BS: BushClintonBushClinton

Subject: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:05 PM

Song remains the same?

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:07 PM

To a marked degree, I'm afraid. We'll see They seem to be drawing from the same tired deck.



A

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:13 PM

Shouldn't this thread be titled Bush/McCain/Bush/McCain/Bush/McCain

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:21 PM

Couldn't it have been a part of one of the already existing political threads which you've started, gg?

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:29 PM

No, katlaughing. My idea was to discuss the lock on US politics by family dynasties, not the election per se.

So, what would it mean to have a quarter century plus of family dynasties in the White House?

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:33 PM

Oh ..... now I git it.

doesn't matter .... the machinary is at full steam ahead with Bush's endorsement of McCain .... I haven't seen Bush in such a happy self assured demeanor as he was today on the front lawn standing and guffawing with McCain.

effen scarry !

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:39 PM

Well, think historic then!

And outside the US box, too. I'm thinkin' Juan, Eva and Isabel here. Or the Duvaliers. Or maybe the Gandhis and Bhuttos if you want to throw in some dueling nations/religions stuff.

Be creative, people. It's about a whole lot more than the Adams family.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:52 PM

Well, it could have been the Kennedy's.

Family dynasty's are a thing of the past, sorta like the mafia/costra nosta crime families ... political family dynastys, they are now just figureheads for the machine.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:55 PM

I hate the idea of dynasties, especially this one. There is something sick about it, above and beyond the sickness of the parties involved. I think it tries to thwart the constitution against having more than 2 terms..put your son/wife in and you pull the strings. Thank heavens the Kennedys are not engaging at the presidential level any more. I would like to see laws against it but I suppose they would have to change the constitution..for siblings..oh dear no Jeb...spouses..parents..children..farther out it should be OK. mg

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:58 PM

Of the 2 evils ... who would you rather have in the white house ... the Clinton dynasty, or the Bush/Cheney/McCain world syndicate?

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:59 PM

Dogs, hamsters, goldfish. . . .

Well, we've had dumber in the Oval Office!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:03 PM

That's the problem Don ... I think I'd rather have the clown, or even theat haberdasher back in the Oval Office ... but the world is changing (even without Obama) and it doesn't really matter what figurehead resides in the white House.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:21 PM

Congrats 6.....You may now join the revolution. I think I'm going to keep copying this earlier post of mine on every political thread.................

**********************************************************************

The people will fancy an appearance of freedom; Illusion will be their native land................Jacques Ellul, "The Political Illusion"

What is really required in this country is a political revolution. Forty years ago I was introduced to the thoughts and writings of Jacques Ellul, a French Philosopher, Theologian, and Political Scientist. In the above quoted book as well as in his other works including things published in Katallagete. His well reasoned works stated that politics is a matter of methodology and once having established the method, it became self sustaining regardless of the characters playing the roles. The quick and easy translation is Tweedledum versus Tweedledee and feel free to switch them around at no cost or benefit. Elected officials are so co-opted (remember that word? Hackneyed and all but it fits here) by the time they reach certain levels, their rhetoric will always exceed their actions. The only fix for this is revolution.   

Sadly, it takes awhile.....but the movement is starting to grow as more and more see past the illusion. It won't happen simply by voting for a third party or Indie candidate. The system needs revamped and it will take numbers, not individuals to do it. I doubt it happens in my lifetime but maybe in my kids'.............

**********************************************************************

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:26 PM

They are just figureheads...although their families are very powerful players on the political scene, of course.

I think the dynasty thing is very creepy, and it's getting creepier all the time. Politics in the USA is becoming just like politics in some godforsaken Third World country run by a consortium of rich aristocrats. They go through periodic motions of outer democracy, they play power games against one another in the inner ruling clique, but it's actually just an autocracy with revolving heads of state to keep the public thinking something might change for the better "this time".

Yeah, a lot like Pakistan or Mexico or Argentina.

Just think, Jeb Bush could get to be president too, some way down the line.

I don't really see how having Hillary and Bill in the White House with Hillary as official prez is going to be much different than it was having Hillary and Bill in the White House with Bill as official prez. It will look different, for sure, but it won't be different. Just a rerun.

