 sj |
||
|
||
BUSHwhacked Two!!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: SeanM Date: 27 Jan 01 - 03:35 PM Actually, skeptic, on google, "dumb M*F*" gets you GWB's merchandise page. Not a liberal conspiracy, not a prankster in the ranks... According to an article (which I've lost the link to, dang it), a few online 'zines used the phrase to describe our Beloved Selected, google correlated the descriptives, and added it to the search criteria. Still amuses me, though. M |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jan 01 - 03:30 PM Thanks Skeptic, I'm clear now. Though I doubt if that'll stop her. I imagine she'd be as good as her husband about phrasing things so that there's room for a little creative ambiguity.
"Monica" only throws up one song on the DT. Well worth reading it though... |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 27 Jan 01 - 03:21 PM McGrath, Senators serve for 6 years, Presidents for 4. Hillary completes her term in '06. I'm not sure of the laws in NY. Each state varies. If they're like Vermont, she can run for office while retaining her seat, but if she wins, she'd have to resign from the Senate. "Clinton" turns up stuff too. Mostly Rev war era. And the ever popular "adultery". Maybe "dumb" would be a good one. Kat, Thanks for doing my homework on the Alien and Sedition Acts. Most of what I could find on federal law (on a quick search) was about related suits that can be brought (violation of civil rights and such) Intuitively I think you're right but all the stuff I could find dealt with related issues: i.e violation of civil rights, possessions of date rape drugs, versus the actual crime. Unless the Feds differ to sates when rape happens on Federal Property, these should be something. Maybe Larry will read the thread and help out. Regards, John Regards, John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jan 01 - 02:57 PM Yes, Sceptic - but by the time there's anotheer Presidential Election, wouldn't it be time for Clintona to stand for re-election to the Senate anyway? So she'd already have served her full term. And she could stand for the Senate at the same time like I understood Lieberman did. Or have I got my wires crossed and Senators have a six-year term?
Incidentally - has anyone noticed that all the thread on the Cat at the moment are about music or music/song related in some way? Apart from this one, and a handful of others. So maybe we should have some musical thread drift hee. I put "bush" into the DT search box, and it came up with no fewer than 121 songs. On the other hand, "gore" only came up with 74 songs. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: katlaughing Date: 27 Jan 01 - 12:04 PM THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS In response to the threat of war with France, the Federalist-controlled U.S. Congress pased four laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. The laws lengthened the residency for naturalization to fourteen years and imposed a minimum five year advance notification for citizenship. The Acts also empowered the President to expel or deport aliens deemed a threat to public peace, and expel or imprison aliens whose country was at war with the United States. There were fines and/or imprisonment for writing false or malicious criticisms of the Government of the United States, the President, or Congress. Many journalists were fined or imprisoned during this period. The Acts were abolished during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, who granted full pardons to most of those incarcerated. usatrivia.com - ask professor mark - October, 2000 From what I've read elsewhere, rape is a federal crime if it is forcible and/or drugs were used as in the "date-rape" types cases. kat
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 27 Jan 01 - 11:57 AM Not a lot on vandalism in the White House on the net. Wouldn't expect any in the Reagan/Bush transition. Maybe more but a lot of it's not popping up on search engines and most on-line records don't go back that far. From the Boston Globe - 1/26 in an article about the vandalism. ". When the victorious President Clinton and his troops seized the White House in 1993, they found the telephones a wreck, computers missing hard drives, and a departing staff that gave them the cold shoulder during the transition" Clinton didn't prosecute either. On Pardons, least we forget: Reported in the Charlotte Observer, April 1993 "A recent article in the Charlotte Observer speculates on why President George Bush, two days before leaving office, pardoned a small-time Pakistani heroin smuggler serving a long sentence in a North Carolina federal prison (John Monk and Gary Wright, "Why Did Bush Free Smuggler? Mystery Lingers in Charlotte Case," The Charlotte Observer, 3/27/93, 1A). Bush freed 32-year-old Aslam Adam of Karachi on January 18. Adam would not have been eligible for parole for