Troll,

Somehow I expected (or maybe faintly hoped) for something more than the ethics of a elementary school playground from W. Protocol is protocol. It's one of those little rules of the game. Not getting invited to the White House is one thing, this is another. And gives the appearance of racism, no matter what W's motives. Is this an example of how he plans to bring the country together?

Greetings Mav.,

The American defenders of clinton (FOBs and most democRATs) are self identified enemies of the US Constitution.

In your not so humble opinion, anyway. And you never did answer my question about the Constitution.

They have every right to try to win the battle of public opinion but typically use "ends justify the means" spin tactics instead of revealing their agenda. (aka dirty pool)

Strange. That's the same charges leveled at the RR and RWE.

And as I'm not a big clinton fan, I'll have to let other's defend his actions.

I said "Ashcroft as Attorney General of Missouri singled out NOW to sue (for restraint of trade) over calling for a boycott during the ERA ratification fight" and you replied

Good!

NOW is simply a bunch of unreasonable socialist murder/bort elitists.

They don't give a damn about the average American woman. The NOW butches want equal rights, but in practice when the going gets rough they revert to the "poor little ole me" victimhood posture instead of "taking it like a man.

Two points: The point of law was that the man who is now our attorney general ignored several supreme court rulings that said there was no basis for his suit, ignored the fact that it wasn't NOW that started the boycotts and used his position to single them out. If he'd named all the organizations, fine. (Though he still didn't ahve much of a legal basis) He didn't.

The second point is that your little tirade reminds me of Orwells Animal Farm where all the animals were equal, only some were more equal than others. Or more directly, your "They deserve it" is one of the more un-American statements I've come across lately. Whatever you or I may think about NOW, they deserve equal treatment under the law. And didn't get it. From the man charged with making sure the law is applied with at least the appearance of fairness.

AG Ashcroft warts and all is 100 times more qualified than the 5th-choice-quaking-Waco murdering-frivolous phony FL child molesting innocent career destroying lawsuit-Elian communist complicit kidnapping-rubber stamping-obstruction of justice department-yes MAN!...Janet Reno!

Feel better now? Even if all your childish ranting about Janet Reno were true, it's starting to look like an argument about who was the "better" Caesar, Nero or Caligula.

I would support giving I.I.s a meal and a one way ticket home. Next time, ouchies from the border patrol/Army.

Hardly the point. What it indicates is what a lot of people have been saying. That W's ideas about Faith based initiatives and the faith based organizations aren't necessarily in the same ball park. And the faith based groups aren't policemen. The danger is secularization of religions.

If they want to give half their estate to charity or the govt, let them. Leave the non-billionaires alone. The reason so many people have to sell farms and family business is the very same estate (death)tax. That's anti-American. But you knew that! ...........Didn't you!

No. I know people that have had to sell farms and businesses. More out of their own ignorance than necessity. Life Trusts aren't just for the rich.

Isaid "But if he does, then the Government can just take up the slack" and your came back with I doubt that. KILL PROGRAMS! KILL DEPARTMENTS!

What do you think W's doing with his faith based nonsense? I wouldn't invite the racist bastards either. He's being way nicer to the commucRATs and black socialists (progressives)than he needs to be.

No, I suspect you wouldn't. And do you long for the good old days when "they" knew their palce and when "they" got a little uppity, why they just got lynched?

He's supposed to be the President of all the United States, not just the parts he likes. At least that was the theme of his inaugural speech. That NAACP dragging ad was the most disgusting and unfair piece of crap ever perpetrated in American politics.

It was certainly in my top five.

What would "Hate Crimes Legislation" do, kill them TWICE???

The argument for hate crimes legislation is that intent is one element taken into account when considering what charge to bring. The question is not "kill them twice" but all other things being equal, does the intent (hate) warrant a more severe charge. 1st Degree, rather than 2nd degree manslaughter, for example. Like premeditation.

I said "Then there's W's lost year of military service" and you came back with Then there's clinton taking communion with the USSR and Chinese COMMUNISTS!

And two wrongs make a right. One doesn't forgive or justify the other.

