 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bushwhacked SIX
|
|
|
Subject: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:13 PM Dear little friends, Ahhhh, a nice new fresh thread. It's so nice that you have stayed around to play for these hundreds of posts. I have noticed all the sane LSCs are peeling away from criminal clinton, even some of the drug addicted Hollywood leftists are putting some daylight between themselves and the dirtbag. It does not matter however, because you, algor, Maxine Waters, Jenningsbrokawrather et al, who defended the indefensible bastard, are all unindicted conspirators. Any of the smart LSCs in DC who know what's what, will be jumping on the "W" Train (like they are starting to do) or they'll be TOAST in two years. AND THEY KNOW IT!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,CraigS Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:22 PM I don't know what this stuff means - I'm British - but I detect that you don't like Mr Clinton. All I can say is that Iraq's just been bombed again, and I don't like the way that Mr Bush signs death warrants as if they were petty cash vouchers. It doesn't matter who is in charge, politicians are lying cads until proven otherwise. There hasn't been a Prime Minister of England I've liked in my lifetime, and there hasn't been a US president I've liked. Perhaps someone could write a song about this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: mousethief Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:30 PM So what I want to know is, what bushy dog is being wagged by this iraq-bombing tail? Nixon was a staunch supporter of Joe McCarthy. He made secret deals with the North Vietnamese to ensure that a peace accord wasn't signed before the 1968 election. He lied about criminal activities, and then lied about lying about criminal activities. He was a power-crazed monomaniac who felt that anybody who didn't like him or his politics was an enemy of the American people. Clinton got a blow job (or three) in the oval office, and then lied about it. Hmmmmm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:41 PM Dear Spew, "Yeah, you're out all right MAV............far, far, out.....bla, bla, bla,...92 city blocks....bla, bla, bla.." What's a city block? "Try to stop at a restroom, ...bla, bla, bla, and dump that load of "BLEEP" you're carrying. Be sure to alert the owner that your "BLEEP" is especially putrid and there's a ton of it so he can get the Roto-Rooter folks on the way. Bla, bla, bla...have them snake out your "BLEEP" to be sure all that "BLEEP" is out" WOW! What a vulgar "BLEEPER". I'd never sign my name to such a piece of "BLEEP". "Why are you all jacking with this guy?" Because I'm so much fun and you know that most of these people actually agree with me and are just putting YOU on! By the way, are you an F.O.B?
Signed, the kinder, gentler...mav |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:48 PM Gee.........How nice............Now group, Mav is going to be kinder and gentler.................a real prince among men..................He's a good guy, wouldn't say fuck if he could get one. Enjoy yourselves gang. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 16 Feb 01 - 09:53 PM Hey Thiefer, "Uncle Joe" was a godfather to the Kennedy kids. I thought you otta know that. see ya big boy, mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Troll Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:01 PM Alex, what in the world does Nixon have to do with Bush? Or Iran? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: wdyat12 Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:08 PM All these Bushwacked threads bring up all the bad and the ugly history of politics, but it don't change a thing if it don't have that sting. None of us are very happy with the global corporations pulling the strings of bad little puppets. We all know we are being manipulated too. All that counts is the bottom line and cash in the pocket of the few powerful really evil people in the world. What are we just sitting here complaining for? Get the lead out folks and get active. Nader was right. wdyat12 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:16 PM What can we do? You should see the letters I wrote to my two republican Senators. They both supported John (anti-everything)Ashcroft and Gail (cut them all down) Norton. I told them that, since they chose to send Bugs Bunny to guard the carrots and put that bigot in power, that I will do everything in my power (legally) to get them defeated next time they run. I can hardly wait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Troll Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:20 PM Little Hawk. Castro did all the things you said he did but he went one farther that really screwed him with 1960's America. He announced that he was a Marxist-Leninist. After that no American Administration would touch him. To have done so would have been to commit political suicide. People of today do not understand the fear that the post-WWII government had for "world communism". It was perceived as a very real threat, as was nuclear war.If you were not alive during those times you cannot understand how nearly everyone felt. Kruschev stood up in the UN and announced that the USSR would bury us. It was a scary time. So don't be too quick to judge what happened in the late 50's and early 60's vis a vis Castro. There was a lot more playing into it than just United Fruit losing it's monopoly and the Mafia losing their money-laundry. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:20 PM Hey Spewer, "wouldn't say "BLEEP" if he could get one You eat with that mouth? You kiss your mother with that mouth?
Give peace a chance, mav out PS...r.v.wade????(tee hee) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:32 PM Well, the obvious response here is: Nah Mav, my Mom's dead. I been kissin' yours though............ But I wouldn't want to offend one so pure of thought as the Mav, so I won't say it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:43 PM Catbox, "But I wouldn't want to offend one so pure of thought as the Mav" I never said I was pure of thought, I just try to refrain from calling an @$$ an @$$. "so I won't say it" I think you just did. Sorry about your mom. mav |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:46 PM (:<))......well, that was fun.....thanks mav.....Y'all go on now..........Have a good time. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: wdyat12 Date: 16 Feb 01 - 11:22 PM kendall, Join the Greens! Get others to join too! Get informed! Get armed! There's a fight brewing in the grassroots! Check out Ralph Nader on the net. wdyat12 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 17 Feb 01 - 07:38 AM Dear Craig S, "There hasn't been a Prime Minister of England I've liked in my lifetime" What, you were born since Maggie T? She sure towers far and above your current whining nannie-boy Toni Blair. "and there hasn't been a US president I've liked" Including Washington? Oh, yeah you're British. "Perhaps someone could write a song about this?" Oh..... The taste is sweeter, and the box is new, Labour is corrupted, Through and through.