another two years, having served eight years of a 55-year sentence. Neither Bush nor the U.S. Justice Department would comment on the reasons for the unusual pardon. In his four years in office, Bush pardoned only two other federal inmates." December 24, 1992 The Iran Contra Scandal cast an omnipresent pall over the Reagan and Bush presidencies, and on this date in 1992, outgoing leader George Bush decided to do something about it: He pardoned the last six major co-defendants still facing criminal charges Regards, John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 27 Jan 01 - 10:46 AM McGrath, It was because she promised to serve out her full term. I doubt it would go to trial. Plea bargain probably, in return for paying for the repairs and community service. MAV A. The AG's office has more than enough competent, permanent staff to deal with relatively minor (legally speaking) acts of vandalism. With or without an AG, life goes on. And the decision on whether to prosecute (versus the actual trail where he'd want to have 'his' people in place), is his to make. The buck really does stop with him. B. I thought the Alien and Sedition acts had been repealed back in the late 1700s early 1800s? I didn't think sedition was currently on the books (per se) as a crime. Maybe someone can address that. Treason is a federal crime. Is rape, itself? As reported, the vandalism didn't even rise to the level of sophomoric. Made worse because they weren't kids but supposed professionals. Certainly any President (through the AG's office) has the right to determine whether a crime is prosecutable (whether perpetrator's can be identified, evidence collected and the like). I would personally (not as representative of "blue area types) prefer to know that he decided not to pursue this for those reason, versus political ones. C. Then your take is that the decision is a purely political one? Then no matter how minor, the message sent by the vandals and (lets call it what it looks like), the apologists, is clear. The law applies to some of us, for the rest it is just another PR tool. (Okay, extreme generalization but the element is there) D. And child abuse, rape and murder are worse still. One doesn't excuse, justify or in any way mitigate the other. Clinton went overboard on some of the pardons So did Ford. So did most other presidents. So do governor's. And then there's parole boards. The issue I'm after is the vandalism. E. This goes back to "responsibility". While I understand (though don't agree) with your statement, I can also argue that it is a perfect example of the idea that it isn't the individual that's to blame, its society. So how can we think about punishing the vandals when it isn't their fault. We just need a social program to help them. MAV, tell me you're not a closet liberal??!! Regards, John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jan 01 - 08:56 AM Oh I do hope they do prosecute! Fun fun fun!
"And it has to be Al in '04 cause Hilary promised she serve her full term in NY." Can't see why - isn't Lieberman still a Senator? |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 27 Jan 01 - 07:59 AM A. He probably wants to have Ashcroft in place before proceeding with any prosecutions since he doesn't have a Justice Dept. yet. B. He likely doesn't want to fool around with the "sophmoric" stuff and concentrate on rape, sedition or treasonous activity. C. He wants to take the media's focus off the Clintons who just won't go away. Maybe he will pay for the repairs himself. The photos of the disgraceful damage for use in the next election as campaign ad material is easily worth the price. D. Never mind the vandalism, the real outrage is the quid pro quo "pardons". Most are not political pardons but rather friend, family and other serious criminal buddies. E. The fact that the democRATS all defended this guy makes you all dirty participants. The same goes for the pubbies that voted to acquit. What name calling? mav |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 27 Jan 01 - 12:37 AM How is this Clinton's fault ..... except in the abstract sense as he was the boss? We had a guy at work a while back who got in a fight with another employee (racially motivated, sad to say). Where does the responsibility lie? Applying the logic of the right (as proclaimed on talk radio, anyway), the person who hired the guy's to blame. Unless Clinton ordered it .... or listed 'willingness to vandalize the White House' as a required job skill, his responsibility is indirect, at best. I'll try a couple of meta-search engines and deja-news to see if I can find anything about what's happened after other transitions. Hope others will do the same, as it would be interesting. I know the problem of people taking souviniers off Air Force One has been around a long time. A friend of my fathers was on the crew at one time (early 70's) and said it was a problem back then. RE: Hillary - can't she run without having to give up her Senate Seat until/unless she wins? I know Texas and Vermont have that sort of law. Maybe NY does too. Regards, John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: katlaughing Date: 26 Jan 01 - 11:36 PM Well, you've got a point there about Hillary, Skeptic. Thanks. I really would like to research that, though, NOT because I think it was a joke. I think it is deplorable and someone high up needs to say so, I agree. I would just like to know the stats on the others to compare to what the rancorous are saying about Clinton. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 26 Jan 01 - 11:30 PM McGrath, Apologies with egg on my face. I typed before I researched and relied on my memory. The dates are set by Congress and were originally designed to accommodate travel time. Congress can change them if when they want. From your post, I'd guess that while we also have a civil service, more of our upper management types are appointed than are in the UK so transition may be a little more difficult. And we just wish Bugs had won. Kat, Prosecution or not, they done wrong. Much as a pains me to agree with troll, the former Clinton staffer actions was reprehensible and, if nothing else, Clinton (Bill) should say same. Treating the "w" thing like a joke is one thing. Treating vandalism as such is (to me) wrong, illeagal and politically stupid as it confirms the red area folks belief about the liberal press. I can hear the conversation now. "Yeah, they jumped all over Bush for a little drinking 20 years ago, but liberals trashin' the White House is a big joke." As a parent, how do I explain to my son (11 with a no-shades-of-gray view of things) why no one seems to care, either that they did vandalize the White House or that they aren't going to be punished. This is being turned into a liberal/conservative issue when it should be about a bunch of people most of us (red or blue area) wouldn't want as neighbors. I think Bush decided not to prosecute not because of fear of laughter but because he'd look like he was kicking them after they were down. Not the sort of thing his type does. Not in public, anyway. I've sent an email to the Democratic Chair of the State asking that the Executive Committee ask the National to at least make a statement deploring the actions. And it has to be Al in '04 cause Hilary promised she serve her full term in NY. Can't have a future president telling lies. Besides, we might need her vote in Congress. Regards, John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jan 01 - 10:54 PM But I thought Bugs Bunny got in?
I suspect that non prosecuting might have more to do with the fact that it would have been a circus, and made the Resident a laughing stock. There's been enough of that around the White House already I imagine.
I'm sure most ordinary people outside America will love to see a big state prosecution over this. It wouldn't quite be in the league of Little Monica and the Big Cigar, but it would be funny. And we'd be laughing at Bush, I'm afraid. Who better? As someone said in the election, it was the class swot versus the class clown.
It would be a hoot. Totally unfair maybe, but any press coverage I've seen has already treated it as a joke. I'm afraid pretty well anything Bush does is likely to be treated that way, so he can't give hostages to fortune. His best hope is to work things out so that people laugh with him rather than at him, which Reagan sometimes managed.
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Troll Date: 26 Jan 01 - 10:33 PM Skeptic, dissapointingty, I think it's politics. I think he should prosecute but I don't think he'll listen to me. After all. I didn't vote for him. I voted for Bugs Bunny. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: katlaughing Date: 26 Jan 01 - 10:29 PM No, oh no, Skeptic!! Not Al!!!! It's gotta be Hillary...we can't handle another wooden al campaign fiasco!! Only if they listen totally to our Big Mick and do everything he says!!**BG** Does anyone know a source for research into what past presidents took with them and how many trailer loads it took to move all of their papers to their presidential Libraries in their home states? Thanks, katrabble |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jan 01 - 04:27 PM JUst have a squint at that Constitution, and I couldn't see where there was anything in it that requires a lengthy transition period. It looks as if all thatbstuff is left wide opoen to be adjusted to meet the needs and preferences of the day. And it used to last until March didn't it? And I don't believe it needed a Constitutional Amendment to bring it back to January. Dumping the electoral college would be a different matter, but that wouldn't be required. After all when a President dies in office there isn't any transitional period. A period of readjustment, but that's not the same thing.