Hillary will not seduce interns. Bill....well, he might need some careful watching.

And I laugh at the scaremongering 3 AM ad! It isn't up to just one human being to decide what to do in cases like that. They have to deal with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department, the CIA, the allies overseas, NATO, and the many powers behind the scenes. I don't think it's like in the Hollywood movies when Harrison Ford gets to be president and HE decides when that call comes in. Nope, not much like that at all.

The president is a front man/woman. The face they stick in front of the big machine.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:35 PM

I dunno. I get the most creeped out thinking how Bush/Cheney, Inc. sent Benazir Bhutto to a certain death. What was the plan with that one? Dynasties putting hits out on other dynasties in the geopolitical globetrotting...

Bill will have to be exiled to a foreign country with a mission, to keep him away from the Situation Room. No one gives a shit about the interns except holy rollers and late night comics.

And if Bill were sent into exile, what would his gig be? Would he be given cabinet level status? Or a Rovian sort of title?

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:35 PM

Spaw ... I like that post. The machine will continue only if the populace remains in it's apathetic stupor ... yes, only a revolution can halt that machine.

L.H. .. "Hillary will not seduce interns" ... I dunno, power does do affect people whether they are male or female.

why are the Bhuttos slotted into this family dynasty category ... they tried, but they keep getting knocked off ... i don't really think Benazir Bhutto will have any future impact in Pakistan. Correct me if I'm wrong.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:39 PM

"Bush/Cheney, Inc. sent Benazir Bhutto to a certain death. What was the plan with that one"

Hmmmm .... maybe Paul Wolfowitz didn't like her.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:43 PM

Well, ya gotta give 'em their due. I mean c'mon--the Gandhis kept getting knocked off too, no?

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:54 PM

So did Ngo Dinh Diem get knocked off, (the don of the Diem dynasty) ... but that dynasty was put to an end by Kennedy and bros.

The old days of the family dynasty are over .... the corporations, international financial institutions, oil interests have taken over. The world is far to sophisticated for families to have any real impact on the playing field.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 12:06 AM

I could hardly disagree more, number 6.

Families very often run major corporations and governments too, don't forget that. Ever heard of the Waltons? Or the Rothshchilds? Or the Rockefellers? Or the Bronfmans? It goes on and on. Big money. Old money. Sometimes new money. The most enduring and shaping institution in society IS the family, and every country is essentially run by its most powerful families and their extended circle of relatives, friends, and employees...and all those families compete with each other for the most influential roles.

The Bhuttos have indeed been a powerful political dynasty in Pakistan for a long time (as with the Ghandis in India), and I expect we have not heard the last of them. Families are tremendously important in that country, even more so than they are here, and such dynasties do not go away quietly into that good night. They may lose in some power play, and their chosen leaders may die. If so, they bide their time and reappear at some later juncture when the time seems right for them. Benazir Bhutto is now a martyr in Pakistan. That's a powerful thing, and I'm sure her family will continue to play an important role there.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: number 6
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 12:20 AM

LH ... the power of those families you mentioned has pretty well sunk below the horizon ... with maybe the exception of the Rothschild if you are into conspiracy stuff ... power has to be sustained by a conglomerate of many individuals with a common goal in this brave new world ... i.e. the living entity of the corporation.

In regards to the mideast, maybe the unrest is a desperate reaction of the old family dynasty rebelling against the new era of power.

families are becoming irrelevant in this new milleneam ... whether we like it or not. Genetics and the $corporate$ interest is more revelant.

maybe we should revolt like they are doing in the mideast.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 03:07 AM

Catspaw calls for a revolution, after years of denigrating the "loony left on Mudcat.

We do need a revolution, both in the US and the UK, but first we have to understand what is being done to us and what we want AFTER the revolution.
Right now , work/money are used as tools of enslavment,indiviually we should re-examine how we want to spend our short lifetime on this planet.

