 sj |
||
|
||
another Dubya new word
|
|
|
|||||||
|
another Dubya new word |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 10 Apr 02 - 03:47 PM A credible source Doug? FOX??? Why do the Liberals want a strong central government? to prevent things like this; A few years ago, a high school principal in South Carolina announced that anyone coming to the senior prom with someone of anoth race would cause him to cancel the prom. Another? when I was in Florida a few years ago, it was on the national news that Mississippi finally got around to abolishing slavery! What the federal government does is make sure we are all treated equally in matters of human rights. Can you imagine what a hell of a mess it would be if the states had no central government to rein them in? Doug, you probably remember when the states printed their own money! As Ronald Ray gun said, "Let's get the government off our backs" (and into our bedrooms where it belongs.) Why do we need a Senate? to give all states an equal voice in Washington; otherwise, the large population states would trample the small ones. , and, that's exactly why we need a strong central government. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,#6(b) Date: 10 Apr 02 - 03:59 PM You folks are forgetting something, the implications of which were difficult to grasp even at the time. Statistically speaking (read: "margin of error"), the Florida vote was a TIE. The subsequent studies ony highlight the issue. Our system has no means of resolving a statistical tie -- and it still doesn't. We are trying to resolve it by more accurate machines, but they will still have a margin of error, and we still have no constitutional mechanism to handle a freak occurrence like this. The good news was the freak occurrence happened when we were collectively choosing between mayonnaise and Miracle Whip; Lord help us if it should happen in a more polarized election. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Amy Date: 10 Apr 02 - 04:11 PM What the federal government does is make sure we are all treated equally in matters of human rights. ...but we aren't... |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Herga Kitty Date: 10 Apr 02 - 05:38 PM Well, it's quite interesting to read this from the other side of the Atlantic, because the USA is a superpower making decisions affecting the rest of the world in which we get no vote at all. Also because the separation of powers in the USA means that you can have a president who has never served in Congress, whereas we've only had one Prime Minister in the last 40 years who wasn't an elected member of Parliament but a member of the House of Lords (and that only thanks to an error by our gracious Queen which is documented on a separate thread about UK republicanism). But we still don't get a Government elected by the majority of voters because we have a first past the post system not proportional representation. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:36 PM Herga Kitty: In my opinion, serving in either our Senate, or our House of Representatives, provides one with more qualifications to be President than serving as a deliverer of doughnuts does. Things don't work that way in the U. S. It does take a lot of money to be elected to almost any office, but serving as a Senator or Representative does not, in itself, endow one with any superior knowledge about governing. The governor of one of one of our most progressive states is a former wrestler. Kendall: Did you take your baby aspirin this morning? I have no idea where you are coming from in your post of 3:47 P.M. April 10. Guest Just Amy has it right. Gore won the popular vote. Big deal. GWB has enjoyed 80% favorable ratings as President longer than any President in memory, my fine liberal friends are fond of saying that that means nothing! When the election for president is discussed, however, the "Popular Vote" becomes paramount. Consistency? What is that? With my liberal friends, it evidently doesn't exist. GWB won the Electorial College vote and that is the way we elect presidents in the United States. You knew that didn't you, Kendall? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Bobert Date: 11 Apr 02 - 03:26 PM DougR: Junior's ratings, when they begin to fall, will make the 1929 stock market look like a baloon. And fall they will unless he gets some CIA folks to volunteer to be suicde bombers in a few of the local malls. He messed up his future by probably accidently killing his best buddy, bin Laden. Yeah, take away Sept. 11 and Junior would be lookin' at 20% ratings now rather than having to wait. Like daddy, like son. But it's always good to hear from you, Doug. Stilly River Sage: Nope, Gore's biggest mistake was not offering the American voter any alternatives. He tended to agree with almost everything Junior said and vice versa. His second biggest mistake was not having the nasty streak the Rupublicans seem to be born with. He was beaten in court and on the street corners by the "paid" goons that Bush hired to harass poll workers and just about everyone else. And who ever said "liberal congressmen", that's an oximoron. No such thing. There are right wing congressmen an not so right wing congressmen. I don't hear anyone standing up speaking to the concerns of the working man or suggesting that the dough the Enron execs should be taken back and divied up among the working folks who lost their retirements and are now going to probably die on a widget assembly line. Yeah, where are all these liberals? Teddy Kennedy? Hah! Think Green...... |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 11 Apr 02 - 06:23 PM Hey, Bobert, you mean Teddy isn't far enough to the left for you? Wow! How about Joe Lieberman? Diane Fienstein, Joe Biden, or I know, Maxine Waters! How about them? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: artbrooks Date: 11 Apr 02 - 06:26 PM In my not particularly humble opinion, Brother Al's biggest mistake was in not resigning when Wild Bill's moral peccadillos became so obvious...he wouldn't have had the baggage to deal with that he did in that case. Someone suggested that the US needs a strong third party?? The problem with that is that third parties are liberal (I HATE that word) spoilers...didn't John Anderson give us Ronald Reagan?...and Ralph Nader certainly gave us George W. If my memory serves, there have been at least two news media recounts in Florida. One looked at the counties that Gore supposedly was going to complain about, and that one's results would still have given the win to Bush. The other looked at the entire state, and would have resulted in a Gore win. In the end, that isn't relevant, since our system says that the Supreme Court decides, and they did, and Gore himself accepted that. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Bobert Date: 11 Apr 02 - 07:23 PM No, Artbrooks. We need a second party. We only have one party now, the Repubocrats. And no, DougR, these folks ain't liberals at all but moderate right wingers who represent the interests of big money. They may give a speech saying they believe in this or that but they don't propose legislation to back up their talk. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Genie Date: 12 Apr 02 - 02:02 AM Doug, You say "...the federal government does not wish to give up any power, particularly the liberal members of Congress." Funny, but I don't think it's a "liberal" administration that is bent on using the powers of the federal government to overturn Oregon's assisted suicide law or the medical marijuana laws enacted in some states. In recent months, in fact, the Republican-controlled federal government seems to be going out of its way to bypass local prosecutors in murder cases in jurisdictions where the voters have rejected the death penalty; if the death penalty is not an option in a state or in Washington DC, because voters have rejected it, the feds want to come in and take over the case so it becomes an option. Local and state voters' preferences be damned. As Kendall points out, the right wing tends to want to"get the government off our backs" (and into our bedrooms [and doctors' offices] where it belongs.) GUEST,#6(b) Very important point, that--about statistical ties. However you slice it, NOBODY had a MANDATE in the 2000 election. I'm tired of the right wing acting as if Dubya has some kind of plebiscite for his agenda, just because he was the "winner" in a statistical tie. [And/or because the nation is rallying behind our President in a time of crisis.] Doug R., Gore's winning the popular vote [plus Nader's winning another 2 or 3% to Buchanan's 1%] is one reason for noting that Bush does not have a mandate. [The other is that, where the electoral college is concerned, Gore was close to what he needed to win without Florida's virtual-tie electoral votes; GWB wasn't. You say "GWB has enjoyed 80% favorable ratings as President longer than any President in memory." I'm not sure what this means. How long have scientifically valid polls been used? How many presidents have we had who were in office when our country was attacked by outsiders? I'm not sure we have any reliable means of comparison. artbrooks, You say "...third parties are liberal spoilers." Hasn't it been argued that Perot gave us Bill Clinton? Genie |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 02 - 12:10 PM He Genie, you're on a roll! The last time I checked, the U. S. Senate is controlled by the Democrats, not the Republicans. The current administration can do little without the support of the congress (read: Senate). Too bad that the Bush administration is opposed to many issues you favor, but that's the way it goes in politics. Had your side one, the issues you refer to might have gone the way you want or wanted them to go. But then, maybe not! Polls have been with us as long as my memory. I'm 72 years old and my memory might not be as good as it use to be, but I'm fairly confident Presidential approval polls go back at least as far as Herbert Hoover, and that's a long time. On one of your other points, I do not recall ever having said that Bush had a mandate. And you refer to Kendall as though he is some kind of authority on something. The only thing I know that he is reported to be an expert in is in the care and feeding of Llamas! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Genie Date: 12 Apr 02 - 09:54 PM Well, Doug, this thread seems to be on a roll. Yes, the U. S. Senate is controlled [by a hair] by the Democrats, but the House isn't. And most of the attempts to override states on issues having to do with assisted suicide, the death penalty, or medical marijuana have come from the Attorney General's office. In some such matters, the administration can act without Congressional approval [e.g., executive order]. I'm not fussing so much because "the the Bush administration is opposed to many issues [I] favor as I am marveling at how the Republicans/right can condemn the Democrats/left for advocating a strong Federal govenment and then turn around and try to impose Federal restrictions on states' rights whenever the states don't agree with their values or politics!
Re polls:you're 72 and the US is 226. Maybe you never said that Bush had a mandate, but I have heard Bush and his various spokespeople [as well as many right-wing talking heads] make statements to the effect that "the American people elected [me/Dubya] so [I'm/he's] going to energetically pursue the policies they elected me to pursue." I don't hear Bush say things like, "Well, there were as many people who voted for my liberal opponents as did for me, so it's only reasonable that I listen to the Democrats as much as to the Republicans and that I pursue centrist policies."
