BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!

Subject: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 10:59 PM

"My favorite is crack versus cocaine possession. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the DA's in question are liberal or conservative"

Crack is to Cocaine what hash is to pot, what whiskey is to beer. It is made from cocaine and very concentrated.

"At least one of them got elected by vote of the Supreme Court"

The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that the laws in effect before the election were the "controlling legal authority"

algor tried to change the rules, the FLSC tried to write law (not their job)

No state (including Florida up until algor) counts under and over votes. THE BALLOTS ARE DISQUALIFIED!

"Perhaps some got elected through the judicious use of fear tactics? Some because of their positions on various social issues. Very few because they had anything much to offer in the way of getting to the root of the problem....beyond building more jails"

The got elected because Florida voters voted Republican.

"What a curious statement. The GOP doesn't represent the public sector? I thought they claimed to represent all the people"

Uh.......the public sector means all the union thug bureacrats, Government.

Clearly, a lot of minorities proliferate in the inner city. A lot of businesses do to, large numbers of them marked by outrageous price gouging, credit schemes and the like. Run by all races.

So you're saying they're equal opportunity?

"I doubt if professional athletes and entertainers could be considered middle class.

No, that should have been a new paragraph, those were two independent statements.

"And question your statistics. And if true, they are the fastest growing segment of a shrinking middle class"

Well since you guys defined $20,000 as the poverty level and $75,000 as rich, no wonder the middle class seems to be shrinking.

"Given? By who, pray tell"

U of MN.

"While a nice, neat simple answer that explains away a very complex problem might be comforting to some, it does nothing to address root causes or solve anything. It offers the solace of style over substance"

You don't like the simplicity of block grants?

"Do you feel there is truly equality of opportunity?"

If there were equality in public education or vouchers, there might be when coupled with Greyhound and a GOOD ATTITUDE!

"What about the significant number of other civil rights groups?"

I only was referring to the NAACP. If there are other self serving divisive groups I would probably say the same thing. "Is there truly no prejudice left"

I never said that.

What you really have to ask yourself is; Is it skin color, or attitude, that causes the perpetual dischord?

"I do partially agree that the NAACP takes its self defined role as savior a little too seriously and it's agenda has become distant from the root problems"

I is one of the root problems.

I would agree that the GOP and Infume are worlds apart on lots of issues (gimmee vs. responsibility) The people he "serves" are welcome to become educated and productive Americans and to join the party. To say they can't do it is to call them STUPID!

To say there are still not structural (political, social and economic) obstacles to their becoming such is also stupid.

"'We all know that's just not true. (Don't we?)'

No. We don't. You may wish it was so. It would be comforting if it was. It would mean that it could all go away an we wouldn't have to deal with it. Could happily declare that the symptom is a cause and fell very self-satisfied"

My comment referred to my opinion that blacks aren't stupid, are you saying they are?

to be continued

mav out

For an alternate opinion on this try the usenet. I suggest alt.alien.abduction. :-) Or this thread on mudcat BS: We are not (well maybe Alone

in another post, these choice tidbits.

That is your right, but centuries of societies conducting experimentation with family arrangements have brought us to the current status of the desirability of the nuclear family.

Actually, it was the extended family that proved desirable and most viable. S the study you later cite implies.

Recent studies have shown most criminals and other whack jobs emerge from dysfunctional and broken households but largely from single parent "families" where no father is present to enforce dicipline and teach right from wrong.

It's a little like the old marijuana-heroin link from the 60's. 90% of all heroin users reported that they began by smoking pot. However, only 8% of all marijuana users reported that they had used heroin, a very different thing.

In my part of Florida, 85% of all serious juvenile crime (defined as crime that, for an adult, would be a felony) is committed by children from single parent homes. However, of all single parent families, 18% have juveniles that commit a felony (On average. Rates vary by socio-economic groups).

Which would seem to indicate the existence of other factors. In logic, it would be the error of composition

And then he said......

I think they were referring to torture and drawing an quartering here, not overcrowding.

As they are long dead, it matters what the courts and society today define as such.

I will not disagree, but the end result of releasing these violent anti-social predators back onto the streets is illogical because it is cruel and unusual punishment to the general public who deserve protection from them. I'd like to see them exported. (This is a Gene Burns concept)

To bad for him that the Constitution doesn't seem to agree.

ip violent repeat offenders and murders of their Constitutional rights, since they've proven that they don't wish to participate in civilized society, and "farm them out" with a one time payment (say $25,000) to penal systems of third world countries. This could defuse some of the controversy over capital punishment. You might think twice about raping someone if you knew you might be moving to SYRIA!

Or not. The use of punishment as a deterrent seems to be be linked to the nature of the crime, having less impact of most violent crimes because they are generally acts of passion and deterrence assumes some level of rationality.

So far, building more prisons, mandatory sentencing and the like hasn't seemed to stem the tide. Could it be that there are underlying causes that could be corrected to reduce the number of crimes?

And in another post

The study covers much of what we already knew and more. It shows the destructive effects of your philosophy on a class of people. If you want to talk about victims, READ IT!

The study also drew no conclusions. It was a fairly straight forward statistical analysis. The reporter tossed in several other "studies" that theorized about causes. I stress the "theory". And refer back to the discussion on juvenile crime.

Next

I think I covered that but just let me add......I HATE AUTHORITARIANISM and BIG GOVERNMENT!!!

What about big business????

She not Reno, ordered the raid on WACO.....FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

Huh. A new one? Where did that come from? And still doesn't justify the name calling.

By the way, lots of New Yorkers are questioning their choice for Senate, I'd say she may well face 6 years of defending emerging details from her and bubba's (nothing big about him) reign of terror in the White House. This should be good. Unless of course they can un-elect her.

But then a lot of high level Republican strategists are very worried about Jeb and Republicans in general in Florida next year.

Neither statement having any great or profound meaning. Or signifying much of anything.

Been busy, haven't you?

Go to www.junkscience.com for a global warming update.

There is a reason they call it "junkscience.com" Just not the reason you imply or they would like you to believe

Strangely, the IPCC report that involved something on the order of 60 scientists (all well respected), think that (for some reason) the mtl is up. "JunkScience" quotes one scientist who says it isn't.

And what about the 1000 year ice core samples taken from glaciers around the globe that show a warming trend? Which may be a natural cyclical variances, may be due to greenhouses gases. May be a short term blip. Time will tell. Fortunately I have land in the North Carolina mountains, just in case.

Which isn't to say he's wrong. I'll prefer not to leap quite yet. The debate his highly technical and will be fought out in peer-reviewed journals.

Journalists will mis-report it. Politicians will miss-interpret it and "junkscience.com will report it as proving....something.

Regards

John

I am off to Tallahassee for a Block Grant meeting Monday afternoon. Usually, I can't get the office laptop to connect to the internet on the road so somehow, you'll have to survive without me. And I without you.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST,More BS
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 11:18 PM

Seems to me, but then what would I know LOL, that the Republican Voters were helped in errr some ways ....

Then again looking at who is the chief benefactor of the Bush Shite administration I am not surprised but I would not like to be the person telling all those investors where all the money has gone???

The Republicans lost and like the Nixon administration they used the states agencies to cover the truth.

BTW When did I last read about a registered Republican who created any new technology much less a new succesfull enterprise, NEVER.

So now at least I know which Party is supported by those who are the wealth creators in this economy, but then I could be mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 11:21 PM

"To bad for him that the Constitution doesn't seem to agree"

Looks like a good reason for an amendment.

"Actually, it was the extended family that proved desirable and most viable. S the study you later cite implies"

Picky, picky, you need a nuclear family before you get a decent extended family.

"The study also drew no conclusions. It was a fairly straight forward statistical analysis. The reporter tossed in several other "studies" that theorized about causes. I stress the "theory"

It mentioned two significant dates which noted an increase My theory can be summed up in two words, FDR and LBJ.

"And what about the 1000 year ice core samples taken from glaciers around the globe that show a warming trend?"

I don't dispute the warming trend.

What I want to know is what were they doing in the 1400s to cause global warming?

"I am off to Tallahassee for a Block Grant meeting Monday afternoon"

Newt says you're welcome for the Block Grant.

"Usually, I can't get the office laptop to connect to the internet on the road so somehow, you'll have to survive without me. And I without you"

Looking forward to your return.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: mousethief
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 11:24 PM

Nobody ever made whiskey from beer. Crack is a black drug, cocaine is a white drug. Whites make the laws, and are more afraid of crack smokers than they are of rich men driving cadillacs into black neighborhoods to buy coke. So they make the jail sentences for crack possession factors of 10 longer than the jail sentences for THE AMOUNT OF COCAINE IT WOULD TAKE TO MAKE THAT MUCH CRACK.