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 17 Feb 01 - 09:53 AM As the nice Church Lady used to say, "Well, isn't that SPECIAL!? Dear Kinder, gentler Mav, Can I gather from your remarks that its just people who like Clinton that are the problem, not LSCs in general? Nixon had the sense of honor to resign? After he was informed by the Senate Leadership that if he went on trial, he'd be convicted. Claiming that as honorable strains the meaning to the limit. However, the thread is about W and his policies so consider: Ashcroft as Attorney General of Missouri singled out NOW to sue (for restraint of trade) over calling for a boycott during the ERA ratification fight. The case was thrown out of Federal District and Federal Appeals Court and the Supreme Court refused to hear it. Besides there being ample precedent against such suits being brought at all, as the Courts noted, there were some 13 other organizations who also called for a boycott. Mr. Ashcroft simply ignored those organizations. 25 religious organizations have sent W a letter, asking that he repeal the restrictions on providing social services to illegal immigrants as part of his regulatory restructuring to accommodate faith-based charities. Seems the groups are much more interested in charity than politics. Plus all those rich people urging Bush not to reform the estate tax as (among other things) the reform would hurt charities. But if he does, then the Government can just take up the slack. I suppose we can ignore the little breach of protocol in failing to invite certain democratic members of Congress when he was touring military bases in their States. Oops, he did invite some democrats.. In Virginia the excuse was that the Representative wasn't on the Armed Forces Committee (although other Congressmen who weren't also got invited). In Georgia, that excuse won't work as the Representative is on the Committee. It would be impolitic to mention that both were African Americans. Then there's W's lost year of military service. And the tax reform that gives the group who currently pays 21% of the taxes 41% of the tax breaks. Still, there is hope. A scandal is brewing in Texas regarding the Texas Funeral Commission and the firing of Eliza May holds out the possibility of Bush having to testify in her wrongful termination suit. The claim is that W lied under oath. Damn, its Deja Vu all over again. Michael Powell, the FCC Chair, promises to be interesting (until Bush reins him in). While he doesn't see the "digital divide" as an issue that the FCC needs to address, has no problem with unregulated mergers and acquisition, he also doesn't think that the FCC should get involved in regulating content. Which raises the interesting ratings question: Can full frontal nudity really compete with Monday Night Football? Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: wdyat12 Date: 17 Feb 01 - 02:09 PM There is a good alterative online news service called Common Dreams with poignant articles. The headline this morning read: For Bush and Blair, Iraqi Raids an Act of Male Bonding by Michael White. You can get there with this address. news@commondreams.org wdyat12
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 17 Feb 01 - 02:48 PM I'm quite familiar with Nader. He is a humorless egomanic who would have no support in Congress, and, would get no where. He was wrong about the Corvair too. If all those naive Nader voters had voted against the Shrub, we wouldn't be facing the mess we have after we lost our right to choose a president. I had little respect for that bunch of lackeys before. I have none now. Their goddamn power trips areworth more than the constitution. A pox on all of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: wdyat12 Date: 17 Feb 01 - 03:17 PM Kendall, You're right about several things. Nader had no chance in hell of winning the presidency, He was wrong about the Corvair, and a third party president, no matter who, would have no support in Congress right now. You have to think ahead. If we want the status quo to continue, then we can blindly follow this corporate run duopoly disguised as a democracy. If we want an adgenda that favors the paticipation of people of all nations in the democratic process, then we have to throw all the bums out and that starts in our own backyards. We have to begin in the grassroots like right here on the Mudcat Forum discussing ways and sharing recourses for changing all this madness in the world. Yes, We should complain, but we should also act. Sincerely, wdyat12
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 01 - 03:41 PM Troll - Good point about Castro. I actually was living in the USA at that time (1958 to 1969), and you're right, there was an extraordinary fear of communism and of world war, so Castro's statement would have made him a pariah in America. I think Castro totally expected support from the American people after throwing out Batista. As such, he was naive. Had he not been so naive he would probably have made no such public statements about being "Marxist-Leninist". Or maybe he was just arrogant or overconfident and got carried away. He unquestionably has a big ego and a lot of guts and has been known to shoot his mouth off without regard to the consequences. Too bad. It sure has caused a lot of unnecessary trouble for a whole lot of people. Once you actually get to know the Cubans, who would care if they were officially communist or socialist or whatever...it doesn't stop them from being a greatly likeable bunch of people...and Cuba from being a great place. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:08 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: MarkS Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:11 PM Hey guys, blaming Nader for taking away votes from X so Y could win is like balming the coin for landing heads instead of tails. It does not much matter with either X or Y, the Republicrats are all part of the same system no matter the name tag on the empty suit behind the desk in the Oval Office. Nader was the one chance we had of real change during the past electoral follies, but that thread is too old to start again. Lets look ahead to the next four years. And if that makes me naive, then I would rather be naive and keep a bit of idealism rather than buy into either the left or the right branch of todays establishment. MarkS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:15 PM Yes, Castro's a great guy, except for the 10,000 Cubans he murdered, They probably don't talk real freely about that down there, do they? I wonder why? Just like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. All brutal, murdering, authoritarian despots. Not an RWE among them. mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:16 PM Ummm...MAV? Were you trying to say something? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:27 PM Hawkster, Mav is ALWAYS trying to say something..........Of course no one ever has the least idea what it is.......this would include Mav himself possibly. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:27 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:28 PM Yeah.....See what I mean? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:35 PM He seems to be at a loss for words. You must have really ticked him off this time, Spaw. Oh, wait, there he is....must've got help from a Joe Clone. Does RWE mean "right wing extremist"? If so, don't be naive, MAV, there are RWE's everywhere, and they thrive in Communist systems. In fact they usually end up running them. They are ruthless bastards with lots of firepower at their command. I advise you to stay clear of them for your own safety. I sure as hell do, whether I'm in Cuba or the USA. It's peaceniks like me that are safe to be around. We're nonviolent and we believe in "live and let live". Seriously. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:45 PM See...I don't think the world is locked in a battle between socialism and capitalism. I think it's locked in a battle between love and fear...mercy and mercilessness...cooperation and "survival of the fittest"...unity and exclusivity...diversity of choice and MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY. RWE's and LWE's amount to basically the same thing in my book. That's why they hate each other so much...they recognize themselves in the mirror. And they KNOW that guy is dangerous. