 sj |
||
|
||
Hilary Clinton
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Nov 01 - 03:27 PM Blackcatter Ottawa?? |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,Miss Jean Brody Date: 02 Nov 01 - 03:23 PM When I see some facts, I'll let you know if they offend me. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,Jim Brady Date: 02 Nov 01 - 09:05 AM Jean, I think that you need a nap. Otherwise I am sorry if the facts offend you. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: kendall Date: 01 Nov 01 - 09:30 PM I love one city. Edinburg |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Blackcatter Date: 01 Nov 01 - 08:45 PM Hi all, Boris: I don't have a problem with people believing that their city is the greatest in the world, I just have a problem with so many New Yorkers constantly telling me that in so many ways. Frankly, it appears to me that it's like the person who always talks about sex is likely to be the one who aint gettin' any. New Yorkers might be afraid that the rest of the world will find out that they live in a city that just isn't so great after all. My city is clean, absolutely full of trees, safe, fairly inexpensive in which to live, has a nice arts scene, tons of parks, no significant pollution and much of our taxes are paid by the rest of the world. pax yall |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: kendall Date: 01 Nov 01 - 07:24 PM I'm well aware of the fact that we were not alone in that war, but, it is the USA that is getting the static right now. Furthermore, we did not "ask for it" thats silly, we did set ourselves up for it though. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,Miss Jean Brody Date: 01 Nov 01 - 05:15 PM "Jim Brady", if you suckers don't yet realize it, is our resident jester--likes to tweak the noses of the those of you step on the soapbox and respond with self-righteous indignation--no, scratch that, he is a bitter, frustrated, and mentally imbalanced individual who gets a sick thrill out of taunted decent folks, oh, sorry, wrong again, he is a public service, provided for those who don't have anyone else to fight with-- |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,Jim Brady Date: 01 Nov 01 - 04:24 PM If I kid is taught to clearly understand what a gun can do, to never assume that a gun is unloaded, and to never handle them unless cleaning them or using them, then it is not a matter of obeying, it is a matter of their exercising common sense. Of course a little fear helps too. I knew growing up that my Father would kick my ass if he caught me playing with guns. Of course such philosophy is now considered archaic, but then again kids like me aren't the one's who light up their high school. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Nov 01 - 04:11 PM Sorry, But I think you may see the irony of Jim Brady arguing for guns!!! And your attitude seems a little comical to me. Leave your guns out!! Tell your kids not to play with them! They'll listen!! Children always obey their parents!! Are you a troll or do you actually believe what you are saying? Does it matter? Better that parents don't whine because they did not leave deadly weapons unattended.
|
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,Jim Brady Date: 01 Nov 01 - 03:53 PM My name is James Lawrence Brady. I am sorry if that offends you. As for bad parenting, I don;t give a damn if bad parents own guns or not. I just don;t want to hear people whining when one of their kids offs themself because they weren't taught better. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: SDShad Date: 01 Nov 01 - 03:47 PM So Jim...bad parents shouldn't have guns, then? Not that I'd advocate it, but it does seem to be the next logical step to what you're saying.... Shad, who grew up where most people (at least in the country, if not in town), had guns, but nobody was all weird and Militia-y and intruders-are-in-every-shadow-y about it. They just had them to hunt and to protect their livestock. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Nov 01 - 03:45 PM GUEST,Jim Brady It is a little hard to take you seriously in a discussion about guns with that name. Don't you think that might be in poor taste? |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,Jim Brady Date: 01 Nov 01 - 03:36 PM Yes, it is that simple. I grew up in one of the most heavily armed areas in the U.S. Yet reports of accidental deaths of kids in that area are virtually nonexistent. Why, because they were well taught. The fact that a lot of kids don;'t take things seriously nowadays or listen has a lot to do with bad parenting. It also indicates that our society has worse problems than guns. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: SDShad Date: 01 Nov 01 - 03:23 PM Ahem. Make that "friends'", not "friend's". And pay no attention to the man behind that curtain..... |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: SDShad Date: 01 Nov 01 - 03:22 PM Guest Jim Brady writes: "If you have kids in the house, it is simply a matter of teaching them to respect guns." It's naive to believe that it's actually that simple. Again, Hyp and I have no children of our own. Our foster daughter, yeah, I would've trusted her with a loaded gun in the house, but I also had no reason to keep a loaded gun in the house. But most of our friend's kids, I wouldn't trust 'em alone with a loaded SuperSoaker. They pay absolutely no attention, and damned if I can figure out if there's a single thing in the world they take seriously. And the ability to take serious things seriously is kind of a prerequisite to gun safety instruction actually being comprehended, let alone believed and followed. Shad |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,Jim Brady Date: 01 Nov 01 - 03:15 PM What's the argument about. We all know that Paris is the greatest city in the world. Actually, all this stuff is subjective. I remember cringing at the statement by an English graduate student here in the states in which she said that she couldn't wait to get back to England to eat some "real food." That's like saying I can't wait to get to Mecca to drink some real booze. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Nov 01 - 03:06 PM That's pretty funny stuff GUEST,Jim Brady Kendall, The USA wasn't alone in that fight, A few million Po'ed British, Commonweath and Russian citizens had a hand in that one. Boris "Greatest city", "Greatest Country", "Best place to live" Saying things like that seems to be uniquely American and it is one of the American people's less endearing habits. I've heard it over and over during the coverage of the WTC attacks. Sure it's OK to think you are living in the best place. But it is obnoxious and conceited to announce it to everyone else. It also invites jealously and contempt. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Nov 01 - 03:06 PM That's pretty funny stuff GUEST,Jim Brady Kendall, The USA wasn't alone in that fight, A few million Po'ed British, Commonweath and Russian citizens had a hand in that one. Boris "Greatest city", "Greatest Country", "Best place to live" Saying things like that seems to be uniquely American and it is one of the American people's less endearing habits. I've heard it over and over during the coverage of the WTC attacks. Sure it's OK to think you are living in the best place. But it is obnoxious and conceited to announce it to everyone else. It also invites jealously and comptempt. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,Jim Brady Date: 01 Nov 01 - 02:40 PM Kendall, I wouldn't brag about the naked American agression against the governments of Toto, Mussolini, and Hitler. Rather, we should lower our head in shame because of the many civilians slaughtered by our bombing of Japan, Italy, and Germany. If we had merely pursued diplomatic options, our hands would not be stained with the blood of women and children. Of course if we weren't such an evil bully, the Japanese would not have bomed us to begin with, we were asking for it. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Nov 01 - 01:51 PM I have a gun on my coffee table. It is for protection from Hillary Clinton sneaking into my house and looking bored during a GW Bush speach. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Boris Date: 01 Nov 01 - 01:47 PM I'm sick and tired of NYC inhabitants (not all, mind you) telling me they live in the greatest city in the world. It's statements like that that makes the rest of the U.S. and the rest of the world think that New Yorkers are narrow-minded and obnoxious. I have to disagree, Blackcatter. I think if someone DOESN'T think their location is the best city/county/village/whatever in the world, they should move to the one they think is. Of course New Yorkers think their city is the greatest in the world. I would be suspicious of one who didn't. They're wrong of course, Chicago is, but does it really matter? Boris |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: kendall Date: 01 Nov 01 - 01:29 PM Remember what a few million pissed off Americans did to Tojo, Mussolini and Hitler? |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,Jim Brady Date: 01 Nov 01 - 01:12 PM No use in having guns for protection if they are locked away and unloaded. If you have kids in the house, it is simply a matter of teaching them to respect guns. Most accidents involve households where kids are not educated about guns. For all its vilification, the NRA has led the way in promoting gun safety. If people obey the laws and practice gun safety, crime and accidents would be nil and people would quit bitching about guns. It is as simple as that. The alternative is trying to forcibly disarm about 100 million pissed off Americans. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: kendall Date: 01 Nov 01 - 12:54 PM Just the other day a man was arrested for burglary. He worked as a house cleaner, and targeted old and disabled people. Before he left a house he had just cleaned, he would leave a window unlocked, or a door, or even find a key. Later when the residents were asleep, he would come in and help himself. In one case, there was a parapelegic asleep in his wheel chair. He awoke, confronted the bastard, and the bastard assaulted him! This in southern Maine! I hope that scum gets life. Some years ago, there was a disabled woman being assaulted by a burglar, but, she had a gun under her blanket. POOF! no more burglar. (I love happy endings) |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: SDShad Date: 01 Nov 01 - 10:59 AM Okay, that was my "why, exactly, was it necessary to be insulting?" reply. Here's my serious reply: That was pretty much the reaction in the anti-McCain screed on NewsMax, Troll. But they didn't even have the