No racism here. Nope.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 11:39 PM

"Seems to me, but then what would I know LOL, that the Republican Voters were helped in errr some ways ...."

Yes, they read the paper and understood the ballot.

"Then again looking at who is the chief benefactor of the Bush Shite administration I am not surprised"

Not that you have a any bias or anything.

"but I would not like to be the person telling all those investors where all the money has gone???"

I'm sure they are quite pleased with the election results.

"The Republicans lost"

Lost what, Tennessee and Arkansas, don't you read the paper, Bush now won Florida, once again.

"and like the Nixon administration they used the states agencies to cover the truth"

Nixon used state agencies to cover the truth? Perhaps you can give me a little refresher course on that one.

"BTW When did I last read about a registered Republican who created any new technology much less a new succesfull enterprise, NEVER."

Ever heard of the Chamber of Commerce? You might find a few there.

Try reading the Wall Street Journal. Xinuan and the Havanna Times aren't real informative on things like that.

"So now at least I know which Party is supported by those who are the wealth creators in this economy, but then I could be mistaken"

I said they support the private sector, not necessarily the other way around.

Actually, corporations give almost as much to the democrats as to the GOP. Organized Labor/Crime give exclusivly to the Ds.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 11:58 PM

"Nobody ever made whiskey from beer"

The substance they distill to make whiskey is called a beer.

"Crack is a black drug"

Funny, I always assumed it was white. "cocaine is a white drug"

Yes, I've seen pictures of it.

"Whites make the laws"

The Congressional Black Caucus isn't going to like that one.

"and are more afraid of crack smokers than they are of rich men driving cadillacs into black neighborhoods to buy coke"

So's Jesse! Aren't you?

"So they make the jail sentences for crack possession factors of 10 longer than the jail sentences for THE AMOUNT OF COCAINE IT WOULD TAKE TO MAKE THAT MUCH CRACK"

Seems logical and fair.

Actually it really is ten times more (your number) It's just concentrated.

Why don't the black drug fiends switch to the "much safer" cocaine?

What if you're a white crack smoker?

"No racism here. Nope"

I don't know, all those references to "black" and "white"

How does the color of a drug translate to racism?

Why would you want to be a racist?

Hey, how's your great leader BILL CLINTON?

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 12:09 AM

New York Times Left-Winger: Shun Corrupt Clinton

Bob Herbert, identified today by Fox News Channel as the most liberal columnist at the New York Times, is belatedly joining in on the anti-Clinton bandwagon. But his vehemence is making up for his tardiness.

Herbert writes today that the Democratic Party made "the equivalent of a pact with the devil" in supporting Clinton and "in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul."

"Now, with the stench of yet another scandal polluting the political atmosphere, some of Mr. Clinton's closest associates and supporters are acknowledging what his enemies have argued for years - the man is so thoroughly corrupt it's frightening.

"The president who hung a "For Rent" sign on the door to the Lincoln Bedroom also conducted a clearance sale on pardons in his last weird sleepless days in the White House.

"The fallout from those pardons is threatening to destroy Mr. Clinton, and perhaps also his wife, the junior senator from New York. He may finally be getting his due.

'Standard Definition of a Bribe'

"The Clintons can spin this however they want. But the simple truth is that the way in which some of the pardons were granted seems to fit neatly with the standard definition of a bribe, which is the promise of money or gifts - something of value - to influence the action or behavior of an official. ...

"The Clintons may or may not be led away in handcuffs someday. But whatever happens with the criminal investigations, it's time for the Democratic Party to wise up. Ostracism would be a good first step. Bill Clinton should be cut completely loose."

And there's more. But where were Herbert and his ilk during the last eight years? ========================================================

Gee, this from the New York Times (All the news that fits our agenda)

Not the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Ha!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 12:36 AM

...........geeziz.....................Why do the words "ranting and raving" keep popping into my head? Unbelievable. The boy's cheese has slid off his cracker........................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 12:53 AM

Well...he does keep getting an audience, Spaw...maybe it's time to shun the flame...

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: wdyat12
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 01:41 AM

This thread has definately veered offtrack and would be deserving of it's own thread, "Clinton Wacked," but I think we have already been there.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST,More BS Part 2
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 02:41 AM

Mav I get the impression you are on here a lot, I don't have that kind of time too busy with creative enterprise LOL.

Chamber of Commerce. STAR CHAMBERV _ WITCH HUNT Etc etc.

I equate those type of people with Beer Sales parlors, yall stack the merchandise and screw the punter OH YEAH Praise the Lawd.

Yall are what I said - crap

Between the ears of the C O C is a Momma's boy, or in Dubya's case Pappa's little runt.

The losses on Wall Street is what I am talking about but then what would *you* know about that being born to the Manor with a old money falling all over the place ( he he ) did that make you mad. Call ya momma child.

Ever hear of Hoover and the Wall Street Crash and guess what - WE can do it again

Go figure

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 12:57 PM

Fascinating. Spaw, I see you have managed to get cheese into this thread too...

I dream of a world in which Republicans and Democrats are a mere dim memory...like Etruscans and Hittites. One day it shall be so.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 01:28 PM

If one screams loud enough, with one's fingers in one's ears, one can put an end to just about any rational discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 02:40 PM

the crack problem was exacerbated by the Iran Contra scandal under the Raygun Bush administration which by the way is far worse than any blowjob Clinton may have received and later denied (whos business is that anyway). The Republican witch hunt tried to get Clinton from day 1 while the democrats failed to do that with Reagun Bush.

to quote W. maves theories are "like swiss cheese, theyre not effective" go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 03:05 PM

You are right, Alex! EEEEEEEEEEEEE-YAAAAAAUUGGGHHHHH!!!

- LH out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 05:32 PM

Dear kitties,

"Well...he does keep getting an audience, Spaw...maybe it's time to shun the flame..."

You guys ARE the flamers.

Thanks for helping me with my thread.

If you are part of the massive democrat vote fraud effort "vote early and often" we will find you.

Prepare to be BUSH-whacked.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 05:36 PM

I am right and you are wrong
Doo-dah. Doo-dah.
The race is to the swift, the fight to the strong
Oh, the doo-dah day.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: kendall
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 05:37 PM

Well, according to the news, the count in Florida shows that Bush really did win there. So, that being the case, let's go back to the real reason we democrats lost. WE PUT UP THE WRONG MAN! We could have had an honest man, Bill Bradley, but no, the powers that be didn't see that.

Now, MAV I hope you will be as right about the judgement of the people when the democrats kick ass two years from now!

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 06:14 PM

Dear BS2,

"Mav I get the impression you are on here a lot, I don't have that kind of time too busy with creative enterprise LOL"

Yes, I'd guess you're a rocket surgeon.

"Chamber of Commerce. STAR CHAMBERV _ WITCH HUNT Etc etc."

Whatever. Businesses of under 25 employees are what really makes this economy tick.

"I equate those type of people with Beer Sales parlors, yall stack the merchandise and screw the punter OH YEAH Praise the Lawd"

??? and catspaw accuses me of raving.

"Yall are what I said - crap"

You say the nicest things.

Remember!.......

Y'all are what y'all EAT! (dixiecrat)

"Between the ears of the C O C is a Momma's boy"

Oh, so you're a manly man.

He's a lumberjack and he's ok. He sleeps all night, He works all day.

He works in the forest and he cuts down trees, He loves to pick wild flowers. Hmmm hmmm hmmm hmm hmm hmmm hmm and hang around in bar-ahs

"or in Dubya's case Pappa's little runt"

Yes, he's such a dummy, totally powerless and unfit.

"The losses on Wall Street is what I am talking about but then what would *you* know about that"

Well after the assault on the private sector by your GOD clinton and the party of clinton,(Microsoft, the insurance industry, the auto industry, the petroleum industry, the power industry etc.) coupled with Greenspan frigging with the interest rates as though his job is to screw with the equities market (sigh).......

It's no damn wonder we are now in a real and impending CLINTON RECESSION!!!!!!!

But what would I know about it?

"being born to the Manor with a old money falling all over the place ( he he ) did that make you mad"

No, actually it is a compliment that you think I'm that highly bred, but alas, I must work for a living.

"Call ya momma child"

Good idea, I haven't talked to her for a couple of weeks, child.

"Ever hear of Hoover and the Wall Street Crash"

The stock maket crash of 1929 was a natural consequence of the greatest orgy of speculation and over-optimism since the Great Sperm Whale Oil Debacle of 1720. A general euphoria drew more and more "suckers" into the speculative market led by the famous Jewish matriarch investor Monique Lewinski. Widows, factory workers, bootblacks and waiters risked their life savings to make a fast buck in the stock market.

No, exactly what is a Wall Street Crash?

"WE can do it again"

YOU (the clinton party) Have done it again!