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 17 Feb 01 - 05:04 PM Little Hawk, "MAV? Were you trying to say something?" Yes, My point was the liberals like the murdering communists better than American conservatives. Why? (You didn't get that?) Cats, You weren't counting on the Clinton News Network etc. for information were you? You were aware that the Soviet Communists, Nazis, Chicoms and Cambodians as well as Castro were mass murderers weren't you? Next you'll be telling me the Holocaust didn't happen. YOU PEOPLE act like you never heard some of the stuff I've posted. Denial or disbelief? I've certainly heard the LSC line over and over and over and over, including the major broadcast media news outlets. Why should I or any American believe anything from the ministry of propaganda? Ratings for all the major broadcast news shows are steadily declining as are those for MSNBC (2nd place Matthews), CNBC (paid programming) and CNN (massive layoffs). The public just ain't buying it! Why are you? FOXNEWS is steadily gaining ground with the American public since they give BOTH SIDES of a story and report THE FACTS on a news story. You can accuse them of being biased to the right if you want, but you would be wrong! Many of their programs have hardcores from both ends of the spectrum arguing it out right in front of you. Then you can go online and do some research yourself. Since they provide opinions from the right and other sources don't, I can only assume unfair leftist bias from most major sources. As is also apparent (by your reactions) many sources, both broadcast and print, are guilty of bias by omission or placement (burying a story). They either fail to report a major story or give it 2 column inches on page Z39 and then when a reference to it seems to be "news" they can say "Oh, we reported that, that's old news" One more thing, You didn't really think those "newsreaders" like jenningsratherbrokaw had to go to "Journalism school" to learn how to read a teleprompter or spell did you? They are the professional purveyors of disinformation! mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 01 - 05:04 PM Another thing that occurs to me. I don't go to Cuba to visit Fidel Castro, just like I don't go to the USA to visit Bill Clinton or George Bush. I go there to be among ordinary Cubans, and I like them. There are plenty of good people in all countries, and one ought to give that consideration before becoming involved in useless wars between competing systems run by a few elitists with an inflated idea of their own importance. Still...better Castro than Batista. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 17 Feb 01 - 05:06 PM Believe it or not, I understand where you are coming from. The problem is, we must find someone who CAN get elected. As long as a 3rd party candidate is a Nader, it aint gonna work. So. How do we get an electable Green candidate? Teddy Roosevelt couldn't make it work, and Ralph Nader is no Teddy Roosevelt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Feb 01 - 05:12 PM MAV - yuo posted "Why should I or any American believe anything from the ministry of propaganda?" Exactly. Why do you believe your ministry of propaganda? (your educational and media system) I was subjected to a flood of it all through public school from Grade 4 to Grade 12 in New York State. I certainly did not believe most of it. Of course, I was a Canadian in a foreign land, so I didn't just take it for granted as gospel, which is what virtually all my classmates did. We were being primed to fight a 3rd world war every day of our lives. The USA is one of the most jingoistic countries in the world, always looking for an "enemy". It's a worrisome thing to anyone who is not an American, I can assure you. But Americans think it's normal. It is not. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 17 Feb 01 - 07:21 PM Look, those people who make bullets have to have a market. Thats capitalism. Besides, we dont look for enemies, we create them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 17 Feb 01 - 08:33 PM Mav, Before blasting the liberal media (and it does exist, just as its counterpart), consider that the media has a single purpose, to make money. As such, all are suspect. If liberal commentators make money, those who control the major corporations (who are, by and large, conservative and Republican) support them. If not, they leave. If Fox makes money with more balanced reporting, then the rest will follow. Is it a conspiracy or a natural and logical necessity of a profit based system? And consider Michael Powell's ideas about the FCC not interfering in acquisitions and mergers. Under that policy we could end up with one or two major outlets for news and somehow that's good. It takes dedication to figure out what's the real story behind most major news stories. Usually three or four sources. And then it's always useful to look at what the rest of the world is saying about what's going on. As LH commented, we're into jingoism. As a nation we seem addicted to sound bites and simplistic explanations (that are inevitably wrong). Trying to get past the fervent belief that there just has to be a simple answer for everything isn't peculiar to America. We just seem to cling to the idea more tenaciously than most. You also said: You were aware that the Soviet Communists, Nazis, Chicoms and Cambodians as well as Castro were mass murderers weren't you? Most of the people I've run into on Mudcat are fairly well read and have a pretty good sense of history. Speaking for myself, yes, I'm very aware of what the groups you list did. As I'm aware of what the US Government did to the Native Americans, what the Allies did to Hamburg and Dresden, what the missionary's did to Hawaii. What the Khmer Rouge did to their own people (with full support of the Actor, btw). What big business did to labor in Europe and the US (worse in the US as I recall). What Catholics did to Protestants..... the list is endless. The question is what to do about it. Besides call each other names. You seem to be looking for the 'good guys'. There aren't a lot of them and most don't get into politics. Just as the US has to have an enemy (even if we have to make them up) we also demand a hero. If the Left are the bad guys, why then the Right just has to be the good guys. Nice. Neat.. Simplistic. Wrong For a country that prides itself on supporting the individual, we go to extraordinary links to demand conformity, hiding behind practicality, necessity and security. And are sure that the answer is the sole position of the Republicans or Democrats (who aren't all that different, in the final analysis). What we call the Left and Right, most other countries would view as the same ideology with a few minor variations. Nader can be viewed as a "spoiler". But what he tried to do (and both Bush and Gore made sure it didn't happen) was expand politics to embrace alternate ideas about how things ought to work. So did the Libertarians and they got excluded too. Little Hawk, As a survivor of the US public school system and a citizen, it took me a little longer to dig my way out of what can only be called propaganda. I was lucky, in HS I had a couple of teachers who were definitely "outside the box" and started the process of opening my eyes. Sadly, the propaganda effort continues, aided and abetted by well meaning citizens who were victims of the same limited education and have diligently worked at enshrining what they think know as a sort of ultimate truth. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 17 Feb 01 - 08:36 PM Little Hawk, "Why do you believe your ministry of propaganda? (your educational and media system)" I DON'T!!!!!! That is exactly what I was talking about. As to Cuba, I'm sure we have no gripe with the Cuban citizens, after all, Americans of Cuban extraction make up some of the most patriotic voting districts in Miami (GOP of course). Castro is still a mass murderer.