Huge changes will have to take place before the world becomes "sustainable"again.
All the verbiage about McCain, Obama, Clinton, pales into insignificance......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 06:31 AM

Not revolution. Just three things:

Education about how our system works. We don't legislate from the judicial or the executive. We don't execute from the legislative or the judicial. We don't judge from the executive or the legislative. And we don't elect kings. (to any of the branches)

Size & Centralization have their up and down sides. The government that you fight tooth and nail to GROW in order to meet your ends.....is the very centralized government that is now big enough to meet your political opponent's ends when he recaptures control. And he ALWAYS recptures control.

And government is an entity large enough that the meaningful nuts and bolts of running it are left to the professionals that remain in Washington despite who may or may not be elected -- at any level and in any branch of the elected government.

Revolution -- If there was ONE reform worth revolting in order to institute, it would be that no bill could be amended BEFORE it is passed. Ever wonder where all the shit comes from that is the "partisanship" that makes it so that it is unlikely for a Senator to ever be elected president? ....it's because all the bills are named in a way that a Senator cannot vote for or against them without later facing the media distortion that he is not a patriot (if he doesn't sign on with the "Patriot Act") or he is against civil rights (If he doesn't sign the newest bill with the words "Civil Rights" in it). Yet all those bill come amended with pork and attachments and amendments that are the reality of the bill, and the more likely reasons for the up or down votes.

If we would amend the Constitution such that bills could not have amendments until passed, all that shit would end. AND EXTRANEOUS, EXCESSIVE SPENDING WOULD COME TO A SCREECHING HALT.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:23 AM

Don't forget the Roosevelts.

Or in the musical sphere, the Bachs - sometimes there actually is something there over and above the name.

I think that Bush has probably out the kibosh on the chances of any more of the Bush Dynasty making it to the White House for a long long time. But on the other side they seem to be lining up Chelsea Clinton for the future.

..................

Amendments - I'd have thought that it shouldn't be that hard to achieve a similar effect by limiting the range of amendments which can be attached to a bill in such a way as to exclude those kind. That is the normal way of dealing with this in most parliamentary systems, I believe.

Do it your way John, and it'd be quite possible for people to find they had voted for a bill meaning one thing, and then find that amendments had completely distorted it to mean something else which they were wholly opposed to.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 08:13 AM

akenaton, you are dead on, as usual.

I do see the Bushes and the Clintons as figureheads of the first true corporate dynasties, and until the revolution comes, that is what we will get. Both families represent competing corporate syndicate interests, vying for control of the US corporate government empire.

And as they have proved with their cleverly designed duopoly, we are now ruled by the corporatocracy.

Repeal of Taft Hartley would be a good start. As would changing laws that allow corporations to operate with the same, and in many cases, more rights than individuals or the public good of society.

We need corporate reform, and as akenaton suggests, to put power back in the hands of the worker, not the owner classes.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: kendall
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 08:14 AM

When I saw Bush doing his immitation step dance (remember Hitler) while waiting for the man he and his mafia trashed 8 years ago, I wanted to puke.Damn them all, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:01 AM

Damning them won't get our children and children's children anywhere.

We need to start calling a spade a spade. We need to abandon the duopoly system that gives these crooks a lock on our government--keeping them on the inside and the suffering world on the outside.

It is time to stop pretending that lesser of two evil voting is 'the best way' forward.

Abandoning electoral politics, or using them to whatever small advantages can be gained by manipulating the corrupt system and still get the word out--that is what people need to focus on.

Change NEVER comes from within. Let me repeat: NEVER.

I figured this out in '68 too. When the system is rigged, it is time to go outside the citadel, and storm the castle.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:23 AM

Number 6, I look at myself...I look at anyone I know...and what was the absolute overriding influence in shaping what they became?

Their family.

I think it is still the number one influence in society everywhere, but it's way under the radar. It's so basic that people don't even notice it. They don't talk about it. But it's a bigger influencer than anything else under the sun.

Families are behind most of the major business entities in the world, and most of the major political powers too, and that ain't gonna change.

GG - Yup. You're right. I'm getting too old to storm the castle now, but I'll see about it next time around...assuming I return to this playing field.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:25 AM

Yes .... it is time to go outside the citadel and storm the castle!