Go figure

I'll be right back, I'm figuring

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 06:17 PM

Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way
I can't wait to look in the mirror
I get better looking each day

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 27 Feb 01 - 06:37 PM

Hey Mister M,

"Well, according to the news, the count in Florida shows that Bush really did win there. So, that being the case, let's go back to the real reason we democrats lost. WE PUT UP THE WRONG MAN! We could have had an honest man, Bill Bradley, but no, the powers that be didn't see that"

I was standing at a poll in Portsmouth holding a Bush sign when confronted by a businessman of the African persuasion.

He got right in my face and said he hadn't made up his mind yet.

I volunteered that perhaps I could help, He said, "You?, what could you possibly have to say about it?"

I told him very much of what you stated above about Bradley, and disparaged lying algor.

He said angrily, "Are you saying Gore's a liar?"

I replied........"Yeah, pretty much."

I also told him if he wanted to vote pro-business he should vote for Bush.

He said he had never voted for a Republican and he wasn't about to start now.

The Gore sign people now hated me, the Bradley people liked me, for the moment. When he was out of earshot I then wasted my good will by stating "BUT one thing they both have in common is they are both BIG TIME SOCIALISTS"

Both camps then hated me equally.

"Now, MAV I hope you will be as right about the judgement of the people when the democrats kick ass two years from now!"

I will once we get our voter fraud prevention forces fine tuned, we've been overwhelmed in the past but we've scared them away where we've been able persistantly monitor the polls.

When you have democrat districts with more votes cast than registered voters you have to admit something is amiss. (Filthydelphia I think)

Talk to you later

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST,in New York
Date: 28 Feb 01 - 07:42 PM

Hillary-GET OUT!!! ================New York Observer

Clinton Corruption Plays Us for Fools—We Won't Forget

Some day soon, public interest in the Clinton administration's final disgrace will fade, and the former President—if not his wife, our junior Senator—will retreat from the headlines. Then, after an appropriate interval, we will start seeing phony photo ops and pious public pronouncements. Here and there, the Clintons will begin their latest rehabilitation: Here is the junior Senator, hugging inner-city children; there is the former President, lecturing his successor on the finer points of statecraft.

Just as surely as Richard Nixon began planning his comeback on the airplane that took him to San Clemente on Aug. 9, 1974, the Clintons even now are preparing their future public-relations assault on the nation's better nature. They assume—regrettably, not without reason—that the American public in general, and New York voters in particular, will forget about the pardons and the denials and the bald-faced lies that have sickened even their most stalwart apologists.

They assume that disgust will run its course, that salvation will be found in short attention spans, that the hyperactivity of the media age will continue to blur collective memory. And if that doesn't work, well, they figure they can rely on this heavily Democratic state to swallow whole their claims to political victimhood. If public memory cannot be manipulated, there's always the crass pandering that has served them so well in the past: The former President will walk the length of 125th Street to remind his putative neighbors that he was, after all, the first black President; the junior Senator will hold news conferences to denounce right-wing conspirators. This combination of cold-blooded racial politics and partisan hatemongering, the Clintons no doubt believe, will keep New York pliant. And New York is the key to it all: Without New York, there is no Senate seat, there is no imperial post-Presidency, there is no access to the courtiers who can, with words, actions and money, douse the dealings of grifters with the perfume of public service.

So the Clintons are playing New Yorkers for fools. Although they surely know by now that their actions and their words have offended even their own supporters in the state they laughingly call home, they see no reason to panic. Mrs. Clinton is in the first weeks of a six-year term of office; in 2006, they believe, who in New York will remember Marc Rich or Hugh Rodham? Who will remember the White House furniture that found its way to their living room in Chappaqua?

And so it will be up to New York, finally, to foil the calculations of this coarse and manipulative couple. New Yorkers now have an obligation, not only to themselves but to the nation: They must remember. They must remember exactly how they feel about the Clintons at this moment, exactly how they felt when their junior Senator claimed she didn't know that her own brother was bidding for pardons from her husband. They must remember how their stomachs turned when their junior Senator professed to be "heartbroken" about her brother's rancid involvement in the great pardon auction. They must remember their astonishment when Mrs. Clinton claimed to know nothing about the Rich pardon, even though his ex-wife Denise donated more than $100,000 to the former First Lady's Senate campaign—not to mention the $1.1 million that Ms. Rich has given the national Democratic Party, and the $450,000 she gave to the Clinton Presidential Library.

Mrs. Clinton is heartbroken? She's always either heartbroken or disappointed. What about her constituents? Doesn't she feel our shame? After all, her husband felt our pain. Does she not understand our embarrassment? With the nation and indeed the world watching, we entrusted her with the U.S. Senate seat once held by Robert F. Kennedy and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It is clear now that we have made a terrible mistake, for Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit for elective office. Had she any shame, she would resign. If federal officeholders were subject to popular recall, she'd be thrown out of office by springtime, the season of renewal.

Only two months ago, serious people believed that Mrs. Clinton would be a candidate for President in 2004. Even true believers—gathered in Manhattan's few remaining telephone booths—must admit that the plan to get Mrs. Clinton back into the White House must now be relegated to history's dustbin, where it will share space with the proceedings of the ClintonCare commission, canceled checks to the Whitewater Development Corporation and the billing records of the Rose Law Firm. Mrs. Clinton's political viability has come to an end after fewer than eight weeks in office.

Unlike the tawdry dealings that led to Bill Clinton's impeachment, the pardon scandal implicates Mrs. Clinton as much as, and perhaps even more than, her husband. After all, it was her brother, not his, who accepted $400,000 to lobby for pardons for a drug kingpin and a swindler. (Hugh Rodham says he'll give the money back—although he hasn't done it just yet. Even if he does, the restitution won't make everything right. Just ask a bank robber.) The Hasidic village in upstate New Square voted en masse for her, not him, last fall, after she met with the village's religious leader. The pardons for four felons from the village who bilked the federal government out of $40 million raise questions about her campaign, not his. It was her campaign treasurer, not his, who helped and advised two of those felons with their pardon applications.

Mrs. Clinton's press conference on Feb. 22 was a masterpiece of evasion—so much so that she deserves a new (if you'll forgive us) moniker: "Slick Hillie." She said she knew nothing about the pardons. She said she knew nothing of her brother's involvement. No, no—she didn't concern herself with these little matters, because she was very busy preparing to represent the people of New York. If we had any questions about the pardons, she said, we ought to ask him, the "him" in question being her husband.

A move worthy of the Big He himself.

The Clintons have spent the last eight years treating the American electorate with dismissive contempt. The rage unleashed in the last few weeks is that of an aggrieved partner who has wised up at last. The President's supporters in politics and the press understood all along that they were in a high-risk relationship, but they had persuaded themselves that, in his heart, Mr. Clinton loved what they loved. Their devotion only deepened when they were warned to be wary of him; his enemies were their enemies, too.

Now, with Mr. Clinton stripped of the power and protection of the Presidency, his supporters see him exactly as he is. And the image that presents itself is terrifyingly close to the caricature his enemies drew of him. They were right, after all. Mr. Clinton was, in fact, an untrustworthy low-life who used people for his own purposes and then discarded them. How could they have been fooled so badly?

Even now, some continue to delude themselves. They attack Mr. Clinton's actions, but they can't bring themselves to admit that Senator Hillary also is at fault. Most of us, however, now realize that she is an equally detestable partner in a scandal whose sleazy dealings finally have been brought to light.

Conservative critics of the Clintons have been amused to see the former President's friends writhing in agony on talk shows and in op-ed columns in recent weeks. They wonder why other Democrats and liberal commentators are so angry. It's not as though the Clintons have suddenly become something they're not; they've been selling their principles to the highest bidder for years. It's not as though they've betrayed their core values; what core values did they ever have?

What the critics—understandably satisfied to see their judgment confirmed yet again—miss is the amount of self-loathing in the Clinton pile-on. Pro-Clinton commentators and colleagues now realize just how much they compromised, just how much they excused, just how ridiculous they looked in their defense of this corrupt couple. The end of the Clinton Presidency and the beginning of another Bush era has inspired a round of reflection, and Clinton supporters find they can't look at themselves in the mirror.

They are ashamed of themselves, which is a good deal more than anybody can say of the Clintons. Indeed, they remain smug and self-righteous, certain that New York will forget the early weeks of 2001, certain that New York will embrace its junior Senator once again.

They have fooled the public before. They believe they can do so again.

Let's hope that this time, they are wrong

This column ran on page 4 in the 3/5/2001 edition of The New York Observer

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST,re:more BS
Date: 28 Feb 01 - 10:59 PM

Oh well, they are all corrupt. Now what are we going to do? I recall once seeing a middle man getting a large expensive home for fixing some deal. At the time there was not a word in the press, but then why should there be? It happens all the time, unknown Executives getting their rewards, then again some of them get buried alive when they don't deliver. That is the game.