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: DougR Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:30 AM Kendall for President! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 18 Feb 01 - 08:11 AM Take your meds Doug! So, Skeptic, I wondered if anyone else would start calling Mr. Raygun "The Actor". How that man managed to fool so many people is a mystery to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 18 Feb 01 - 09:26 AM Kendall, Yeah, that stupid Gorbechev, fell for it hook, line and sinker. Why we could still have the cold war going if only Reagan hadn't screwed it all up. And that democRAT Congress, the way he fooled them into making those massive spending cuts so we wouldn't have a huge national debt....oh, wait?
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:15 AM Dear Skeptic, "Can I gather from your remarks that its just people who like Clinton that are the problem, not LSCs in general?" The American defenders of clinton (FOBs and most democRATs) are self identified enemies of the US Constitution. American LSCs in general are problematic but have a right to their beliefs under the first amendment. They have every right to try to win the battle of public opinion but typically use "ends justify the means" spin tactics instead of revealing their agenda. (aka dirty pool) "Nixon had the sense of honor to resign? After he was informed by the Senate Leadership that if he went on trial, he'd be convicted. Claiming that as honorable strains the meaning to the limit" That included votes to convict from his own party. If the LSCs in Congress had any honor, they would have gone and looked at the evidence and found clinton (the rapist and thief) should have been removed. Instead, they closed their eyes, plugged their ears and went "na-na-na" seeing and hearing no evil. Clinton (unlike Nixon) DID put America through the process and degraded American society as a result. Take a look at former good buddy Time Magazine's treatment of the "Incredible Shrinking Ex-President" coming to a news stand near you soon. "The mainpress media turn on Clinton moves into fifth gear: In its cover story, "THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING EX-PRESIDENT", TIME concludes "Clinton's ex-presidency is shaping up to be a shriveled version of his presidency.... TIME's cover page art shows a tiny figure of Clinton dressed in sweats and sneakers under a huge headline as "THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING PRESIDENT." Clinton the STUD, shriveled! HA ha ha ha ha and bent whoooo! tee hee ha ha ha ha. Here's more www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99676,00.html www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99807,00.html "Ashcroft as Attorney General of Missouri singled out NOW to sue (for restraint of trade) over calling for a boycott during the ERA ratification fight" Good! NOW is simply a bunch of unreasonable socialist murder/bort elitists. They don't give a damn about the average American woman. The NOW butches want equal rights, but in practice when the going gets rough they revert to the "poor little ole me" victimhood posture instead of "taking it like a man. (See: Lazio "invading" Hildebeast's space) AG Ashcroft warts and all is 100 times more qualified than the 5th-choice-quaking-Waco murdering-frivolous phony FL child molesting innocent career destroying lawsuit-Elian communist complicit kidnapping-rubber stamping-obstruction of justice department-yes MAN!...Janet Reno! I hope he puts the crooked old bag away for life. "25 religious organizations have sent W a letter, asking that he repeal the restrictions on providing social services to illegal immigrants as part of his regulatory restructuring to accommodate faith-based charities. Seems the groups are much more interested in charity than politics" I would support giving I.I.s a meal and a one way ticket home. Next time, ouchies from the border patrol/Army. "Plus all those rich people urging Bush not to reform the estate tax as (among other things) the reform would hurt charities" If they want to give half their estate to charity or the govt, let them. Leave the non-billionaires alone. The reason so many people have to sell farms and family business is the very same estate (death)tax. That's anti-American But you knew that! ...........Didn't you! "But if he does, then the Government can just take up the slack" I doubt that. KILL PROGRAMS! KILL DEPARTMENTS! "I suppose we can ignore the little breach of protocol in failing to invite certain democratic members of Congress when he was touring military bases in their States. Oops, he did invite some democrats.. In Virginia the excuse was that the Representative wasn't on the Armed Forces Committee (although other Congressmen who weren't also got invited). In Georgia, that excuse won't work as the Representative is on the Committee. It would be impolitic to mention that both were African Americans" I wouldn't invite the racist bastards either. He's being way nicer to the commucRATs and black socialists (progressives)than he needs to be. That NAACP dragging ad was the most disgusting and unfair piece of crap ever perpetrated in American politics. Two of the murderers are now on death row in Texas. What would "Hate Crimes Legislation" do, kill them TWICE??? "Then there's W's lost year of military service" Then there's clinton taking communion with the USSR and Chinese COMMUNISTS! "And the tax reform that gives the group who currently pays 21% of the taxes 41% of the tax breaks" GOOD!................................Except that's: 33% paid by the top 1%. 50% paid by the top 5% 5% paid by the bottom 50% If you don't pay income taxes, why should you get a break? Oh yeah, socialism (return to top of letter and re-read) mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:29 AM Mav, Don't feel sorry about the Cold War. W's doing his best to start it up again. Even the rhetoric hasn't changed much since the Actor's heyday. But then, thanks to Bush, neither have the players. The need for enemies and heroes and simple explanations dominates our society. It makes life so much easier to pick a good guy, a bad guy and praise or blame them. Facts, history, economic theory, all that just take too much time to learn. And you have to actually think about it. So much easier to rationalize away the nasty facts that don't fit. (No matter where you fit on the political spectrum) The Soviet Union had been crumbling for a long time. The Actor gets credit for hastening the fall. He also needs to accept the blame for his support of petty dictators who were as guilty of genocide as any of your "favorites". Looking at various economic indicators, the 80's was a worse decade than the 70's or the 90's. Who gets credit and who gets blame? In Reagan's first real budget, he got Congress to pass TEFRA and said, at the time, that he now had all the tools necessary to fix the economy. He didn't. The Actor was the hero everyone wanted. Hero's