All to gether now ..... "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" !!!!!!


er .... no, I should reword that.


All together now .... the whole world is watching!! ... the whole world is watching !! .... the whole world ... is ...... Hey, where is everyone??

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:38 AM

Oh, you'll know when it's time.

It isn't now. The peasants and burghers are still a little too comfy in front of their TVs and laptops.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:44 AM

LH .... I agree. What has shaped myself is directly due to my family. My wife Ann and I also try to keep our family unit together. But take a look around. How many families now days are actually a cohesive unit.

but ... times are changing. The family farm, the family business are becoming a thing of the past. For a business to thrive in the way of maximum profits, or even to exist is to incorporate. It has been replaced by such large entities such as Google, Haliburton, and they even have their own police force Blackwater, whose jurisdiction is the world.

It's a corporate world, fully removed from the basic needs of the family. The biggest threat to human civility and peace is not the Taliban, Hammas or whatever, it is the coporation. Corporations expend human values by layoffs. Corporations ignite excessive greed which many will sacrifice their family unit for meaningless want. Layoffs destroy human values by causing want and despair which in itself breaks down the family unit.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:51 AM

Yes, that's correct, 6. The family has fragmented badly. I find, though, that that's part of the family-dominated picture. What I mean is, fragmented families produce an ever more fragmented society.

Now what you see happening in the upper echelons of society, the very monied people at the top, is not those fragmented families (in most cases). The fragmentation is occuring more at the lower economic end, specially among the poverty-stricken. This is only increasing the relative empowerment of the rich, and decreasing the cohesiveness of the rest of the people in comparison.

So I think we actually agree on this matter. A strong, healthy society is one where the family unit remains strong and stable at all levels of society. We aren't seeing that.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 10:19 AM

I also see where your coming from LH in regards to family dynasties ... but these dynastys can be counter attacked and destroyed, they are visible ... unlike corporations which in themselves are invisible, and bascially untouchable by any jurisdiction.

Like Kendall I was also sickened and more so frightened by seeing McCain and Bush yesterday, 2 puppets confirming their allegance .... for the Big machine.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 06:52 PM

OK, so it was a bit hyperbole w/the stormin' the castle. I just love that line in 'Princess Bride', and now you know.

What I mean is, participation in electoral voting is pretty meaningless. Change can't come within the system. Yet, there is this widespread agreement that we should pretend like this is actually not the case.

And look, I won't be on the frontline stormin' the barricades at the RNC here in St Paul. I do plan on doing a bit of marching, a bit of knoshing w/out of towners, that sort of thing. But I don't run fast enough anymore, nor am I limber enough, to climb the barricades and scale the walls w/those young whippersnapper anarchist kiddies!

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:29 PM

Yeah, the family dynasties are somewhat noticeable...in politics...but they remain almost invisible to the ordinary public in regards to the business world, and the business world runs the political scene, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:36 PM

The Murdochs, for example.

This is all just one aspect of the almost universal nepotism that operates in the high places in the UK, and I suspect in most countries. Not just in the high places, but that's where it is most entrenched. In fact I get the impression it is more entrenched and prevalent than ever.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:38 PM

It's the way human society works, and always has. The best thing is if it's as visible as possible, so people know what's going on. Then there is some chance of fighting it when it gets out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 08:16 AM

I disagree vociferously LH! I don't think this is the way human society works AT ALL. Humans, by nature, don't freely form caste systems. Those are imposed on the masses, by people with real evil intentions, and usually using religion as their justification.

But that isn't how human societies organize themselves in the absence of the sorts of rigid hierarchies that dominated the planet during, for instance, the age of Chinese dynastic rule, any more than it was true of all human societies when the era of European colonial expansion and industrial capitalism began to take over.

Thank goodness democracy spreads like wildfire--even more so than religion--giving democracy a foot in the door in places people never dreamed would have it.

No, we just have to figure out a way to beat these bastards back once and for all, if we have any hope of surviving on this planet.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 08:46 AM

People do pretty well universally use their position, and tgheir resources to give their children a leg-up when it comes to getting a job. That applies at all levels and in all fields. Musicians, bricklayers, journalists...