Yes another Mr Nobody playing Golf, fixing things. We need this kind of stuff, it's the oil that lubricates the wheels of capitalism. I mean without it there would be no profit. It is the margin.

Drug dealers, seems to me if they must clean house, they ought clean ALL OF IT. They could start in 1600 Pensylvania Ave and repartriate the Illegal Candy Sales man. Do *you* get the point?

Mr Rich and his doings, again he just could not do the Country Club right! He paid off the wrong people, it happens all the time, cept this time he did not pay off the Falwell club. Big doodooo. His offence is a paper work type thing, official, red tape and all that. But then we all know the Republicans only get Official when it suit's their purpose. LIKE NOW. Fat chicken all ready for the Pot, imagine the jowls of Gush and Bush, and the rest. They can take everything he has even the dough stashed abroad, or else Dubya will Bomb the Bank LOL.

MAV, when there is no bread in the store and you can't find anything to eat then you'll waken up. The Depression was the same thing we now have, uninformed folk dealing in Stocks and Shares, they buy on tips not filings.

WE means US all MAV, you and I am sad to say 'me'.

Every time WE try to Moralize in a Free Market you end up with a Depression. It is about Prosperity, Profit and Progress, not about Promiscuity, Presidents and Privacy or in this case the lack of it.

In fact if Clinton had done what not just one, but several Western leaders including several U S Presidents then the Star Chamber would've had him executed in Texas - LIKE KENNEDY - but not this time, Bill is a Southern Christian and it would not be right would it, I mean he is not errr well yall know - nor is he emm err. *You* know what this is doncha MAV.

Also worth noting, this is about Money not Morals.

No tax, none, no highway repairs, all toll roads, all private health care - NO LEGAL controls OK - You want freedom doncha? No Public standards, build what you want where you want. No safety laws, kill the workers to make more product. No Government, kill people who get in your way. No Law Enforcement, steal what you want.

MAV - Grow up. It is and never was that simple. Clinton lined his pockets because, this is America, Linda Trash liner her pockets because this MAV, is America, Paula Johns lined her pockets because..... and so on.

Lush Bumraugh lines his pockets because? All the other bla bla bla get by with what? If I had need of an Stuffed Penguin none of these talking heads would ever make it, and do you know why MAV, they don't know how to take Clinton to the cleaners. Did you ever wonder why Clinton bashing is so popular? Look at it this way, they are talking about him all the time not the other way aroud - Ie He does not talk about them, heck they re-elected him. He did not need a PR campaign, if he ran again he would win.

Here we are putting Hilary in the White House. But of course you Republicans don't get it. Tell you what, if you'd ask Dubya for Equal Opportunity for Illegal Mexicans and let us have Doctors, Mechanics etc as well as the Constuction Workers etc we now have... heck send em all over here. Then I and lots more like me would have more money, since our costs would go down, but like the Tax cuts it would have hidden pay off, unemployment for Americans...etc.

So you see MAV, though Tax cuts will free up a little cash for a few months, when the game is over we have to be ready for the hidden Payoff. In this case it may be Depression, but is certainly recession. Lay offs?

So what can we do, for a start make durable quality product, net the cheap self destruct Plastic junk that Wal- Mart now sells. BTW All of that is imported. Modernise the manufacturing base. Factories are out of date and over cost today, robotics will reduce plant sizes so lets start building the new infrastucture. Information technology needs upgrading, corodination and standards for Optic Networks nation wide. The list is very long. It is the greatest time of oppurtunity for young Companies since the 1890s yet few are even trying to get into the soft spot. Look at all the capital that got dumped in DOT COM land? 10% of it would've put 100,000 LONG TERM jobs into the econony, by now that cash is slithering down a long line of vice even to the sidewalks of Colombia.

MAV, when it comes to goodness and Republicans you can have it all, but when it comes to Prosperity and Ecomomy I think a little experience would broaden your mind.

But right now I have to go and do some more agitating, but this time it is not on the internet but the real world, BTW if I need to freak I can do it - because this is America MAV, and I stand for the right of everyone else -ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT- to do the same, if they so choose, even if they are doing BJs. It is their right in the Privacy of their own lives, their own home, and MAV their own Country because MAV this is a Democratic Society where we decide things on the basis of reason not the prejudice of shriveleldup jealous old men, NC, Mississippi, Georgia, and of course Florida and Texas RITIREMENT ZONE 2000 and errr ..

Bye

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Feb 01 - 11:59 PM

Oh goody!!! More fodder for Mav's ramblings.

"AFRICAN PERSUASION?" Really Mav? I wonder who persuaded him to be African? Bigotspeak Mav, bigotspeak.

I have a freind in NY who subscribes to the Observer for it's much heralded value in wrapping fish and lining bird cages. Personally, I've been printing out all of Mav's postings which are voluminous, not to mention senseless. My Cockatiels are enjoying shitting all over them.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 01 Mar 01 - 03:39 PM

Crack is to Cocaine what hash is to pot, what whiskey is to beer. It is made from cocaine and very concentrated.

Under the law, potency is not the issue as both are on the schedule of illegal narcotics. Which is one reason why industrial hemp is banned. It has a minuscule amount of THC. The law doesn't care. And the punishment for minorities is far more severe than the punishment for non-minorities.

I understand that we now have more drug offenders in prison in the US than the entire prison population (of all types of felons) of Western Europe.

No state (including Florida up until algor) counts under and over votes. THE BALLOTS ARE DISQUALIFIED!

In Florida, not if the clear intent of the voter can be determined. The problem was that the standards were applied un-evenly across the state. Texas has a more detailed law to deal with under-counts.

Another interesting problem that has surfaced in Florida is with overcounts where the voter voted for either Bush or Gore and also wrote in their name. Under Florida law, these should have been counted as, clearly, the voter has gone out of his way to indicate intent.

Remember that all the Florida Supreme Court did was order the Statewide recount. Also remember that a majority of the US Supreme Court agreed that a recount should have been done, except several of them felt there wasn't enough time and sided with the conservative minority.

All in all, the US Supreme Courts decision remains puzzling. Especially for a court that has championed states rights, even going so far as to say that the 11th amendment not only covers suits by citizens of one state against a different state, it was meant to include suits by the citizens against the state they live in and even if it didn't say so, it means it anyway. Which is about as far into judicial activism and the court writing law as you can go.

On the other hand, if W's people had let Gore have the recounts he originally requested (4 counties worth) W still would have won. Now we have the spectacle of recounts by the media. (Which rresponds to kendall's post)

The recount won't change the election outcome, no matter what, and won't convince people who maintain that they were disenfranchised. (Which ought to be the issue but somehow isn't).

My bottom line is that our government functions in large part because of a tacit assumption that the system is fair (which doesn't say a lot about how much people know about the system). It is a matter of belief, rather than empirical proof. The election fiasco (and until the issue of undercounts in other states is addressed it will remain just that)diminishes peoples faith in the process of government.

The got elected because Florida voters voted Republican

The question was, did they offer a viable alternative to more prisons, jail terms and so on. This isn't a party issue. Democrats got elected on the same basis.

Uh.......the public sector means all the union thug bureacrats, Government.

Including the 90% of African Americans who didn't vote GOP? Or the 50% +500,000 who voted for Gore? Were they all deluded. Clearly they didn't perceive that the GOP was any kind of pancea.

I said Clearly, a lot of minorities proliferate in the inner city. A lot of businesses do to, large numbers of them marked by outrageous price gouging, credit schemes and the like. Run by all races. and you replied So you're saying they're equal opportunity?

Exactly. A triumph for our system and all without an affirmative action program in place. We support equal victimization by anyone, regardless of race, creed or color, to anyone, depending on race creed or color.

Well since you guys defined $20,000 as the poverty level and $75,000 as rich, no wonder the middle class seems to be shrinking

The States are free to define poverty as anything they want. The Federal Poverty Guidelines are usually multiplied by some factor. In Texas its 150%, in Florida 200%.

What is shrinking is the number of people who can afford the lifestyle, income notwithstanding. Looking at affordable lifestyle is more predictive than income levels and the relative percentages are shrinking. I said "While a nice, neat simple answer that explains away a very complex problem might be comforting to some, it does nothing to address root causes or solve anything. It offers the solace of style over substance" and you replied You don't like the simplicity of block grants?

There is nothing at all "simple" about any of the block grant programs. The "to be used by the state as they see fit", if political hyperbole. The restrictions remain.

I said "Do you feel there is truly equality of opportunity?" and you replied If there were equality in public education or vouchers, there might be when coupled with Greyhound and a GOOD ATTITUDE!