have to screw up big time before the image starts to tarnish. It happens quicker these days because facts and opinions get disseminated faster. Clinton in the 90's didn't cause the expansion. Neither did Greenspan. And neither will Bush during his term. But our economy is international. At best, governments can moderate the peaks and valleys. Of the $5.6 trillion projected surplus over the next 10 years (and that figure assumed continued economic growth and significant pay down of the national debt) all but $1.9 trillion is earmarked for things like the social security trust fund. So the $1.6 trillion tax cut comes out of that. Which leaves a $300 billion hedge against those little blips that haunt our economic system. Not what I'd call prudent, aside from the equity issues that have been raised. BTW, under the Bush plan, W and Laura will get a $20K tax break the first year and by 2006 it'll be up to $100k. Its also estimated that the tax break going to the richest 1% would pay for the medicare prescription program. It's a question of values: Helping senior citizens get the medicine they need to stay alive or picking up that Renoir for the library at the Hamptons. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Troll Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:36 AM Actually,Skeptic, I heard that the reason the rep from Ga. wasn't invited is that she has been virulently outspoken about the "Illegitimacy" of the Bush presidency. If I were Bush, I wouldn't invite her along either. Nor, I think, would any other politician. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:00 PM Good Morning Skeptic, Where are the other Mudcatters, beer and volume shock from niteclubs? I know the feeling. "Don't feel sorry about the Cold War. W's doing his best to start it up again. Even the rhetoric hasn't changed much since the Actor's heyday. But then, thanks to Bush, neither have the players" Yes, too bad they've had 8 years to build nuclear weapons. "The need for enemies and heroes and simple explanations dominates our society. It makes life so much easier to pick a good guy, a bad guy and praise or blame them. Facts, history, economic theory, all that just take too much time to learn. And you have to actually think about it. So much easier to rationalize away the nasty facts that don't fit. (No matter where you fit on the political spectrum)" Yes, if Japan and Germany had been percieved as a threat, maybe WWII wouldn't have happened. "The Soviet Union had been crumbling for a long time. The Actor gets credit for hastening the fall" World leaders were impressed by his resolve and ability when dealing with the Russians. "Mr. Gorbechev tear down this wall" as a public position put the USSR in an odd PR position and the US in a superior posture. "Star Wars" was another scare tactic that worked, they thought we already had the technology. We also outspent them in the arms race, forcing their wimpy economic structure to collapse. "He also needs to accept the blame for his support of petty dictators who were as guilty of genocide as any of your "favorites"." You mean like Kadaffi and Ortega? "Looking at various economic indicators, the 80's was a worse decade than the 70's or the 90's. Who gets credit and who gets blame?" Carter gets the blame for the 80's Reagan gets the credit for the 90s. "In Reagan's first real budget, he got Congress to pass TEFRA and said, at the time, that he now had all the tools necessary to fix the economy. He didn't" No, they betrayed him and denied him their promised tax cuts. Treasury revenue doubled after tax cuts, they blew it. The President proposes, the Congress disposes. They laughed and claimed his budgets were "dead on arrival" "The Actor was the hero everyone wanted. Hero's have to screw up big time before the image starts to tarnish. It happens quicker these days because facts and opinions get disseminated faster" In no small way due to the way the LSCs shamelessly and unfairly demonize him even as he languishes in a torturous death from Alzheimers. A real good testimony to the hypocrisy of the "compassionate and tolerant" self-described nature of the commucRATs. Just leave the man alone, he @$$ he save could be yours. "Clinton in the 90's didn't cause the expansion. Neither did Greenspan. And neither will Bush during his term. But our economy is international. At best, governments can moderate the peaks and valleys" WRONG! Of the $5.6 trillion projected surplus over the next 10 years (and that figure assumed continued economic growth and significant pay down of the national debt) all but $1.9 trillion is earmarked for things like the social security trust fund. So the $1.6 trillion tax cut comes out of that. Which leaves a $300 billion hedge against those little blips that haunt our economic system. Not what I'd call prudent, aside from the equity issues that have been raised. BTW, under the Bush plan, W and Laura will get a $20K tax break the first year and by 2006 it'll be up to $100k. Its also estimated that the tax break going to the richest 1% would pay for the medicare prescription program. It's a question of values: Helping senior citizens get the medicine they need to stay alive or picking up that Renoir for the library at the Hamptons. Decisions, decisions, decisions.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:14 PM continued, sorry bout that. WRONG! They can either screw it up by removing dollars from the economy, or enhance it by putting dollars back. Kennedy did it in 1960...tax cuts Reagan did it!...tax cuts Bush #41 didn't do it..."read my lips" clinton didn't do it....largest tax increase in history Newt did it..massive capital gains tax cuts "Of the $5.6 trillion projected surplus over the next 10 years (and that figure assumed continued economic growth and significant pay down of the national debt) all but $1.9 trillion is earmarked for things like the social security trust fund. So the $1.6 trillion tax cut comes out of that. Which leaves a $300 billion hedge against those little blips that haunt our economic system. Not what I'd call prudent, aside from the equity issues that have been raised" The govt is not supposed to run a surplus, that means they confiscated more money than they can waste. There should be neither a deficit nor a surplus (balanced books) This tax cut is nothing, it should be $5.6 Trillion or more. "BTW, under the Bush plan, W and Laura will get a $20K tax break the first year and by 2006 it'll be up to $100k" Good! That means other high EARNERS will also not be penalized for being successful. "Its also estimated that the tax break going to the richest 1% would pay for the medicare prescription program. It's a question of values: Helping senior citizens get the medicine they need to stay alive or picking up that Renoir for the library at the Hamptons. Decisions, decisions, decisions" Where in the US Constitution does it give the right to re-distribution of the wealth to the federal government???