When it comes to politics this applies as well. And alongside this there is a widespread preference on the part of people in all kinds of show business - and politics from one point of view is a matter of show business - to give special attention to the children of previous "stars". At least to start with - if they turnout duds they tend to drop out of sight. The most outstanding counterexample is perhaps Dubya. Democracy doesn't stop that - indeed it can provide a mechanism in which it thrives.

The effect is to give unfair help to some and unfair disadvantage to others. Finding ways of restoring the balance is important, and it gets insufficient attention. Because of course it doesn't suit people who have "made it" and who have children waiting in the wings.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 08:50 AM

It isn't all that difficult to regulate nepotism. It really, really isn't hard to do. But it does require the will to do it.

There have been cycles of anti-nepotism that put the brakes on. I believe we are due for another, especially if we are in for another Clinton administration.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 09:50 AM

After Jack Kennedy selected his brother Bobby for Attorney General there were laws put in place to prevent the president from selecting family members for staff positions as such.

But, in the case of Mrs. Clinton becoming president, and the anti-nepotism law in place Mr. Clinton will not have an official staff postion ... he has said he will not have any influence on the missus, but will consult if requested ...... oh yeah, right.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:48 AM

I think you misinterpreted what I said, GG. I meant that the family, through its direct personal connections and communications, is the primary...the FIRST...influence on how most people in any society turn out. It predates and overshadows all the other influences. That can be good or bad or both...depends on each family and its inner dynamics.

Now, because of that it always has a big effect on governing power structures such as governments and business. What I meant about transparency was this: If a rich family is in control of a corporation or a media outlet....best that the general public know about it, rather than not know about it. That's where the transparency comes in.

I am not arguing against democracy in any way. Family connections play a huge part in a democracy just like they do in any other system. The ultimate example of family running things, of course, was the old hereditary monarchies...or a situation like you have in North Korea right now with what's-his-name, son of the previous dictator.

I agree that humans don't freely form caste systems. They form those systems under the pressure of various beliefs....or because of perceived outer differences like skin color, cultural dress and features, financial status, education levels, etc.

Caste systems are an expression of prejudice. Prejudice is a pretty common thing in most societies.

The old Hindu caste systems, interestingly enough, ended up putting the darkest-skinned and poorest people on the bottom of the social ladder. That is what has always tended to happen just about everywhere. They later made up religious excuses for it, in my opinion, in order to justify what was essentially a decision based on physical characteristics, wealth, privilege, and prestige.

In other words, it was't religion itself that was the original motivator of the prejudice...it was that religion was used as an unholy justification of the already existing prejudice, which was based on the usual competitive stuff: "I'm richer than you, I'm more high class than you, I have lighter skin than you...therefore I'm more beautiful than you, and I'm better educated than you. I have a more important job than you do too. I command more power than you. I'm a boss of people...you're not. Therefore God must love me more than you. Therefore, I think I'll make a religious rule about it too, just so it's 100% official from now on, and then no one will dare question it."

And there you have the story of the Hindu caste system...and similar less obvious caste systems in many places.

You're opposed to that? Well, sure. So am I.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 12:48 PM

It isn't all that difficult to regulate nepotism. It really, really isn't hard to do. But it does require the will to do it.

That's a bit like saying "It isn't all that difficult to achieve world peace. But it does require the will to do it."

Regulating nepotism is one thing. But eliminating it is quite something else.
.....................

"The old Hindu caste systems, interestingly enough, ended up putting the darkest-skinned and poorest people on the bottom of the social ladder."

The basis for this was that there had been a movement of occupation and conquest which happened to involve lighter skinned people, who brouht their religion with them, into a region where the population had darker skins. As happened later in America.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 01:51 PM

Yes, that's true, McGrath. However, haven't you noticed that even among dark-skinned peoples, the lighter toned ones often seem to assume that their are "higher class"? This could well be because higher class people in the older agrarian societies did not have to labour all day in the hot sun...therefore a lighter skin was indicative of being above the working class.