With us the political advisiors and tghe politicians, which include all the Ministers, get booted out. There's a permanent civil service who run things anyway - "Yes Minister" is said to have been remarkably close to the truth. Far more so than The West Wing, which they have just started showing here. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: GUEST,Liberal Date: 26 Jan 01 - 04:18 PM Maybe Eric Holder, who is holding down the fort over at the Justice Department, will prosecute. Oh yes, I forgot that Holder is one of clinton's hacks. More joy for vandals. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 26 Jan 01 - 04:08 PM toll, Please get it straight. Al is '04, then Al with VP Hillary in '08, then Hillary in '12 and '16. By then Chelsea will be old enough to take over in '20. I'm telling you, four years of GWB will almost guarantee a good thirty years of liberals being in firm control. While I am a liberal and we are acquainted, (friend is stretching it a bit), I was outraged. As an ordained cynic I can't say I'm shocked. Merely reassured that my cynicism is supported by facts. What is your take on the Bush decision not to prosecute? Is this 'compassionate conservativism' or cynical politics? Which is worse? The vandals or the cop who refuses to do anything about them? Drat! Back to the lessor of two evils thing. Of course, Bush gave fair warning a with his recent pronouncement that the job of the legislative branch is to pass laws and of the executive branch to interpret them. Which shows a distinct lack of gratitude to the Supreme Court for ruling in his favor on recounts. And demonstrates a unique interpretation of the Constitution, to say the least. Regards, John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Troll Date: 26 Jan 01 - 03:30 PM I find it strange that there have been-as yet- on crys of outrage from my liberal friends over the trashing of the White House offices and the looting of AF-1. But I guess it shouldn't surprise me too much. After all, you are all reasonably intelligent. You had to know what kind of people the Clintons are and what kind of people they surrounded themselves with. But this last performance shows the depth of contempt that they seem to have for all those who supported them for the last 8 years. And some of you STILL want Hillary in 2004? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 26 Jan 01 - 03:00 PM McGrath, The transition time date back to the good old days when travel was by horse, wagon, stage, boat or afoot. It was designed to give people time to get top the capital. And to demark a clear transition date. I think someone brought this up about the electoral college dates in a earlier thread. Silly today, but changing it would require amending the Constitution, which is cumbersome at best. That and most flavors of the political spectrum don't want to call a Constitutional Revision Committee to fix little oddities like that out of fear of what else might get 'fixed'.( Like the Abortion Ban amendment that floats around but never gets anywhere. The fear is not that it will pass, but that it will fail. (As polls tend to show). Ind of like campaign finance reform. The party that's out of power seems to be the one in favor of it. Also, in the US, a lot of the White House Staff is hired and serves only as long as the current president is in office. Aren't cabinet members in the UK also members of Parliament? Do they appoint department heads and such when they're elected or inherit what's in place? Regards, John
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: GUEST,liberal Date: 26 Jan 01 - 02:35 PM Clinton could show a little class, and perhaps add something positive to his "legacy" if he would stand up and denounce these actions by his people, and offer to pay for the damages. I don't expect this will happen, but it is part of his legacy. I'll bet the Bush people don't do this when the time comes (in 8 years) for them to leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jan 01 - 02:22 PM Taking the w off the typewriters was funny, and well within reasonable bounds. The other stuff sounds pretty silly, Animal House style. Though I imagine a lot of it is spin, PR games to distract attention from something else.
But if you must go in for such an extended "transition period" it's really asking for trouble.
Why drag things out in such a ludicrous way? Here the Tories were in power for 18 years. Then an election, an overnight count, and they were out of their offices within a quarter of an hour. And that's pretty typical for most democracies.
I know there are some other countries which have a similar long transition periods, but so far as I can see, that's generally to give the crooks in power the time to organise a coup if the elections have gone wrong, or failing that, a chance to destroy the incriminating evidence. I don't think that applies in the USA - at least the first part of it doesn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 26 Jan 01 - 01:57 PM Guest Liberal, Here I am, a liberal and I'm pissed off. At the Clinton staffers for doing it and at the Bush people for not prosecuting it. Or maybe the rules have changed and two wrongs do make a right? Did I miss that in my email. Taking the "w" off keyboards was immature and silly but I could see how you might just shrug and get on with life. The vandalism being described is just wrong. The legal logic of refusing to prosecute escapes me, although the political logic seems clear. On a 'silver lining' note, the whole incident (from vandalism to forgiveness) does help explain why 50% of the potential voters don't even bother to vote. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: mousethief Date: 26 Jan 01 - 01:51 PM Thanks ever so much for raising the level of the conversation, Liberal and MAV. Without your sniping and snide comments we could never have reached politician-level discussion. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: GUEST,liberal Date: 26 Jan 01 - 11:15 AM Relax. Bush says he will not prosecute the Clinton administration staffers who did the damage. The cost is now up to about $250,000.00, but at least we won't have to pay for it - the government will. After all, some Reagan staffer probably took some paper clips 12 years ago, so what's the big deal, right? It was all in good fun and how could anybody be upset about these childish pranks? After all, the Clinton administration was populated by immature people.
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 26 Jan 01 - 11:13 AM McGrath, In Florida, anyway, the law excepts minor items of incidental value. (pens, paper-clips and the like). I try to take politcis seriously, but never politicians. I think being mad is a prerequisite for office. Enjoyed the picture. Thanks Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: katlaughing Date: 26 Jan 01 - 10:53 AM Sheesh! How long do you think it takes me! Very good point, Greg! kat |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jan 01 - 10:39 AM True enough, McGrath! And in light of the shenanigans in Florida & elsewhere, what makes anyone think that this "vandalism" wasn't staged by Dumbya's incoming troops? What a circus!! Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jan 01 - 10:32 AM "Theft of government property (and stuff like the "W" and the stuff from AF-One would count) no matter what the value, is a felony."
