whatever you
say about Bush, he would NEVER have allowed such a foreign policy failure on
his watch.
Mister Charlie
> I find Mansoor's allegation to be particularly credible. Furthermore,
it is
> totally consistent with Clinton's behavior to allow a terrorist
organization
> to walk all over our country. Look at Saddam. Made a total mockery
of the
> Clinton administration, KICKING OUT our weapons inspectors. Whatever
you
> say about Bush, he would NEVER have allowed such a foreign policy
failure on
> his watch.
Horsepucky. Give him some time, man.
rave on!
news:k4wN8.25022$Dj5.232...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
is
> totally consistent with Clinton's behavior to allow a terrorist
organization
> to walk all over our country. Look at Saddam. Made a total mockery of
the
> Clinton administration, KICKING OUT our weapons inspectors. Whatever you
> say about Bush, he would NEVER have allowed such a foreign policy failure
on
> his watch.
>
his name in the news. as soon as he passed along his information to the
clinton state department, he was out of the loop. meanwhile, clinton state
checked out the sudanese and found that they had little if anything useful
on bin laden. you must be the last person on earth to find this out.
r.s.
The Rooster
news:bKnN8.1015$gS....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "greccogirl" <grecc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Warning from Clinton? Let's see, HOW many times did Osama attack us
> > while Clinton was in office? Ummmmmmmmm
>
> How about the original attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, the attack of
> our foreign embassy (i believe in one of the south african countries).
> Clinton should be strung up in public for his letting these things pass.
He didn't. Unfortunatly, he couldn't get to Osama. He tried though.
Stan
The Rooster
"David Ray" <da...@timecalc.com> wrote in message
news:k4wN8.25022$Dj5.232...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
The Rooster
> you
> > say about Bush, he would NEVER have allowed such a foreign policy
> failure on
> > his watch.
Like you think 9-11 wasn't a foreign policy failure? ;-)
Stan
Sixties Gen
> Most musicians, singers, producers and songwriters tend to tilt to the
> left when it comes to politics. The rockers, the rappers tend to show
> up for Democratic candidates and they campaign on left-wing issues. I
> am not saying that is good or bad. It just is. But why are most
> country singers Republican? Is it because the majority of country
> songs reflect conservative values more so than pop or rock music? Is
> it because of geography and where people are born? Most country
> singers are from the south which is predominantly conservative. Most
> pop and rock singers are from big cities like New York, Los Angeles,
> Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia which are predominantly liberal
> areas.
How can one be a conservative, Bush-supporter, gun rights advocate,
pro-English-as-the-only-language, my-country-right-or-wrong,
anti-feminist, pro-corporate-bottom-line person, and still be able to
identify with the spirit of The Beatles' music and its predominant
message of peace and love without feeling extremely conflicted?
Harrison X. Numbugger
"83LowRider" <da...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:bKnN8.1015$gS....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "greccogirl" <grecc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Warning from Clinton? Let's see, HOW many times did Osama attack
us
> > while Clinton was in office? Ummmmmmmmm
>
> How about the original attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, the attack of
> our foreign embassy (i believe in one of the south african
countries).
> Clinton should be strung up in public for his letting these things
pass.
so then it follows that you believ that reagan should be strung up in
public for letting these things pass.....
April 18, 1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut 63 killed including
17 Americans
Oct. 23, 1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut 241 Marines
killed , 100 wounded
Dec. 12, 1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait 6 killed 80
wounded
March 16, 1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped by
militant Islamic extremists in Lebanon
Sept. 20, 1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut 24
killed
Dec. 3, 1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221 two American
officials from the U.S. Agency for International
Development killed
June 14, 1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S.
Navy diver, was shot and his body dumped on the airport tarmac.
October 1985 - January 1986 Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro;
Bombing of Rome, Vienna airports Achille Lauro - Leon Klinghoffer, a
69-year-old disabled American tourist killed
Bombing of Rome, Vienna airports - 20 killed including 5
americans
April 5, 1986 Bombing of La Belle Discotheque - popular hang out for
US servicemen 1 killed 200 wounded
December 21, 1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 - 259 killed
and poppy bush too.....
in 1988 there were 193 terrorist attacks worldwide aimed at US
interests.
in 1989 there were 165 terrorist attacks worldwide aimed at US
interests.
David Ray
On second thought, it is surely over your head....
The Rooster
news:20020611070951...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> So it wouldn't have happened if Clinton was in office? Rubbish.
Gore would've been in office at the time, not Clinton. And it's possible
with what he was getting in briefings back when he was vice-President then
would've connected with the newer info with him if he was President. I'm
not saying he would've caught on for sure, just that it would've been more
likely him to catch on that for Bush. Now if Bush was talking to Gore
(and/or Clinton) once he became President and let them know what was
happening, perhaps one of them could've gone - 'hey, I remember something
from way back' and we could've missed alot of grief.
The Rooster
> >*BUT*, apparently when the Bush admistration took office, it downgraded
> >terrorism as the main enemy (which the Clinton administration was
supposedly
> >concentrating on)
>
> I've read it all now......
> "In the battle between the rock and the stream, the stream wins. Not
through
> strength, but through perseverance."
Rear more.
David Ray
still trying to clean up the horrendous foreign policy mess he inherited
from the liberals.
David Ray
What crap.
"The Rooster" <St...@NeverFalls.com> wrote in message
news:0D0E979C488B51F9.C720C58A...@lp.airnews.net...