It's all about who has the power, and who doesn't. Teenagers and bored younger men in our affluent society will sometimes attack vagrants and street people and beat them up or terrorize them. Why? They perceive that their targets are "powerless" in society's terms. No money and no home = no power. Little money = little power.

People who resent their own perceived lack of power will often project that on to some target they see as less powerful than themselves. Matter of fact, that is what leads to almost all teenage bullying, in my opinion.

The basic human problems are things like greed, fear, jealousy, hatred, envy, and such negative emotions. Those put their stamp UPON religion, society, and politics.

Religion isn't the source of human emotional dysfunction. Human emotional dysfunction itself is the source of the frequent misuse and perversion of religion, politics, business, and everything else we choose to do with our time.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:00 PM

I really like John Hardly's list of simple principles.

I would add one other: that a bill may only be about one subject.

All of the BS surrounding pork riders, give-and-take favoritism, and old-boy networking comes to a point int he insertion of little riders and piggy-back provisions which are not related to the subject of the bill.

What a difference it would make if a bill could only be what it was about, and had to be named in a way which reflected that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

Yes, that would be good. To so deliberately avoid obfuscation, however, would be almost sacreligious in Washington, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

I think that is the normal way of doing it in most democracies.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:19 PM

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. According to our friend GUEST,guest, as stated or implied in this or other threads:

1) Anyone who supports Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton is a mysoginist.

2) Anyone who does support Hillary Clinton is supporting the continuance of a dynastic political system.

Follow that logic around for a bit and see if your head doesn't start spinning.

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:32 PM

You thought it would be easy?

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 03:53 PM

Make that a "misogynist" if you will. Or just substitute "woman hating pig".

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:11 PM

Geez! I'm a man, okay? And I would so much rather have a woman be president for a change that I can taste it (so to speak). And I've felt that way since some time in the 70s. I WISH a woman could get elected to the top leadership in both Canada and the USA for a change.

That doesn't mean, however, that I will automatically support one specific female candidate just because she happens to be a woman. Nor does it mean that I will automatically support a Black candidate just because he's Black or a male candidate just because he's male.

Nope. It's not that simple. I support people if I agree with their ideas, their record, and their philosophy.

So far that meant that the one person I could support without reservation was Kucinich. Other than that, I rather liked Edwards. Following that, I tend to somewhat like Obama...to a point...but I'm not so sure about his values. Following that, well, I would settle for the Clintons again rather than see the Republicans back in office...but I regard both halves of the Duopoly as totally corrupt, and I know how the game works. Revolving doors.

So it goes....

Subject: RE: BS: BushClintonBushClinton
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 09:02 PM

FTR there Beedub, you got me VERY wrong.

But then, if you are trying to suss me out politically based on my comments about two candidates I've been very clear about NOT supporting, more power to your typing skills.

I have never said Obama's supporters were misogynist. I said a lot of the MSM coverage of Clinton especially, has been. I'm not referring to the SNL skit. I'm referring to paid professional media people bantering about and saying things like the Clinton campaign was 'pimping' Chelsea.

You know, I have an African American volunteer working in my library, who is a staunch Dem, 72 years old, worked as an office manager for a local bank--not a conglomerate bank--for most her working years. We talk politics, and got around one day recently to why she was hoping Obama would win, but she is fine with Clinton too. One thing she said has stuck with me--if Clinton were a man, the pundits would never dream of making a crack like the one about Chelsea. Never in a million years.

That is the 'misogynist' difference. There is a portion of the MSM, just like there is a portion of voters, who will attack Clinton below the belt, because since she is a woman, they know they can get away with it.

My volunteer's comparison? The nappy headed ho comment by that asshole who was out of work for 15 minutes, got his hand slapped by the MSM in order to innoculate themselves, and now is working again for what is likely a new, tidy 6 figure sum.

But that is the key difference. They will say Clinton pimps Chelsea, but do you think there is a single media person working in the MSM who would make a reference to Michelle Obama being a 'ho' or a prostitute?

Not on your life. They simply would never say something like that because Obama is a man, and they would never risk it.