decency to make the exception for sporting-gun-owners that you do. Our guns, in fact, are not in a cabinet. Haven't been able to afford a decent one yet, what with buying a new house this year and all. We plan to get one, but in terms of gun safety, it's not an immensely high priority for us, since it's just the two of us living here--no children around to make unlocked guns a large risk. We hide 'em when other people's children are around, and keep them unloaded, always, with the ammunition on a different floor of the house. Mind you, I don't have the most precise knowledge of our ammo's location right now, since we're still unpacking. I remember which box I put them in--but I can't say with certainty where the box is (he admits sheepishly). But lemme tell you a little about where we live, and why we own guns. In our town, there's been something like four murders in the last 25 years. There's crime, yeah--there's crime everywhere--including burglaries, but armed intruders are about as common here as coelocanths. We own guns because...well, in large part because we inherited them, but also because Hypatia is a (currently inactive) hunter, and I want to learn to hunt. My need to defend my home with my firearms is virtually nil. But that's not to say that defense isn't part of the motivation. And this gets into why I no longer favor limiting the citizenry's 2nd-Amendment rights to own firearms. It really crystallized for me in about the year or two leading into the Oklahoma City bombing. I was, at the time, fairly actively involved in anti-Holocaust-denial activity on Usenet, and the bizarre, eclectic mish-mash of reading you need to do in order to post in an informed manner against Nazis, skinheads, cranks, pseudo-scholars and various other assorted racists leads you into some very interesting territory. One conclusion I reached fairly early on, from reading their own material, was that the White Power/Christian Identity/KKK/Aryan Nations/what-have-you movement was intricately linked with, and often was really the same movement as, the Patriot/Militia movement. Gotta remember, this was when Linda Thompson was organizing her big "march on Washington" that in the end never really materialized, where her followers were issuing veiled threats to make Congresscritters vote the way Linda wanted at gunpoint. Their rhetoric was militant, and it was clear that they considered themselves an army, bent on setting things right for God in a way that I think He'd have a hard time recognizing as "His" work. It was equally clear that if they ever got the civil unrest (and probably civil war) that they clearly wished for (unlikely as that may have seemed, even then), because of my other activities, there was a chance, however small, that my name was on some dimwitted--but well-armed--loser's list of "Race Traitors Who Should Be Put Against the Wall When the Revolution Comes." And even if I wasn't, well, people who think, talk, act, and look like me would be their targets eventually, and the only hope that normal people--left, right, center, or indifferent--would have against the tyranny of their mob would be an armed citizenry. Hippies with guns, if necessary, but everyone else, too, anyone who opposed the Militia Movement's extremist agenda--the true people's militia, if you will. And so I came, reluctantly, to oppose anti-gun legislation. And then Oklahoma City happened. In the first few hours after the bombing, before McVeigh and Nichols were captured, and people were starting to harrass and attack anyone who looked vaguely Middle-Eastern in revenge, I felt like I was the only person in America (well, except Hyp), who was shouting at the TV, "it's not Arabs, you idiots! It's the Militias!" From the first moment, I knew it was someone just like McVeigh turned out to be. Now, it'd be easy to say, in retrospect, that my reaction to the Militia Movement was, at the time, was in fact an overreaction--but given the terror they carried out in OKC, I'd still argue with you, a little. But reading their stuff, reading about what they wanted to implement and how they wanted to go about implementing it, those were kind of scary times, even before OKC, and they shaped me philosophically. In the years since, I've seen less need for being armed against them, but not a disappearance of that need. But all in all, the possibility of needing to keep a loaded gun in our bedroom at night seems even more remote than it did then--unless, say, there were an escaped, armed, and dangerous felon on the loose in the area of our town, in which case I'd do that without hesitation, until he was captured, since we live on the edge of town. But, there is, in recent days, one nagging doubt. I have no doubt at all that Bin Laden is behind September 11, and we need to go after him--I've been as certain of it from the moment it happened as I was of Oklahoma City and the Militias. But, while it seems likely that the ultimately the Anthrax attack can be laid at his feet as well, I can't get rid of the nagging doubt in the back of my head that the Anthrax could be the opportunistic work of that shadowy internal movement whose face most of America has seen only in that of Timothy McVeigh. Anyway, short version: unless the unlikely event of massive civil unrest coming to our sleepy South Dakota college town comes to pass, I am highly unlikely to ever need my