Greyhound? I miss the connection. (And may be glad I did once you explain)

I only was referring to the NAACP. If there are other self serving divisive groups I would probably say the same thing.

How do you define "divisive? Is it divisive to redline neighborhoods? Is it divisive to create separate Student centers and dorms for minorities? Is it divisive to punish crack possession more severely than cocaine possession? Is it divisive to portray a group as perpetual victims? Is it divisive to demonstrate clear prejudicial behavior and demand it be looked at.

What you really have to ask yourself is; Is it skin color, or attitude, that causes the perpetual dischord?

No, what I have to ask myself is what is causing the discord. You statement implies that it's an either/or issue. Are your categories exclusive?

I said To say there are still not structural (political, social and economic) obstacles to their becoming such is also stupid. you replied "'We all know that's just not true. (Don't we?)' And I said No. We don't. You may wish it was so. It would be comforting if it was. It would mean that it could all go away an we wouldn't have to deal with it. Could happily declare that the symptom is a cause and fell very self-satisfied" My comment referred to my opinion that blacks aren't stupid, are you saying they are?

No. I thought I was fairly clear in saying that there are obstacles imposed from both internal and external forces that mitigate the opportunities to some minorities. Claiming that if the minorities just try hard, all will be well is denying these additional problems exists that are not self caused.

And in another post

Looks like a good reason for an amendment.

Just be careful what you wish for. One reason there hasn't been a serious call for a full constitutional revision is that no one can control the outcome.

Picky, picky, you need a nuclear family before you get a decent extended family.

Damn right I'm picky. If you can't wow them with the brilliance of your logic, bury them in minutea. (To use nice words) The nuclear family is necessary. The study (and others) would seem to indicate it is not sufficient. (Or rather that it is preferred)

It mentioned two significant dates which noted an increase My theory can be summed up in two words, FDR and LBJ.

Insufficient. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I'd suggest that a stronger argument can be made for the LBJ connection than the FDR one. But LBJ would qualify as a very minor cause.

I don't dispute the warming trend. What I want to know is what were they doing in the 1400s to cause global warming?

Maybe nothing. It could have been a cyclic "blip". So could the current trend. It just doesn't look like it is, or at least not only that.

Newt says you're welcome for the Block Grant

Newt didn't have to sit through a two day mandatory meeting on filling out the application.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST,re: More Republican 'mr fixit' and Florida
Date: 01 Mar 01 - 04:26 PM

So who is T in Doing Buisiness as ...Read the report and decide for yourself

Click to Read Report

And why would they do it?

58 Million Us Dollars buys a lot of silence

THIS IS CRIMINAL and We must do something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 01 Mar 01 - 10:59 PM

Dear clinton tp catspaw,

"AFRICAN PERSUASION?" Really Mav? I wonder who persuaded him to be African? Bigotspeak Mav, bigotspeak"

Probably Queasy or Jesse, he was actually a good looking man with a dark complexion, but his attitude, not his skin color is what I was talking about.

The attitude is all I'm EVER talking about!

It's just a matter of identification, we got redheads, tall people, American Indians, Hispanics (a bogus term after all what do a Spaniard and an ethnic Mayan have in common besides language?)

Negro means black and refers to African dark skinned peoples, black could refer to a person of color no matter where their ethnic roots originated. Colored people (as in NAACP), same thing.

Whatever, It doesn't matter, we are all related.

You are the one hung up on "race" and who frequents White Supremecy sites. I would have known your "trap" had I ever been to one.

I'd have any reasonable person of any ethnic background come over for dinner and visit if they wanted to, that is unless, of course, they had an attitude like YOU!

Gratuitously calling me a bigot doesn't make it a fact.

What is a fact is your obvious and declared allegiance to the most corrupt administration in the history of the US.

Don't get dizzy as you both circle the bowl.

Fluuuuuuushhhhhh! gurgle gurgle Slurpppppp!!!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Mar 01 - 11:15 PM

Rest completely assured that I would never "gratuitously" call anyone a bigot.(:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 01 Mar 01 - 11:43 PM

Dear Skeptic,

"In Florida, not if the clear intent of the voter can be determined. The problem was that the standards were applied un-evenly across the state"

The instructions were printed in large block letters in the voting booth, make sure all holes are punched, clear off all chips, obtain a new ballot is you screw your up etc.

"Remember that all the Florida Supreme Court did was order the Statewide recount"

They attempted to yank the rug out from under the Secretary of State.

The duties of the branches and officials are clearly spelled out in the State Constutution.

All in all, the US Supreme Courts decision remains puzzling. Especially for a court that has championed states rights"

The decision was about state's rights. The Legislature has the exclusive right and duty to choose the electors. The laws in place at the time of the election will determine the outcome of the election.

"Which is about as far into judicial activism and the court writing law as you can go"

FLSC was engaging in judicial activism taking a case no one even asked them to take.

"Uh.......the public sector means all the union thug bureacrats, Government.

Including the 90% of African Americans who didn't vote GOP? Or the 50% +500,000 who voted for Gore? Were they all deluded. Clearly they didn't perceive that the GOP was any kind of pancea"

NO!!! By definition, the private sector is business and private property.

The Public sector is any government entity, like the subway (unless it's privately owned)A park, The Post Office etc........geeeez skeptic.

"Greyhound? I miss the connection"

GOOD ONE! Ha! bus...connection... get it?

No really. If you had an education and a good attitude, you could get on the bus and MOVE to where there is economic opportunity.

"The recount won't change the election outcome, no matter what, and won't convince people who maintain that they were disenfranchised. (Which ought to be the issue but somehow isn't)"

That's because it didn't happen, I saw the witnesses testifying on tv, one guy claimed he had to show two forms of ID. Did they let him vote? Yes. The police were there all right INVESTIGATING A BURGLERY!!

"How do you define "divisive? Is it divisive to redline neighborhoods?"

Yes, but property value is property value. "Is it divisive to create separate Student centers and dorms for minorities?"

Yes, and look who's doing it. Ever heard of "White studies" or the "United Cracker College Fund"?

"Is it divisive to punish crack possession more severely than cocaine possession?"

Yes, the more dangerous activity should have a harsher consequence.

"Is it divisive to portray a group as perpetual victims?"

Yes, that's what I was talking about.

"Is it divisive to demonstrate clear prejudicial behavior and demand it be looked at"

No, that's what I was talking about.

"No. I thought I was fairly clear in saying that there are obstacles imposed from both internal and external forces that mitigate the opportunities to some minorities. Claiming that if the minorities just try hard, all will be well is denying these additional problems exists that are not self caused"

Well, many of them have been discouraged from trying at all and many who do decide to participate in the American routine miraculously find themselves living a much better life.

"Just be careful what you wish for. One reason there hasn't been a serious call for a full constitutional revision is that no one can control the outcome"

Caution is not real important here, it still requires ratification by 3/4 of the states (except of course for the 16th amendment)

"Maybe nothing. It could have been a cyclic "blip". So could the current trend. It just doesn't look like it is, or at least not only that"

WHAT?..........Does somebody need a nap? I think it's the current trend modified by volcanos and smoke from forest fires.

"Newt didn't have to sit through a two day mandatory meeting on filling out the application"

No, Newt had his own hell during his term, crafting and passing the laws formerly known as the "Contract with America", 70% of which clinton signed into law.

Good to have you back, thanks for your thoughtful banter and civil, nay, friendly tone.

Come on over for dinner some time.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Mar 01 - 07:55 AM

Dear Skeptic,

The instructions were printed in large block letters in the voting booth, make sure all holes are punched, clear off all chips, obtain a new ballot is you screw your up etc.

And in at least one case, the instructions were to make a selection on both pages of the ballot. Unfortunately, the county split the presidential candidates and printed five on page one, five on page two. Following instructions to the letter, people voted on both pages. In neighboring counties (both of whom used the optical scan system), if you voted for Bush or Gore and also filled in the "write in" circle (but didn't right in a name) there were different standards. One county rejected the votes as overvotes, one counted the votes.

I repeat that the requirement under Florida Law is whether the clear intent of the voter can be determined.

I said "Remember that all the Florida Supreme Court did was order the Statewide recount and you replied They attempted to yank the rug out from under the Secretary of State. The duties of the branches and officials are clearly spelled out in the State Constutution.

Including the duties and responsibilities of the Court.

The decision was about state's rights. The Legislature has the exclusive right and duty to choose the electors. The laws in place at the time of the election will determine the outcome of the election.

The State also has the right and duty to determine how people will vote and what standards will be applied to counting ballots. Or did until the US Supreme court decision. With very few caveats (like the 14th Amendment), voting was considered a primary right of the State. And in Florida, the State mandated standard was "clear intent".