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 18 Feb 01 - 03:07 PM Where was the Constitution when the Supreme Court selected our president? Wanna know who is really responsible for the economy of the last 8 years? Bill Gates. Who finally killed communism? Lec Walesa thats who. The Actor making meaningless speeches did shit! Furthermore, his tax cut in the early 80's made things worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 18 Feb 01 - 03:32 PM What was that about a rape? Look MAV Clinton was bad enough on his own merits without you Right wing types making up charges. Furthermore, the WORST of what he did doesn't come close to the actor and his Iran-Contra, and arms for hostages. How come you never mention his promise to "Balance the budget", and the fact that he never submitted one in 8 years? Just the oposite, he drove us up to 5 trillion dollars in debt. He was a liar and a crook, yet, he gets an airport named after him. Clinton gets a blow job he is the anti-christ. Your priorities are as screwed up as most of the rest of this country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 18 Feb 01 - 09:11 PM Troll, Somehow I expected (or maybe faintly hoped) for something more than the ethics of a elementary school playground from W. Protocol is protocol. It's one of those little rules of the game. Not getting invited to the White House is one thing, this is another. And gives the appearance of racism, no matter what W's motives. Is this an example of how he plans to bring the country together?
Greetings Mav., The American defenders of clinton (FOBs and most democRATs) are self identified enemies of the US Constitution. In your not so humble opinion, anyway. And you never did answer my question about the Constitution. They have every right to try to win the battle of public opinion but typically use "ends justify the means" spin tactics instead of revealing their agenda. (aka dirty pool) Strange. That's the same charges leveled at the RR and RWE. And as I'm not a big clinton fan, I'll have to let other's defend his actions. I said "Ashcroft as Attorney General of Missouri singled out NOW to sue (for restraint of trade) over calling for a boycott during the ERA ratification fight" and you replied Good! NOW is simply a bunch of unreasonable socialist murder/bort elitists. They don't give a damn about the average American woman. The NOW butches want equal rights, but in practice when the going gets rough they revert to the "poor little ole me" victimhood posture instead of "taking it like a man. Two points: The point of law was that the man who is now our attorney general ignored several supreme court rulings that said there was no basis for his suit, ignored the fact that it wasn't NOW that started the boycotts and used his position to single them out. If he'd named all the organizations, fine. (Though he still didn't ahve much of a legal basis) He didn't. The second point is that your little tirade reminds me of Orwells Animal Farm where all the animals were equal, only some were more equal than others. Or more directly, your "They deserve it" is one of the more un-American statements I've come across lately. Whatever you or I may think about NOW, they deserve equal treatment under the law. And didn't get it. From the man charged with making sure the law is applied with at least the appearance of fairness. AG Ashcroft warts and all is 100 times more qualified than the 5th-choice-quaking-Waco murdering-frivolous phony FL child molesting innocent career destroying lawsuit-Elian communist complicit kidnapping-rubber stamping-obstruction of justice department-yes MAN!...Janet Reno! Feel better now? Even if all your childish ranting about Janet Reno were true, it's starting to look like an argument about who was the "better" Caesar, Nero or Caligula. I would support giving I.I.s a meal and a one way ticket home. Next time, ouchies from the border patrol/Army. Hardly the point. What it indicates is what a lot of people have been saying. That W's ideas about Faith based initiatives and the faith based organizations aren't necessarily in the same ball park. And the faith based groups aren't policemen. The danger is secularization of religions. If they want to give half their estate to charity or the govt, let them. Leave the non-billionaires alone. The reason so many people have to sell farms and family business is the very same estate (death)tax. That's anti-American. But you knew that! ...........Didn't you! No. I know people that have had to sell farms and businesses. More out of their own ignorance than necessity. Life Trusts aren't just for the rich. Isaid "But if he does, then the Government can just take up the slack" and your came back with I doubt that. KILL PROGRAMS! KILL DEPARTMENTS! What do you think W's doing with his faith based nonsense? I wouldn't invite the racist bastards either. He's being way nicer to the commucRATs and black socialists (progressives)than he needs to be. No, I suspect you wouldn't. And do you long for the good old days when "they" knew their palce and when "they" got a little uppity, why they just got lynched? He's supposed to be the President of all the United States, not just the parts he likes. At least that was the theme of his inaugural speech. That NAACP dragging ad was the most disgusting and unfair piece of crap ever perpetrated in American politics. It was certainly in my top five. What would "Hate Crimes Legislation" do, kill them TWICE??? The argument for hate crimes legislation is that intent is one element taken into account when considering what charge to bring. The question is not "kill them twice" but all other things being equal, does the intent (hate) warrant a more severe charge. 1st Degree, rather than 2nd degree manslaughter, for example. Like premeditation. I said "Then there's W's lost year of military service" and you came back with Then there's clinton taking communion with the USSR and Chinese COMMUNISTS! And two wrongs make a right. One doesn't forgive or justify the other. 33% paid by the top 1%. 50% paid by the top 5% 5% paid by the bottom 50% If you don't pay income taxes, why should you get a break? Then why is the top 1%, whether its 21% or 33% getting 43% of the break? 