33% paid by the top 1%.

50% paid by the top 5%

5% paid by the bottom 50%

If you don't pay income taxes, why should you get a break?

Then why is the top 1%, whether its 21% or 33% getting 43% of the break? 33% (or 21%) would seem logical.

Oh yeah, socialism (return to top of letter and re-read)

I reread. It doesn't improve any of it.

Where are the other Mudcatters, beer and volume shock from niteclubs?

I know the feeling.

Beer and niteclubs indeed. Saturday Nights is when we plot to destroy organized religion. I'll send you a schedule (except you may think I'm being serious). Sadly, my beer and niteclub days are a thing of the past. "Don't feel sorry about the Cold War. W's doing his best to start it up again. Even the rhetoric hasn't changed much since the Actor's heyday. But then, thanks to Bush, neither have the players"

Yes, too bad they've had 8 years to build nuclear weapons.

Longer. But now they can buy them from the various nations of the old Soviet Union. That The Actor is credited with destroying. Hmmmm.?

Yes, if Japan and Germany had been percieved as a threat, maybe WWII wouldn't have happened.

Which is true but wasn't the point. And a number of people did see the menace. No one wanted to listen. And a lot listen to the wrong "hero". (Lindberg, for one)

"The Soviet Union had been crumbling for a long time. The Actor gets credit for hastening the fall" World leaders were impressed by his resolve and ability when dealing with the Russians.

"Mr. Gorbechev tear down this wall" as a public position put the USSR in an odd PR position and the US in a superior posture.

"Star Wars" was another scare tactic that worked, they thought we already had the technology.

We also outspent them in the arms race, forcing their wimpy economic structure to collapse

Such spending had been going on since the 50's. It reenforces my point about our compulsive need for heros as a substitute for thinking. And I don't belittel his effort, just want to keep it in perspective.

I said "He also needs to accept the blame for his support of petty dictators who were as guilty of genocide as any of your "favorites"." and your replied You mean like Kadaffi and Ortega?

I was thinking more of his support for, Somoza, Efran Montt, the Honduran "freedom fighters" The Khmer Rouge, Indonesia against East Timor, Mobutu Seko, the former South African government's support for terrorist in Angola and Mozambique.... to name a few.

In no small way due to the way the LSCs shamelessly and unfairly demonize him even as he languishes in a torturous death from Alzheimers.

A real good testimony to the hypocrisy of the "compassionate and tolerant" self-described nature of the commucRATs.

Which means .... what? He didn't (We all hope) have it while he was president. Should we overlook Hitler because he was syphilitic and probably schizophrenic (if not a total sociopath). Of forgive Caligula for his little foibles? Please!!. . I said "Clinton in the 90's didn't cause the expansion. Neither did Greenspan. And neither will Bush during his term. But our economy is international. At best, governments can moderate the peaks and valleys" and you replied with a resounding

WRONG!

And thus it is commanded. So let it be written, so let it be done.

They can either screw it up by removing dollars from the economy, or enhance it by putting dollars back. Kennedy did it in 1960...tax cuts

Reagan did it!...tax cuts

Bush #41 didn't do it..."read my lips"

clinton didn't do it....largest tax increase in history Newt did it..massive capital gains tax cuts

Take a look at some of the stuff on chaos theory and macroeconomics. Or even some of the popular stuff on fractal investing. And consider post hoc ergo propter hoc as a more likely explanation of your reasoning.

The govt is not supposed to run a surplus, that means they confiscated more money than they can waste. There should be neither a deficit nor a surplus (balanced books)

This tax cut is nothing, it should be $5.6 Trillion or more.

No. It shouldn't We have a massive deficit that is costing every taxpayer money. We should get rid of it. Except that we borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund, from medicare and need to repay it. WE (as in the taxpayers) spent it. Just like a car loan, its time to pay it back. What we should have is no tax cut and use it to pay off the debt. That would be fiscally conservative.

Where in the US Constitution does it give the right to re-distribution of the wealth to the federal government???

Where is it forbidden?

Regards

John