If true, which no doubt it is, that is totally insane. Anyone who ever took an unauthorised paper clip from a government office has committed a felony? Those whom the gods would destroy thet first make mad...
Youi do realize don't you that, while you're rolling around on the floor taking bites out of each other, the politicians from both sides are scratching each others backs, and drinking together and swapping dirty stories and generally having a high-old time at both your expenses? And no doubt chuckling at how seriously you take their alleged differences.
Here's a picture you might like - front of the new "Private Eye", with Baby Bush and Daddy Bush |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Jim the Bart Date: 26 Jan 01 - 10:09 AM Since when do you guys want to be left alone? You are at least as intrusive as liberals. You just want to control different areas of people's lives. Yes, I hang in the blue areas. I find this end of the spectrum to be a lot more fluid, a lot more open to change and a lot more heterogeneous. It tends to be inclusive, and I like that. Unfortunately, you find people on both ends of the spectrum who are manipulative, self-righteous, bombastic, unforgiving, short-sighted, small-minded, pig headed, shabby-thinking, intellectually dishonest and (in short) human. At least at this end, we are more likely to recognize our failings and give others the benefit of the doubt about theirs. And we have a sense of humor. I'll make you a deal - GET OVER YOURSELF and I will try to do the same. Peace and love to all you 'Catters and guests Catch ya later Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 26 Jan 01 - 06:58 AM Mav, Speaking only for myself, I have never claimed the people who live in the red areas are rude, or that people in the blue areas aren't. Coming from a "red area", with most of my family and a lot of friends still living in same, good solid Republicans, Baptists and CofC members all, I look the liberty of sharing some of your insights with them. The quote I liked best was "Well, I agree with a lot he says. Obnoxious little SOB, though." Sophomoric describes stereotyping and name calling, right, left or center. And is contrary to most ethical values, Christian or secular. Comments I have made about you reflect my opinion of your ideas and how you go about expressing them, not those of people in the "red areas" in general. Your attitude seems to be the opposite. To resort to name calling when someone doesn't agree with you is sophmoric. As is the unproven assumption of authorized omnipotence that usually is at the base of such actions. As you are a fan of Drudge, What about his report of GWB's directive not to prosecute any of the vandalism. If it occurred and GWB decides not to prosecute, such a decision doesn't sit well in my "blue area". Or with people I know in the "red areas" either. This is man who took a solemn oath to uphold the laws of our country, who ran on a strong law and order platform and has nominated Ashcroft, who's in the same vein, as Attorney General. Actions seem at odds with his words. Pointing to failures by Clinton as justification evade the issue of character and honor. Regards, John Being
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Jan 01 - 11:42 PM I didn't leave you out, I said murder/borts. Now go back to killing your husband. mav |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Jan 01 - 11:26 PM As to being "rude", you guys wrote the book. When someone on the right stands up to you, we are rude. You hate American conservatives more than you hate the the communists, who murdered millions of people in the last century. The "right" are hard working people who most likely live in the red areas, who go to church, play by the rules and want to be left alone. They are also the armed and dangerous Chamber of Commerce (a secret society of the dreaded private sector). The only rude people I saw in the massive crowd at the Capitol were the ten nervous protesters. There are only so many sources of objective journalism available in this country and considering the deteriorating CNN and failing CBS news, people are sick and tired of the same old liberal filter of the "news industry" The Washington Times is the second most quoted paper in the US. The news gods (like Tim Russert) all feel compelled to read it. Drudge has done us all a great service and has as good a track record as the so-called main stream press. Hopefully Ashcroft will crack down on the democRAT mafia. Let the indictments begin. Signed, The people in the red areas.