guns for self-defense. I plan to get a cabinet, and once I have one, should I keep them in the cabinet, locked? Yes! Seems to me the only times to have your guns out of that cabinet would be: if you want to display them in a decorative way, in which case keep the ammo buried from prying little hands, or better, don't have ammo for decorative guns; if you live in an area where armed intrusion when you're in the house is a likelihood or a distinct possibility--in which case, seems to me it's likeliest under cover of darkeness, so keep the guns locked up when no one's around, or especially when only the kids are around (which in an area that dangrous probably shouldn't be happening anyway), and keep a gun within easy reach--loaded or unloaded with rounds nearby, your call--only during whatever hours you deem an armed intrusion a distinct enough possibility to warrant it. There's no excuse, including home defense, for making it easy for children to gain unsupervised access to guns and ammunition. None. They aren't adults, don't have an adequate sense yet of their own mortality, and don't really understand the profound responsibility of gun safety until they're way past the point of being physically capable of grabbing the gun against your wishes and orders and doing something stupid with it. But I don't want to turn this into a thread for us to disagree about gun control (since we don't), or to disagree about approaches to gun safety (where obviously we do). So, sorry for the long rant. Kind of covered more territory than what you were asking about, Troll, but hopefully it clarifies my feelings on gun ownership, gun safety, and 2nd Amendment rights. Shad |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: SDShad Date: 01 Nov 01 - 09:57 AM Troll scribt: "Do you really believe that the moke who breaks into your house in the middle of the night is going to wait for you to find the keys, open the cabinet, get out the gun and -if you follow the recommendations of some- remove the trigger lock, go to another locked cabinet, get out the ammunition, and load the gun?" Yes, Troll, I'm that stupid. It's a wonder I was able to even find the Mudcat Cafe. Shad |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,JWGibson Date: 01 Nov 01 - 09:50 AM If you are still looking for information on Hillary being Booed. There is a sound bite posted on the Rush Limbaugh website. You will have to wade through the website archives. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: balladeer Date: 01 Nov 01 - 09:34 AM Hi everyone: I am a British, now Canadian singer living in Toronto. I sing ancient ballads and modern torch songs (that I write). NYC is my favourite city on earth. Since September 11th, I find I say that a lot to people and did so to the audience at my CD release concert here last Saturday night. There was a lot I wanted to say about the attack, but did not want to weep on stage, so kept related comments minimal. With regard to Mrs. Clinton, I congratulate her on emerging from her role as the pitied wife of the philandering president to win an election of her own and then show herself to be sufficiently un-namby-pamby-ish that she inspires both love and hate. Please, can anyone tell me what B.S. stands for here? God bless America, warts and all. Balladeer |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Grab Date: 01 Nov 01 - 08:48 AM Troll, check out the stats. The incidence of thefts from occupied houses is bugger all, nearly all burglary occurs when houses are empty. So if you want the criminals _not_ to be armed, the first stage is to stop gun shops from selling guns to criminals (background check with gun license), and the second stage is to prevent criminals from being able to steal one (easily, anyway). If you bought a gun for home defence, and you _really_ thought you'd need it (like you happen to live in the middle of a gang-ridden city centre), then I'll grant you that. But if you're _really_ worried about self-protection, you'd be carrying the gun with you all the time, not putting it down anywhere, right? Stuck in a desk drawer upstairs is just as useless as locked away in a gun cabinet if someone breaks in while you're watching TV! But in your average town, the odds are vanishing small that anyone would think of breaking into an occupied building, so the priority is preventing easy theft of weapons from unoccupied buildings. A gun-nut friend has a small arsenal in his basement, and the thought of that lot getting stolen by a casual thief is positively terrifying. On a similar vein, do you also leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, so that you can jump in and get away quickly if someone chases after you? Of course you don't, bcos it's too easy for anyone else to steal it. Ditto locking guns away - if a burglar just needs to break a window to steal your Uzi sub-machine-gun... Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: kendall Date: 01 Nov 01 - 08:32 AM ...so I keep a Smith & Wesson by my bedside on a chair, I know I've got some bullets, but, I cant remember where.. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Troll Date: 01 Nov 01 - 08:16 AM SDShad,