If the "clear intent" standard was not used, as required by the State, what then?

FLSC was engaging in judicial activism taking a case no one even asked them to take

No, they were asked to rule. They have to be, in Florida an din general. The Court cannot jump into the fray until someone with a legal interest in an issue asks them too.

No really. If you had an education and a good attitude, you could get on the bus and MOVE to where there is economic opportunity.

Which relocation, per the earlier article you mentioned, was one of the reasons for the break-up of the family.

I said "No. I thought I was fairly clear in saying that there are obstacles imposed from both internal and external forces that mitigate the opportunities to some minorities. Claiming that if the minorities just try hard, all will be well is denying these additional problems exists that are not self caused" and you replied Well, many of them have been discouraged from trying at all and many who do decide to participate in the American routine miraculously find themselves living a much better life

And many don't. What is the answer when the trying doesn't work? When money to start a business isn't loaned because.....?? And the "because" depends on which side of the wall you're on . When an African American from Maryland is refused service in a store because he's black and "that's the way the owner wants it" is the explanation. Two months ago, about 20 miles from where I live. When young black males shopping in a mall are closely, obviously, watched by the security guard because "they are more likely to shoplift". Except it isn't true at my local mall. Young white teens are much more likely to be shop-lifters. And as the mall manger recently commented, much less likely to have the police called.

No, Newt had his own hell during his term, crafting and passing the laws formerly known as the "Contract with America", 70% of which clinton signed into law.

Yes he did. However, the other thing I remember about Newt was handing divorce papers to his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer. As a friend from Atlanta who knows him commented...."That was Newt on a good day". The contract had some good points. But I am not a Newt fan. But not necessarily because of his politics

Good to have you back, thanks for your thoughtful banter and civil, nay, friendly tone

And vice versa

Come on over for dinner some time.

Would either of our reputations survive? :-)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Mar 01 - 11:51 AM

Oops again. The precceding should have been addressed to Mav. Teach me to have my morning caffine before I cut and past.

Regards

JOhn

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 02 Mar 01 - 07:05 PM

Sir,

It's ok, I knew it was to me and wouldn't have noticed had you not mentioned it.

I see a few typos of my own as I reread my posts.

This forum does not allow you to edit, but then again it is designed for performing musicians who when playing live also have no ability to edit.

I can live with it.

Now, back to the debate. ===================================================

"And in at least one case, the instructions were to make a selection on both pages of the ballot. Unfortunately, the county split the presidential candidates and printed five on page one, five on page two. Following instructions to the letter, people voted on both pages"

The rest of the story is;

Those directions were given by DEMOCRAT activists rounding up and registering busloads of FIRST TIME VOTERS, who knew nothing about the issues and followed the directions to a T. They did the same thing up here with college students. They threw the instructional cards on the ground and we found them (only they didn't screw up their ballots)

"The State also has the right and duty to determine how people will vote and what standards will be applied to counting ballots. Or did until the US Supreme court decision"

Not the "State", the Legislature.

U.S. Constitution: Article II

Section 1.

..........Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the LEGISLATURE thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.......

Although we did not address the same question petitioner raises here, in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 25 (1892), we said:

"[Art. II, §1, cl. 2] does not read that the people or the citizens shall appoint, but that 'each State shall'; and [page 5]

if the words 'in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct,'had been omitted, it would seem that the legislative power of appointment could not have been successfully questioned in the absence of any provi- sion in the state constitution in that regard. Hence the insertion of those words, while operating as a limi- tation upon the State in respect of any attempt to cir- cumscribe the legislative power, cannot be held to op- erate as a limitation on that power itself."

There are expressions in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida that may be read to indicate that it construed the Florida Election Code without regard to the extent to which the Florida Constitution could, consistent with Art. II, §1, cl. 2, "circumscribe the legislative power." The opinion states, for example, that "[t]o the extent that the Legislature may enact laws regulating the electoral proc- ess, those laws are valid only if they impose no 'unreason- able or unnecessary'restraints on the right of suffrage" guaranteed by the state constitution. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The opinion also states that "[b]ecause election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote . . . ." Ibid.

In addition, 3 U. S. C. §5 provides in pertinent part:

"If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the elec- tors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pur- suant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the elec- tors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the

[page 6]

counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Con- stitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned."

The parties before us agree that whatever else may be the effect of this section, it creates a "safe harbor" for a State insofar as congressional consideration of its electoral votes is concerned. If the state legislature has provided for final determination of contests or controversies by a law made prior to election day, that determination shall be conclu- sive if made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors. The Florida Supreme Court cited 3 U. S. C. §§1-10 in a footnote of its opinion, App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a, n. 55, but did not discuss §5. Since §5 contains a principle of federal law that would assure finality of the State's determination if made pursuant to a state law in effect before the election, a legislative wish to take advan- tage of the "safe harbor" would counsel against any con- struction of the Election Code that Congress might deem to be a change in the law.

After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, we find "that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision." Minnesota v. Na- tional Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551, 555 (1940). This is sufficient reason for us to decline at this time to review the federal questions asserted to be present. See ibid.

"It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitu- tions. But it is equally important that ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this Court of the valid- ity under the federal constitution of state action. In- telligent exercise of our appellate powers compels us to ask for the elimination of the obscurities and ambi- guities from the opinions in such cases." Id., at 557.

[page 7] Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature's authority under Art. II, §1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U. S. C. §5. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered. ========================================================

"No, they were asked to rule. They have to be, in Florida an din general. The Court cannot jump into the fray until someone with a legal interest in an issue asks them too"

I agree, but in one instance last fall, they did "jump into the fray" uninvited by either side.

I will try to find the incident.

"Which relocation, per the earlier article you mentioned, was one of the reasons for the break-up of the family"

Well.....you're supposed to retrieve your family once you get established.

"Yes he did. However, the other thing I remember about Newt was handing divorce papers to his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer. As a friend from Atlanta who knows him commented...."That was Newt on a good day" "

We were all pretty PO'd at him, he's gone.(as per a prior discussion)

"The contract had some good points"

It's now the law of the land and largely why clinton had such good job performance ratings, he took credit for it. "But I am not a Newt fan. But not necessarily because of his politics"

His politics are the only reason to be a Newt fan.

" 'Come on over for dinner some time'

Would either of our reputations survive?

Ha ha, I said I like reasonable people.

I had a private forum for just conservatives, we got along so well, it fell apart, no fire.

Do you like Cajun/Thai/Indian Curry/Soul/Downhome cooking?

My wife can really "throw it down".

How about McClellands afterwards?

regards,

mav out

PS If there are any typos in here, that's how I wanted it to look.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 02 Mar 01 - 07:14 PM

Catspaw,

"Rest completely assured that I would never "gratuitously" call anyone a bigot.(:<))"

Me neither but there are anti-conservative bigots.

Too bad it took "bigot" Ashcroft to address racial profiling.

Why didn't the first "black president" and Reno do it? They had eight years.

Say hi to your brother (clinton)

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST,Stackly
Date: 02 Mar 01 - 08:31 PM

Why in the name of all that's wonderful do you people keep playing with this little turd? You'll only keep getting your hands full of shite.
Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Mar 01 - 09:02 PM

Mav,

"And in at least one case, the instructions were to make a selection on both pages of the ballot. Unfortunately, the county split the presidential candidates and printed five on page one, five on page two. Following instructions to the letter, people voted on both pages" The rest of the story is; Those directions were given by DEMOCRAT activists rounding up and registering busloads of FIRST TIME VOTERS, who knew nothing about the issues and followed the directions to a T. They did the same thing up here with college students. They threw the instructional cards on the ground and we found them (only they didn't screw up their ballots)

Doesn't matter who did it. It happened and the appearance is that it wasn't dealt with very effectively. And the instructions were printed on the ballot.

Familiarity with the issues isn't a requirement to vote. And shouldn't be as it allows to many abuses.

Without italicizing the rest, I read the Supreme Court Opinions (Florida and US). My point about the State being the determinate had nothing to do with the issue of selection of Electors, but with the issue of States Rights. Clearly, the USSC didn't fully agree.

And to quote back from the dissenting opinion: The whole thing is available HERE Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, §§1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion. Lest there be any doubt, we stated over 100 years ago in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25 (1892), that ""[w]hat is forbidden or required to be done by a State"" in the Article II context ""is forbidden or required of the legislative power under state constitutions as they exist."" In the same vein, we also observed that ""[t]he [State''s] legislative power is the supreme authority except as limited by the constitution of the State."" Ibid.; cf. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 367 (1932).1

The legislative power in Florida is subject to judicial review pursuant to Article V of the Florida Constitution, and nothing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the state constitution that created it.