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: katlaughing Date: 25 Jan 01 - 11:21 PM You forgot us feminists. Geez, ya even missed quoting one of your, I am sure, heros: "Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Rev. Pat Robertson, one time GOP candidate Ya, right... |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Jan 01 - 10:53 PM Prepare to ad hominize, Well let's see. As far as my inferior sophmoric humanoid mind can determine, you leftie democrats are composed of a bunch of unreasonable, condecending, self righteous, lesbian murder/borts, homosexual, organized labor/crime, self serving bureaucrats, trial lawyers, ignorant Palm Beach voters, illegal aliens, gimmie girls, "journalists", "educators", multi-pierced/tatooed/green haired "students" with black lipstick and nails AND BILL CLINTON!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: katlaughing Date: 25 Jan 01 - 03:21 PM LOL, thanks John, good to know the story really exists elsewhere...don't know why it wouldn't show up on the AP search at Drudge. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 25 Jan 01 - 03:18 PM Guest Stakley, My motives for posting to mudcat are varied. Impressing anyone isn't one of them. I'll try to be more careful on proofing in the future, however as I meant to type ad hominem. Of which you have provided a perfect example. I did like your take on MAV. Or maybe 'ad alien', as some of his ideas seem only distantly related to anything on this planet. Conversely, it could all be a big put-on. Sophomoric but there are elements that suggest a 16 year old putting on the world, very pleased with himself for fooling all the adults on the forum.. Bartholomew, I agree in spirit but think that "slavish adoration and fawning" captures the Bush Administration's relationship to big business. But then so does "doing what we paid for", too. Kat, The Enron story is on the CNN website. At least as of 1509 today (EST). Shown as an AP story. Amazing that the liberal press hasn't given it more play. If it disappears, I'm going to have to take another look at my level of personal paranoia. I did save the page though. Mousethief. And Kat, Didn't mean to imply that the stories have any great credibility. As neither seem have shown up anywhere else, either they were BS....... or maybe there really is a cabal of liberals who control the press and they killed the story. Any bets as to whether that silliness becomes the latest "proof" of the great liberal conspiracy?? Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: katlaughing Date: 25 Jan 01 - 02:03 PM Thanks, John, I saw that one on the Drudge and have learned to be a bit "skeptical" when he posts such *loud* headlines. I would imagine, just as they sensationalised the Clinton's taking the gifts they were given by friends, from the White House to their new home, so might these other news items. If someone researched what others have done when they left, it would make an interesting comparison. BTW, I said "oddly enough" up there, even though I had a typo, because the artclee which details all of that, on our front page, today, cannot be found on the AP site, not in a search on the writer's name, the headline, nor keywords. Makes me wonder if it somehow got killed and our paper caught it before the hatchet. Here was my Cry in the wilderness for the enviroment pre-election days. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: mousethief Date: 25 Jan 01 - 01:57 PM Ah, the Washington Times. That bastion of objective reporting. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: GUEST,Stakley Date: 25 Jan 01 - 01:54 PM John, if you must impress us with your latinate erudition please spell it correctly, right? I see it as more of an ad humanoid attack. Someone as obviously ignorant, uneducated, childish, boorish, and ill-mannered as MAV's posts show him to be is rather a lower form of life. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 25 Jan 01 - 01:49 PM Kat www.drudgereport.com has a lead article with all the latest rumours on the vandalism/theft. Haven't seen anything else on that. The Washington Times carried the story about theft from Airforce-1. Their site is at http://www.washtimes.com/ Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Jim the Bart Date: 25 Jan 01 - 01:45 PM Thanks, Skeptic. Well spoken. I heard today that W. has suggested that environmental controls need to be eased in California to allow plants to work at capacity and that new plants should be built in Mexico (no regulatory problems to hold down profits there!). This is all very well orchestrated, indeed. I haven't heard anything about the Democratic vandalism of the White House; such childishness and stupidity is deplorable. I guess I've been paying too much attention to the environmental vandalism Bush is preparing for, as evidenced by his appointees. The White House can be easily repaired. How do you restore wilderness after the oil companies have been allowed to do their dirty work? There's not enough oil in the Alaskan wildlife preserve to solve our energy problems, so why do irreparable damage for a stop gap measure? Oh yeah, I forgot. The investors in the oil companies involved will reap quite a windfall while the taxpayers are left with the cleanup. Such is life under a "business-friendly" administration. And it's just beginning. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: katlaughing Date: 25 Jan 01 - 01:38 PM So far, in checking many of the online news sources I use, none of the above claims of vandalism, except the "w" keys from the computers, has been substantiated. In the menatime, odly enough, our local rag has a front page article, from AP, about how "Enron CEO Kenneth Lay, who raised more than $100,000 for Bush's campaign, is a member of the president's transition team and attended his economic summit." Enron also happens to be one of the "biggest benificiaries" of the California power crisis. Enron bankrolled his political career more than any of the "single company." Of course, the president's office and Enron are denying that Dubya's rejection of price controls, which happens to be enron's take on things, had anything to do with his decision. blt, thanks. I do need to get back in touch with those things you listed, which was pretty near what I've always used to keep the energy going. I think I've been in the wasteland/third world country of Wyoming too long...it gets ya down, sometimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: mousethief Date: 25 Jan 01 - 01:27 PM Can we get a reference for this supposed theft? Unnamed flamers hardly make me confident of the veracity of their childish scrawl. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Pseudolus Date: 25 Jan 01 - 01:05 PM Pennsylvania has gone through deregulation and doesn't seem to have the problems that California has. Anybody know why that is? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know but would like to.... Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 25 Jan 01 - 12:41 PM Guest Liberal, Does "disgusted" count. Vandalism and theft are vandalism and threat. Interesting fact in my state (and maybe Larry or someone can confirm if it applies on the federal level). Theft of government property (and stuff like the "W" and the stuff from AF-One would count) no matter what the value, is a felony. In Florida, when it comes to government property, the normal dollar value guidelines for what constitutes a felony are waived. The standard is intent. If that's true on the Federal level, I hope the new Administration peruses it. If its true and they decide not to do anything, the guilt just gets spread a little further. The cop-out will probably be that the "w" thing was just a practical joke and all the stuff from AF-One were just souvenirs. If the cost of the "souvenirs was budgeted and appropriated under the law and paid for from the Whitehouse budget, its just sor of tacky. If not, it's theft and needs to be treated as such (whether as a misdemeanor or felony). What if it is theft and the decision is made not to do anything? Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 25 Jan 01 - 12:14 PM Sorry. My last posted twice and I don't think I did it. I know a few days ago one of troll's posts hit six times then all but one went away. Anybody know what's going on??? Regards John
I think the system has just been a bit slow. |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: GUEST,Liberal Date: 25 Jan 01 - 12:12 PM Wasn't it great how the Democrat staffers trashed the White house and offices? Stealing the W from hundreds of computer keyboards, putting pornography on the computers and in the copy machines, turning desks upside down and spreading rubbish about, writing grafiti on the walls with magic marker, cutting telephone lines, supergluing file cabinets shut, and much more! Great!! That will teach those Republicans who is the smartest! They will know that Democrats are not to be trifled with! We can all be happy, now that we have shown them a thing or two! What was icing on the cake is when Air Force One - taking the Clintons to New York, was stripped of all china, blankets, pillows, toothpaste, silverware, and anything else of value! Hoo-Ha! This proves that liberals are smarter and more sophisticated than any Republican! Come on you people - lets hear how great you think it was. No need to hold back! |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Skeptic Date: 25 Jan 01 - 11:30 AM troll, Deregulation was pushed by the utilities themselves and groups like BOMA (Business Owners and Managers Association - who've made deregulation of utilities their primary lobby effort for 2001). One of Bush's biggest backers is a firm in Texas that buys and resells generating capacity. PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) was also a major supporter. Both have made major profits under deregulation. The utilities who backed de-regulation at the State level, tended to vigorously oppose it at the National level. I read that aluminum factories in Washington State (who contract in advance for huge amounts of power at discounted prices), have stopped manufacturing aluminum and are reselling the power. and making more profit. Another factor in the California debacle is that something like 25% of the overall generating capacity is off-line. In the days of regulation, such thing were monitored by the bloated, liberal eco-freak dominated bureaucracy that was eroding the profits of the utilities to make sure their weren't rolling blackouts. Saying that taking that much capacity off-line at the same time was done as a deliberate attempt to drive up prices would be unproven speculation. Regards John Guest, Stakly I don't see any need for ad hommium attacks on MAV. His ideas speak volumes about who he is (or pretends to be?) Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BUSHwhacked Two!! From: Troll Date: 25 Jan 01 - 11:00 AM Bart, I believe that you will find that the problems in California stems from their deregulation bill which forbids the utility companies to pass increased costs along to the consumers. So as the price of fuel increased, the utileties profits shrank and have now reached the point where it costs them more to produce the power than they are allowed to charge for it. No business can survive under these circumstances, whether large or small. I don't know who pushed the deregulation bill with its obvious flaw but I seriously doubt that any corporation would back such a thing. troll |
| Share Thread: |