if you own a gun for home defense, what earthly good does it do to have it locked away in a cabinet. Do you really believe that the moke who breaks into your house in the middle of the night is going to wait for you to find the keys, open the cabinet, get out the gun and -if you follow the recommendations of some- remove the trigger lock, go to another locked cabinet, get out the ammunition, and load the gun? troll |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Whistle Stop Date: 01 Nov 01 - 07:54 AM Jack, I'm a fairly liberal independent voter who almost always votes for the Democrats, a supporter of ex-President Clinton, and someone who sees a lot of good in Senator Clinton. So there isn't any bias at play here; I'm rooting for Hillary. Still, you have to admit that one of the most important skills a politician can have is the skill of being personable, making people like and want to work with him/her, etc. And I think most of us, whatever our personal politics, recognize that Hillary is lacking in these skills. Regardless of her other talents, if she doesn't improve her people skills, she'll continue to be hated by a substantial part of her constituency. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: DougR Date: 31 Oct 01 - 05:18 PM Nope, Jack, we don't! We don't have to listen to Fox! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Kim C Date: 31 Oct 01 - 03:58 PM The Yankees are in the Series a lot. I don't keep up with baseball, but unless they're playing the Braves, I'm usually for the Yankees. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: MAG Date: 31 Oct 01 - 03:44 PM HILARY for PRESIDENT! |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Oct 01 - 03:16 PM I watched the Bush Speech I saw the cameras pan to Hillary, I wondered why. I didn't see someone who looked bored. I remember distinctly when Bush declared war on the Taliban, something I was hoping he would not do, that Hillary looked startled, as I was, and started speaking with the man next to her. It seems to me that many Americans make up their minds about their politicians long before they get to know them. Knowing she is a Democrat, believing she is a liberal, is enough. I'm not saying that my perception of Hillary is correct, but it is unbiased. I couldn't care less about her. About her attending a Yankees game... Who cares? really?? And what about all of this Bullcrap on Fox about having the Yankees in the Series giving us meaning because of what happened to the WTC. Must we tolerate this malarkey?
|
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Blackcatter Date: 31 Oct 01 - 02:30 PM Greetings all! First of all - I love and respect all my fellow Mudcatters in the NYC area. Second of all - I'm sick and tired of NYC inhabitants (not all, mind you) telling me they live in the greatest city in the world. It's statements like that that makes the rest of the U.S. and the rest of the world think that New Yorkers are narrow-minded and obnoxious. And when it comes to one of your sport teams being in the finals of whatever sport they play - frankly, much of the rest of the U.S. could care less. Oddly enough, those of us who do care to follow sport teams, tend to follow ones in our own areas. And to me the sad thing about the NYC sport teams is that they don't win all the time - jeeze, yall spend enough money on the players to do so. pax yall |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Greg F. Date: 31 Oct 01 - 02:11 PM Troll, I've no problem with folks'different versions of reality- part of the human condition. Nor do I want to get into a discussion about objective vs. subjective reality from Calderón de la Barca down to the present. I do take issue with those who, like the character 'Colonel Flag' in the old M.A.S.H. TV series, make an active choice to keep themselves "as stupid as possible"; those that hold ignorance a virtue; those that want to ban books they've never read "cuz they know whuts in 'em", and so on. That's bigotry and unreality- a difference in kind, not in degree. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Kim C Date: 31 Oct 01 - 02:06 PM Mole! Heeheehee! Thanks Greg. I knew it was a guy in a war somewhere. Most of my knowledge of history stops before SpanAm. ;-) Politics is a funny thing. People who will tell the truth won't get elected, and people simply unwilling to lie won't run in the first place. Then there is the whole matter of making alliances with distasteful people and governments as a matter of convenience, which has happend worldwide, throughout history. I guess that's why it's politics. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: SDShad Date: 31 Oct 01 - 11:16 AM Thanks for posting the link to the Hillary archive at NewsMax, Margo. I noticed in one of the articles there, they mentioned that the Hillary-getting-booed thing wasn't covered much in the media, which I'm not sure I buy, since I've read about it in several places now, but certainly, there are much more important issues to be covering in these times. But boy, am I ever inclined to take most of what I see at NewsMax with a food-service-sized box of salt. Their tone is shrill, ideological, and unbalanced, even after September 11, where it seems to me we need to be just a smidge more unified than that. If I ever go back to their website. After reading this hateful, unconscionable hatchet-job on John McCain, a genuine American hero, I don't know if I ever will. I used to go to websites like these under the maxim of "know thine enemy," to see just what kind of trash they're peddling, but after September 