No, I'm not referring to Kendall as "some kind of authority on something." I just think he hit the obvious nail on the head in his description of the right wing's views on the role of government ! Genie §;-) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 12 Apr 02 - 10:14 PM Hey you guys, leave my friends out of this! Doug, my friend, (and I mean that) the main reason Bush is so popular has already been stated. He needed an enemy, and he got one. Some lucky, right? The other reason is: Bush is spouting jingoisms all over the tube; "We are going to smoke him out "etc etc ad nauseum. This is just what those Americans who dont know or care why we were attacked want to hear. Even if our government gave them equal time on tv to explain why they hate us and why they attacked us, it would do no good; it is too late, and most Americans, 80%, just want to squash them like cockroaches. Bush is telling them what they want to hear. THAT'S why his approval rating is high. Take away the terrorists and all he would have is old Clinton bashing, and trying to duck Enron. Did you notice he didn't mention Enron in his state of the union speech? |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 02 - 11:08 PM Genie: I do believe in States rights, and if the federal government, by legislation, or executive order trample over them, I'd be inclinded to object too. Some things the states can do better, and some things the fed does better. I do favor the laws you site passed by the Oregon legislature. Your argument that Bush enjoys the popularity that he does (and I guess Kendall joins you on this)is a good arguing point, but then, as you point out, we really don't know, do we? It is conceivable that the majority ot the U. S. population does approve of Bush's policies regardless of whether or not it is because of the current warlike situation. The polls will soon show whether or not that is true, I suspect. I wonder, though, if you two are giving the American population short shrift, however. They may not be as gullible as you seem to feel they are. They may be right! In regard to Bush's mandate, I am not sure he is doing what he does because he feels he has a mandate. I think he is doing what he feels is right. Al Gore would have acted (I hope) the same way, and were Al in GWB's place no one could legitimately claim that he had a mandate either. I would hope Al would do as George is doing, and that is do what he feels is right for the country. Al might, or might not do what I personally think is the right thing to do, but I hope he would have become a much more positive leader than (to me) it appeared he would be had he been elected. As to Kendall, Genie, he is an old friend and we have sparred for years over politics. He means well, I'm sure of that, but even he makes mistakes at times. He has openly admitted that he supported Barry Goldwater in 1964. Do you need further evidence? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: artbrooks Date: 13 Apr 02 - 12:26 AM And just to make this into a music thread: We're the bright young men, Who want to go back to 1910, We're Barry's boys. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 13 Apr 02 - 12:16 PM Doug, you are getting pretty good in the "Zinger" dept.! It's true; I did support Goldwater because I was sure he was at least upright if not totally honest. Johnson, on the other hand, I thought may have had a hand in Kennedy's murder. Turns out my instinct was right about Johnson. He may not have been guilty of the conspiracy, but, he was a morally bankrupt politician. He sent thousands of American boys into a war he KNEW we couldn't win, yet, his ego wouldn't let him admit it. Even Secretary McNamara advised him to pull out, and he ended up resigning because he couldn't take it anymore. Furthermore, my esteemed friend from the great state of Arizona, when one can say, "I was wrong" he can also say, "I know more than I did yesterday." Knowledge is power you know. One of the great things about being a Liberal is, we are not afraid of change; we welcome it. If the republicans had their way, nothing would ever change. We would still be back in the caves trying to invent fire! LOL Doug, I must admit, I do respect your courage; coming into this den of "pinkos" supporting the second dumbest president of all time. You have more guts than a fiddle string factory! (the number ONE dumbo was Harding, also a republican) ROTFLMAO !! |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 02 - 12:54 PM Oh, I love that Bush & Gore dance site!!! I wonder if I can put it on my desktop? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 13 Apr 02 - 07:12 PM I just keep thinking, Kendall, that someday all you Liberals will "see the light!" :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 13 Apr 02 - 10:10 PM I already did, Doug. That's why I am now a "liberal" A little boy stood by the side of a street near a box. The sign on the box said, "Republican kittens for sale." A neighbor thought it odd, but passed by on his business. A few days later he passed by again, and there was the same little boy with the box of kittens; but, this time the sign said "Democrat kittens for sale". When he asked why the kittens were now democrats, whereas they used to be republicans, the boy said, "They now have their eyes open. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 13 Apr 02 - 11:31 PM That's funny, Kendall. :>) You getting cool weather up there in Maine? It's hot as hell here in Arizona. It got up to 97 degrees today. DougR |
| Share Thread: |