What the majority did not address specifically (and what gave rise to the accusations of partianship, was why, suddenly, the right of the State wasn't paramount. Even the affirming decision weighs more heavily (in my mind) on the side of lack of definitive standards than really questioning the idea of a recount.

The result has been that even normally conservative constitutional scholars are puzzled by the decision and it's implications

I agree, but in one instance last fall, they did "jump into the fray" uninvited by either side. I will try to find the incident.

Please do. But remember, they can also be asked for an opinion by public officials.

His politics are the only reason to be a Newt fan

Then why (which you knew was coming) and by inference does anything but Clinton's politics matter?

Do you like Cajun/Thai/Indian Curry/Soul/Downhome cooking?

Yes to all except the McClellands Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 02 Mar 01 - 09:06 PM

Stack;

"...this little turd?"

Have a bite.

"You'll only keep getting your hands full of shite"(sp)

Something you seem to be quite familiar with.

This was all you could come up with? (Deep)

smoochies,

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 01 - 09:48 PM

I think "shite" may be a deliberate misspelling. I've seen it so many times on Mudcat lately. I believe it's become a popular substitute for the more traditional 4 letter word, which we are all familiar with. Poop. :<))

It amazes me that people can get this worked up over a dispute between 2 anachronistic and monotheistic political parties...specially when the rest of the world has trouble seeing much real difference between them.

Not that I'm suggesting there are no differences between them...perish the thought! There just aren't enough differences, that's all...unless you were "Born in the USA, Born in the USA, Born in the USA, I'm a TV-addled daddy in the USA!"

Ow-ooooo!!! Sang the Werewolves of Boston. Arroooo! Replied the Dallas Vampires. And the beat goes on.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 02 Mar 01 - 09:53 PM

Dear Kat,

This just came in the mail and relates to the former meaningless crap from the University of Minnesota. ========================================================

Five years ago, Congress abolished the welfare entitlement and took new steps to move welfare mothers to work. A few weeks ago, experts gathered for a groundbreaking evaluation conference, "The New World of Welfare" (see www.aecf.org). The results have been astonishing: Caseloads have dropped by half, poverty declined, effects on child well-being are mixed but at the very least, as one conference paper put it, "the sky has not fallen," as many predicted.

And yet, in another sense, welfare reform has been a failure. In an extraordinary paper, National Fatherhood Initiative president Wade Horn and Urban Institute scholar Isabel Sawhill note that 40 percent of our children still live apart from their fathers; as many as 60 percent will join fatherless households before they turn 18. Five years after welfare reform, a third of our children are born outside of marriage. "By focusing so heavily on moving mothers into the workforce," they remind us, "states have neglected to work on the equally important task of increasing the number of two-parent families." Welcome to the new welfare debate: How can we support not only work, but marriage?

In 1965, when Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's report sounded the alarm about the disintegrating black family, about a quarter of African-American children were born outside of marriage. Today, according to a new Annie E. Casey Foundation report, there are only two states (Utah and Idaho) where less than a quarter of babies are born out of wedlock. In Vermont, for example, where 96 percent of births are to white mothers, the illegitimacy rate jumped from 20 percent in 1990 to 28 percent in 1998. Florida's illegitimacy rate jumped from 32 percent in 1990 to 37 percent in 1998. In New York City, 45 percent of babies are born out of wedlock. Hartford, Conn., tops the list of the worst American city: 80 percent of babies are born to unwed mothers.

Connecticut Gov. John Rowland's response to the news was characteristic of the old mind-set that must change. His spokesman told The New York Times: "He's known for some time that Hartford and some other cities in the state lag behind the rest of the country." So what is Gov. Rowland doing about it this problem he's known so long about? Promoting urban renewal, he claimed, and education, and job training to help unwed mothers rise above poverty. Promoting everything, in short, but the thing that is missing: lasting, healthy marriage in low-income communities.

In less backward states, leaders aren't waiting for Congress to take action to address this important social problem. Gov. Frank Keating in Oklahoma has laid out an innovative marriage initiative to promote marriage education and reduce marriage penalties in the welfare system. In New Mexico, the Governor's Commission on Marriage and Parenting, under the leadership of state Sen. Mark Boitano, recently released an eight-point marriage support plan, including retraining welfare case workers to deliver marriage education, a media campaign to highlight the benefits of marriage, and a short handbook, "Before you Divorce," to inform parents of the potential adverse economic, health and social impacts of divorce on their children.

Dr. Paul Hopkins, president of the New Mexico Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, is one "old-line liberal Democrat" who believes government has a place in promoting marriage. Partly, of course, it's his heartbreaking memories of kids he's worked with, like the little girl "who told me she wished she could cut herself in half, so that part of her could be with Mommy and part with Daddy."

To those who would say it's none of the government's business, Dr. Hopkins has this to say: "When we are abandoning our children or restricting their access to education or even food by our foolish choices, somebody has to stick their nose in and say, 'Hey, that isn't right.'"

Horn and Sawhill put it this way: "If welfare reform is to deliver on its promise to improve the well-being of children, the next phase of welfare reform must recognize the importance of reducing unmarried childbearing and increasing marriage." =========================================================

Just trying to help.....

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 03 Mar 01 - 09:05 AM

Does this mean a dinner invitation from Bush can be far behind.

Not that I'm a fan of Sharpton but it's illustrative of demonization. Or maybe just cold blooded politics.

Associated Press Saturday, March 3, 2001; Page A04

The Republican National Committee expressed regret yesterday concerning comments its former chairman made about African American activist Al Sharpton.

The party said in a joint statement released with Sharpton that their differences were resolved "without the payment of any money."

Sharpton had filed a $30 million libel suit last spring against the RNC after then-Chairman Jim Nicholson wrote a letter to The Washington Post accusing Sharpton of instigating a deadly riot in the New York borough of Brooklyn in August 1991 and instigating arson that killed seven people at a Harlem store in 1995.

Nicholson, who completed his term this winter, said in his letter last March that The Post's description of Sharpton as a "civil rights activist" could be attributed only to "a liberal bias" or political correctness on the newspaper's part. Nicholson's letter then made his accusations against Sharpton.

"I'm not looking for a dime," Sharpton told the New York Daily News for yesterday's editions. "I'm looking for history to be made right. I want to make sure this is straightened out."

"The RNC has confirmed it did not intend to state that Reverend Sharpton's involvement in the Crown Heights events led to the death of Yankel Rosenbaum," the joint statement said, referring to the young Talmudic scholar who died in the 1991 disturbance. "Nor did the letter mean to imply that Reverend Sharpton had any direct communication with the person who burned down Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem in a fire that killed several people."

"The RNC regrets any such misunderstanding," the statement added. "The parties have agreed that they will not make any further comment about the lawsuit."

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 03 Mar 01 - 09:21 AM

Dear Little Hawk,

"I think "shite" may be a deliberate misspelling. I've seen it so many times on Mudcat lately. I believe it's become a popular substitute for the more traditional 4 letter word, which we are all familiar with. Poop. :<))"

Yes, I've seen that, but the cranial auto-rectal dweller spelled the "T" word right didn't he?

"It amazes me that people can get this worked up over a dispute between 2 anachronistic and monotheistic political parties"

The democrats/liberals are not monothestic!

They "tolerate" any religion including Satanism and are downright "anathestic" when it comes to Christianity.

"specially when the rest of the world has trouble seeing much real difference between them"

I understand the rest of the world (takers) has a problem understanding American politics.

Do they understand the difference between;

Makers and Takers?

Private sector and Public sector?

Earning money and legalized theft?

Respect for law and contempt for law?

Night and Day?

Right and wrong?

"Not that I'm suggesting there are no differences between them...perish the thought! There just aren't enough differences, that's all"

No difference between Reagan and Maxine Waters?

Never mind the parties, conservativism and liberalism are the ideaologies.

New York Republicans are a very poor example of GOP.

There are liberals in the GOP leadership but not many conservatives (if any) in the DNC.

The true conservative would scrap everything federal not explicitly specified in the Constitution.(like libertarians)

They would get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.

respectfully,

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 01 - 04:21 PM

Hi, MAV - Yeah, I understand how you see it. There are indeed conservative and liberal forces within all parties and systems, and that's the age-old dispute all right. I would venture to say that they are both partly right and both partly wrong, and could benefit from putting their heads together instead of butting heads constantly.

As, for example, we have a mix of socialism and capitalism here in Canada, which has proven far more agreeable than would all of one and none of the other.

Of course, it's a matter of degree...

I don't personally care enough about all the petty squabbles of American politics, as to who did or said what, and all that, I'd rather look at the broader social picture in the whole world.