11, "thine enemy" has a rather different meaning. No American, except those in the White Power/White Patriot/Neonazi/Militia of Montana/Christian Identity/Timothy McVeigh fringe, is "the enemy" in the way that al-Qaida are. I don't care so much any more to read the words of conservatives who don't get that, and are still more concerned with their domestic "enemies" (read: all liberals, most Democrats, and anyone, like McCain, who doesn't hew to the party line on every issue) than with a very real, very murderous, very elusive, and very difficult external enemy. With lower Manhattan still a smoldering warzone, it strikes me, at the least, as a bit unpatriotic. I made the mistake of reading several of Ann Coulter's columns yesterday, and it's just too distressing and depressing, too divisive and harmful to American unity. Sorry for veering into off-topic-rant territory like that, but I was positively seething after reading that article, along with the one that tore into McCain for suggesting that hey, you know, it might be a responsible thing to keep your guns in a locked cabinet (and I am both a liberal and pro-2nd-amendment and a gun owner, for the record). So...I wanted to vent. Chris |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: LR Mole Date: 31 Oct 01 - 10:18 AM I thought "You may fire when ready, Gridley," were the last words of an uncooked pancake. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: kendall Date: 31 Oct 01 - 09:51 AM I'll share my cookie with you anytime! Doug, the man said something that simply is not true. That, in my book, is a lie. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: DougR Date: 31 Oct 01 - 01:37 AM Carol C: Ok. Just this one time, but only because you have lost your cookie! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,CarolC (again) Date: 31 Oct 01 - 01:26 AM ...and why am I the only one who still hasn't got a cookie? |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: GUEST,CarolC (no cookies) Date: 31 Oct 01 - 01:19 AM If the speech was so frigging important, what was everybody doing watching Hillary anyway? Why weren't they (and you, those of you who are pointing fingers), watching President Bush? There you go DougR. One or two synapses appear to be firing tonight. But I don't want to push my luck, so go easy on me. |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: CaptainLewis Date: 31 Oct 01 - 12:38 AM An emminent politician once described statecraft (the formal term for politics) as "running the zoo from the monkey cage". I heartily agree, and embrace the views of Mark Twain and Will Rogers about politics and politicians. Unfortunately we insist in placing our country and our lives in the hands of charlatans and are shocked - shocked mind you when they act the part! CLB |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Troll Date: 31 Oct 01 - 12:18 AM Greg, I am well aware that Hillary is not the only self-serving etc. out there and I really don't think that I tried to give that impression. Sorry if you thought I was. We all build our own reality. Some just do a better job than others and some are satisfied with a fairly simple reality and some build elaborate confections. Others are never satisfied but keep changing their reality until they aren't sure what it is any more. Still others try to make everyone else change their reality to conform with theirs and get nasty when folks won't go along with the program. I know where mine is. Where's yours? troll |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: DougR Date: 30 Oct 01 - 10:14 PM I only worked for the government for a couple of years, Kendall, and I didn't belong to a union either. But I don't think that is the main reason the Republicans object to them being federal employees. Armey is an ass, I agree. I think they favor strict federal oversight, but having the folks that do the checking employees of a privately owned company. Why? If they screw up, they could be more easily replaced. Even the whole company could be replaced if necessary. The key would be federal oversight, I think. I have no idea what federal regulations are regarding employees that are unionized and those that are not. I'm sure Mick does, but I'm not sure that qualifies as a lie. I'm sure we will see, though. By the way, Kendall, I'm sure you will be delighted to know in the fifth inning of the WS, the game is tied up! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: Greg F. Date: 30 Oct 01 - 09:40 PM Kim- The 'Gridley bit' is supposedly Commodore George Dewey to Captain Charles Gridley at the Battle of Manila Bay in the Spanish-American War. :>) |
|
Subject: RE: Hilary Clinton From: kendall Date: 30 Oct 01 - 09:34 PM I'll give you an example Doug, but, I know you will find something wrong with it. As you must know, there is a bil in congress to make the security people at airports government employees. The republicans are holding it up, because, they want them to be civilian employees. Well, guess what? they ARE civilians, and they work for minimum wage, and some of them have been exposed as convicted felons! Armey stated on TV, that the reason the democrats want them to be Federal employees is because they would have to belong to a union that makes donations to the democrat party! What a crock! I worked for the govt. for many years, and I didnt belong to any union. |
| Share Thread: |