"Monotheistic political parties". What I meant was...they both worship MONEY...and the power that is its byproduct. Like it says on your dollars: "In God We Trust". You can take that to the bank. Big money runs America. When you go out to vote, you are basically just rubber stamping a decision that has already been made by people you will never even know the names of, in all probability. The machine puts up 2 candidates, and you poor suckers have to choose between them. Then whichever one of them "wins" gets blamed for whatever goes wrong in the next four years...while the machine rolls mindlessly along, generating cash, marketing junk food, squandering the world's resources, and contributing to social decay all over the whole world.

That doesn't necessarily prevent you or me from having a good life, of course...we just have to use our own free will in an intelligent manner quite regardless of the fact that we are living in a rigged social system with bogus elections. It's pretty phony in Canada too, but a bit less vulgar, on the whole.

I "tolerate" any and all religions, by the way, including atheism (which is a religion too, in my opionion)...and I hope that they will tolerate me. That doesn't mean I have to like them, but I do tolerate them. I guess that makes me a potential Democrat, by your definition. (*grin*)

What's your problem with the UN? It's at least an attempt to establish some sort of international cooperation, which is a step in the right direction, I think. The reason it's in New York is...it's a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that the USA pretty much runs the world, through financial and military clout, as Rome once did.

And why do you regard the US Constitution as if it were a holy document? Other countries have great constitutions too, full of wonderful ideals. The problem is to effectively implement those ideals, which is hard when it is money that RULES virtually every decision in the final analysis.

I don't think your founding fathers envisioned the sort of money-dominated commercial system we have now. They lived in a far smaller and more cooperative society than we do. When someone in the country needed a barn built, the whole community would help him. Now, if he ain't got the money to pay the contractor it ain't gonna happen. People are just worker ants now for a money system that doesn't give a damn who perishes or lives in misery. That is not what I call an intelligent community. It's a decadent and barbaric community.

Sitting Bull was most astonished by the fact that white people did nothing to help the poor in their communities. It was the thing he most remarked upon when traveling to the cities with Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. He said "The Whites know how to make everything, but they do not know how to distribute it". He was from a cooperative society, where either everybody had food and shelter...or nobody did...leaders included. That's social justice, and that's real leadership.

You and I are living in a society, MAV, that is without moral fiber, without much real sense of community, without responsibility, and for the most part without pity. It's not what I call civilization, but rather amoral anarchy in search of a fast buck.

Both liberals and conservatives have complicity in maintaining that corrupt state of affairs, and only for the sake of money. The US Constitution is something that people merely pay lip service to, as they do to religion, while they run around trying to get more money. That's why a casino will attract 100,000 visitors in a week, while a church will attract 100 or so, if it's lucky.

Boy, people are probably gonna hate me for reviving this thread... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 01 - 05:54 PM

Hate, LH??  Hardly.

Disappointed?   Certainly.

Now, go wash your hands. :-)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 01 - 11:13 PM

Forgive me, Greg! It was a moment of weakness! I tried to stop myself, but I just couldn't... LOL!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Mar 01 - 11:18 PM

Well stop yourself now, and the next time, and let's let the fool rant to himself. He's a complete shit for brains so why wade into the crap with him?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 01 - 11:40 PM

Geez, Spaw, you followin' me around? I feel like I'm being tailed or something. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 05 Mar 01 - 12:19 AM

Dear Cats,

"Well stop yourself now, and the next time, and let's let the fool rant to himself"

Ok fine, but first I will come back to some of Little Hawk's comments

"He's a complete shit for brains so why wade into the crap with him?"

This comment says what about your level of consciousness?

It sounds like something from out of the mouth of a beer guzzling union thug/mobster.

Little Hawk,

"When you go out to vote, you are basically just rubber stamping a decision that has already been made by people you will never even know the names of, in all probability"

That's a fairly cynical position, you accuse your local poll workers of a crime by saying that. Here all the results can be viewed town by town and you can add them up yourself.

You could participate yourself just to find out if there is corruption in your destrict.

"The machine puts up 2 candidates, and you poor suckers have to choose between them"

Actually I remember about 7 ranging from Alan Keyes to Steve Forbes.

"Then whichever one of them "wins" gets blamed for whatever goes wrong in the next four years..."

Or they take credit for what goes right.

"while the machine rolls mindlessly along, generating cash, marketing junk food, squandering the world's resources, and contributing to social decay all over the whole world"

We just beat everyone else to it, even China.

How about that social decay in Somalia or Haiti?

How about the worst ecological damage in the worls in industrial areas behind the former Iron Curtain, now that is a big bunch of catspaw.

"That doesn't necessarily prevent you or me from having a good life, of course...we just have to use our own free will in an intelligent manner quite regardless of the fact that we are living in a rigged social system with bogus elections"

I disagree that the elections are rigged, except in the organized labor/crime urban areas highlighted in blue on the 2000 election map.

I think microwaves, cell phones, PCs and other output of the evil corporations do assist us in "having a good life" but most business in the US are small businesses of 25 employees or less.

"It's pretty phony in Canada too, but a bit less vulgar, on the whole"

That's because Canadians are too polite to act like OUR democrats.

"I "tolerate" any and all religions...........I guess that makes me a potential Democrat, by your definition. (*grin*)"

No, actually our democrats are not tolerant at all of Catholics and Christians in general. They are simply anti-Christian Bigots.

"What's your problem with the UN?"

Well besides it being a begging LSC organization with a lot of despots mixed in all being given equal voting rights and moral equivalency to the US all the while trying for all it's worth to undermine the sovereignty of the US......nothing.

Would you please take them off our hands?

"And why do you regard the US Constitution as if it were a holy document?"

Because American society is a nation of LAWS not of men, and the Constitution is the LAW.

"I don't think your founding fathers envisioned the sort of money-dominated commercial system we have now. They lived in a far smaller and more cooperative society than we do. When someone in the country needed a barn built, the whole community would help him"

I'm sure that isn't the way it is in New York, but believe it or not, NY is not a real good example of American society.

"Now, if he ain't got the money to pay the contractor it ain't gonna happen. People are just worker ants now for a money system that doesn't give a damn who perishes or lives in misery"

That's a personal decision one can make and not a very good one at that.

If you decide not to self-improve and not to climb the social ladder, that's your own fault.

"That is not what I call an intelligent community. It's a decadent and barbaric community"

Why should you subsidize the lazy?

"He was from a cooperative society, where either everybody had food and shelter...or nobody did...leaders included"

Yes women were usually provided for, but male slouches were often banned from the village.

"You and I are living in a society, MAV, that is without moral fiber, without much real sense of community, without responsibility, and for the most part without pity"

Well maybe you are, and I too am surrounded by democrats, but that is what we are trying to combat with community and faith based organizations in answer to every one of your above mentioned shortcomings.

"Both liberals and conservatives have complicity in maintaining that corrupt state of affairs, and only for the sake of money. The US Constitution is something that people merely pay lip service to, as they do to religion, while they run around trying to get more money"

I guess we have had different life experiences, for one thing not all GOPers are conservatives, so we don't really have a track record as a majority party.

Toksha

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 01 - 11:45 AM

Yeah, that's really it. We've had different life experiences. That's usually what it comes down to. This kind of forum is not really adequate to get past that sort of barrier...at least not without eating up far too much of my available time, and yours, I'm sure. It gets too much like the sound of one hand clapping.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 05 Mar 01 - 09:32 PM

Dear Little Hawk,

If you happen to be in midwestern Canada and go straight south into ND, SD, NE, IA, KS, any of those midwestern states, you'll find the same kind of gentry as you do in Ontario, but most of them are Republicans. The humanity is the same.

The east coast people are largely a rude lot.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 10:27 AM

Dear demoCAT,

"let's let the fool rant to himself. He's a complete shit for brains so why wade into the crap with him?"

So, if my information goes against your desperate propaganda, that's your stance?

Ok, fine, this will be fun.

"The democrats have always been the friend of minorities" The self-serving rhetoric they constantly dish out seems to convince many of that "Big Lie"!

Abolishing slavery. Free speech. Women's suffrage. In today's stereotypes, none of these sounds like a typical Republican issue, yet they are stances the Republican Party, in opposition to the Democratic Party, adopted early on.

In the 1860s, abolitionists (Republicans) were referred to as n-word lovers by the racist democrats. Many public figures risked their political careers, reputations, not to mention life and limb, by taking their courageous positions.

History can not be unwritten.


mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 11:48 AM

Dear Little Hawk,

I would be remiss were I not to mention that:

Reducing the government, streamlining the bureaucracy and returning power to the states don't sound like they would be the promises of the party of Lincoln, the party that fought to preserve the national union, but they are, and logically so.

With a core belief in the idea of the primacy of individuals, the Republican Party, since its inception, has been at the forefront of the fight for individuals' rights in opposition to a large, bloated government.

Any and all attempts to paint us as racist or authoritarian are simply the democRATs accusing us of that which they themselves are guilty.

mav out