33% (or 21%) would seem logical. Oh yeah, socialism (return to top of letter and re-read) I reread. It doesn't improve any of it. Where are the other Mudcatters, beer and volume shock from niteclubs? I know the feeling. Beer and niteclubs indeed. Saturday Nights is when we plot to destroy organized religion. I'll send you a schedule (except you may think I'm being serious). Sadly, my beer and niteclub days are a thing of the past. "Don't feel sorry about the Cold War. W's doing his best to start it up again. Even the rhetoric hasn't changed much since the Actor's heyday. But then, thanks to Bush, neither have the players" Yes, too bad they've had 8 years to build nuclear weapons. Longer. But now they can buy them from the various nations of the old Soviet Union. That The Actor is credited with destroying. Hmmmm.? Yes, if Japan and Germany had been percieved as a threat, maybe WWII wouldn't have happened. Which is true but wasn't the point. And a number of people did see the menace. No one wanted to listen. And a lot listen to the wrong "hero". (Lindberg, for one) "The Soviet Union had been crumbling for a long time. The Actor gets credit for hastening the fall" World leaders were impressed by his resolve and ability when dealing with the Russians. "Mr. Gorbechev tear down this wall" as a public position put the USSR in an odd PR position and the US in a superior posture. "Star Wars" was another scare tactic that worked, they thought we already had the technology. We also outspent them in the arms race, forcing their wimpy economic structure to collapse Such spending had been going on since the 50's. It reenforces my point about our compulsive need for heros as a substitute for thinking. And I don't belittel his effort, just want to keep it in perspective. I said "He also needs to accept the blame for his support of petty dictators who were as guilty of genocide as any of your "favorites"." and your replied You mean like Kadaffi and Ortega? I was thinking more of his support for, Somoza, Efran Montt, the Honduran "freedom fighters" The Khmer Rouge, Indonesia against East Timor, Mobutu Seko, the former South African government's support for terrorist in Angola and Mozambique.... to name a few. In no small way due to the way the LSCs shamelessly and unfairly demonize him even as he languishes in a torturous death from Alzheimers. A real good testimony to the hypocrisy of the "compassionate and tolerant" self-described nature of the commucRATs. Which means .... what? He didn't (We all hope) have it while he was president. Should we overlook Hitler because he was syphilitic and probably schizophrenic (if not a total sociopath). Of forgive Caligula for his little foibles? Please!!. . I said "Clinton in the 90's didn't cause the expansion. Neither did Greenspan. And neither will Bush during his term. But our economy is international. At best, governments can moderate the peaks and valleys" and you replied with a resounding WRONG! And thus it is commanded. So let it be written, so let it be done. They can either screw it up by removing dollars from the economy, or enhance it by putting dollars back. Kennedy did it in 1960...tax cuts Reagan did it!...tax cuts Bush #41 didn't do it..."read my lips" clinton didn't do it....largest tax increase in history Newt did it..massive capital gains tax cuts Take a look at some of the stuff on chaos theory and macroeconomics. Or even some of the popular stuff on fractal investing. And consider post hoc ergo propter hoc as a more likely explanation of your reasoning. The govt is not supposed to run a surplus, that means they confiscated more money than they can waste. There should be neither a deficit nor a surplus (balanced books) This tax cut is nothing, it should be $5.6 Trillion or more. No. It shouldn't We have a massive deficit that is costing every taxpayer money. We should get rid of it. Except that we borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund, from medicare and need to repay it. WE (as in the taxpayers) spent it. Just like a car loan, its time to pay it back. What we should have is no tax cut and use it to pay off the debt. That would be fiscally conservative. Where in the US Constitution does it give the right to re-distribution of the wealth to the federal government??? Where is it forbidden? Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Troll Date: 18 Feb 01 - 10:54 PM Skeptic, the Tenth Ammendment forbids it. Bush will not be able to bring the country together. The agenda of the NAACP will see to that. Julian Bond is already saying that it won't happen. The Black "leaders" won't have their accustomed power in a Republican administration so they will use the years until the next Democratic President to extole the victimhood of their followers thereby guranteeing a continuation of their paychecks. I find them to be the worst racists of all because they tell their followers that they are inferior; that they can't make it without the help of the white man. And, of course, said "leaders" -the Jacksons and Sharptons and Bonds- are the only ones who can force the government to give the poor victims their due. For all who think my comments are racist, I invite you to look at other minorities who have come to this country and done well by working hard. I call your attention to the Koreans, Viet Namese, Cubans, and Chinese, to name a few. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:48 PM Troll, Sorry, I was getting tired of dealing with Mav. The 10th reserves rights not enumerated to the people. Who can direct the government (either at a state or federal level) to redistribute wealth if they want. And the sixteenth amendment provides a mechanism. Which is what I should have said but didn't. The very real issue is that African Americans accept the role of victim. Once you're in that mode, almost anything can be used as proof. On the other hand, the restrictions placed on the Chinese and Latinos (as some of the oldest non-European groups) weren't nearly as pervasive as those imposed on the African Americans. While there clearly were some restrictions (I seem to recall that voting by Chinese on the west coast was a problem at one time), they didn't last nearly as long and weren't pursued with the same vigor. That and the fact that none of the groups you mentioned had their culture destroyed with the ruthless efficiency used against the African Americans. Then they were systematically denied even token integration into the mainstream culture. My point being that their history provides fertile soil for their erstwhile "leaders" to paint them as victims. And for some to believe it. I still maintain that W's actions were wrong. They struck me as petty. They didn't rise to the level of vindictiveness, just senseless pettiness. Which brings me back to an earlier characterization of W. Spoiled rich kid, part of the same elite as Bush Sr., but lacking his fathers sense of dignity and noblesse oblige. His motives don't matter. This is politics. What matters is how it's perceived. And radical, progressive, socialist (to use Mav's terms) or not, Presidents offend Congressmen at their own risk. What he can do to one today, he can do to another tomorrow. And I don't think you're a racist. Just pig-headed and usually wrong. Or at least a couple of your personalities are. With Warmest Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Troll Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:57 PM Don't you have to go to work(?) tomorrow? And we are too right a lot of the time. Even Freddie agrees with that! troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 19 Feb 01 - 11:21 AM troll, Its the damned caffeine. Couldn't sleep so it was either catch up on mudcat or count sheep. Mudcat is more fun. Freddie is wrong. Just like he was that time he told you that that little affair with the nuns, the inflatable anatomically correct women and the penguins on the town square was the appropriate ceremony to celebrate the solstice. Now if Oscar or Jimmy had said it, I'd take it much more seriously. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Troll Date: 19 Feb 01 - 01:03 PM Oscar and Jimmy must be two of yours. We don't know them. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 19 Feb 01 - 04:11 PM troll, I gave you a list of all the yous. Please refer to Numbers 3 and 8 on the "These are all the Yous Page". I keep telling you, you are the multiple personality disorder, I'm the depressive reactive. Regards John
The following is a transcript of a February 16 broadcast on Newsnight on BBC2 on the November 7 presidential election in Florida. The program is fairly well thought of in Britain. Adds yet another dimension to the election. What really happened in Florida? GREG PALAST: Washington: The Marine band plays 'Hail to the Chief' for George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States. But, in Florida, some are singing 'Hail to the Thief.' COUNTRY SONG: After hundreds of lies Fake alibis PALAST: We are coming into Tallahassee. We want to know whether George W. Bush won the election or did brother Jeb steal it for him? Our investigation suggests the answer lies in this shuttered building and in a very expensive contract between Governor Jeb's Division of Elections and a private company named DBT, which accidentally wiped off the voter rolls thousands of Democratic voters. 18th floor, Division of Elections: We have come to ask Mr. Clayton Roberts, the director, a few questions. Roberts agreed to talk, but became a bit uncomfortable when he learned that we had obtained the secret DBT contract, and asked him if he knew what DBT was up to. CLAYTON ROBERTS: Florida Director of Elections No, I didn't ask DBT. They did what we contracted with them to do. We have a statute that says we have to have a private company to do this. We put it out for bid, so we put it out for bid and, I think, I'm done with this interview. PALAST: Let me just show you the contract if I could, Mr. Roberts. It says here in the contract that the verification is supposed to be done by DBT. That you paid them $4 million. It could look to others, don't you think that you paid $4 million to purchase this election for the Republican party. 95% wrong on the felon list. Mr. Roberts, could you answer the question regarding the contract... Instead, Mr. Roberts called out State troopers. It's interesting here? STATE TROOPER: Oh, man! Never a dull moment. PALAST: I don't know why he had to call the police. We hadn't gotten to our difficult questions yet! The difficult questions are: Did Governor Jeb Bush, his Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and her Director of Elections, Clayton Roberts, know they had wrongly barred 22,000 black, Democrat voters before the elections? After the elections did they use their powers to prevent the count of 20,000 votes for the Democrats? The Democrats say the answers to both questions are yes. LEON COUNTY COMMISSIONER: In any other country in the world, if this had occurred, there probably would have been riots or military troops throughout the streets. DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIRMAN: Al Gore won the election. He won the popular vote and he won the vote in Florida. I think that that's pretty clear. VOTER: It wasn't done fairly. They shouldn't allow you to contest an election, then give you no way to contest it. DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATOR: Jeb Bush promised his brother he was going to deliver Florida. I believe the Republicans strategy was at all costs we deliver Florida. CAMPAIGNER: Were people taken out of polls and stopped from voting? Yes, I think that was not right. I smell a rat! PALAST: This is Database Technologies. This is the company that the state of Florida hired to remove the names of people who committed serious crimes from the voter lists. I have obtained a document marked "confidential and trade secret." It says the company was paid millions of dollars to make telephone calls to verify they got the right names -- but they didn't. There is nothing in the state of Florida files that says they made these telephone calls. So the question remains, why did the Republican leaders of this state pay millions for a list that stopped thousands of innocent Democrats from voting? The first list from DBT included 8,000 names from Texas supplied by George Bush's state officials. They said they were all felons, serious criminals barred from voting. As it turns out, almost none were. Local officials raised a ruckus and DBT issued a new list naming 58,000 felons. But the one county which went through the whole expensive process of checking the new list name by name found it was still 95% wrong. Reverend Willie Whiting was one of those removed from voter roles after DBT wrongly labeled him a serious criminal. REVEREND WILLIE WHITING: I have never spent a night in jail. PALAST: Were you ever busted? WHITING: No. I had a speeding ticket probably 25-30 years ago, I guess, but that's about it. PALAST: Do you think you should be allowed to vote if you had a speeding ticket? WHITING: Absolutely. PALAST: The Florida Legislature likes to see young prisoners paraded in front of the Capitol in old cavalry uniforms. PRISON GUARD: Me and superman had a fight PRISONERS: Me and superman had a fight PRISON GUARD: I hit him in the head with some Kryptonite PRISONERS: I hit him in the head with some Kryptonite PALAST: More often than not in America, the prisoner's colour is black. Because of the way DBT generated the list, every genuine black felon in the United States could knock out every black voter in Florida with the same surname and similar date of birth. That's why the NAACP is suing Florida for violating voters' civil rights. LARRY OTTINGER: Lawyer for NAACP Governor Bush, the Secretary of State -- Katherine Harris, Clayton Roberts, the head of elections, all knew or should have known in advance that certain election policies and practices would disproportionately impact low-income areas, and in particular black citizens and other minority citizens, and that this would disproportionately impact Democratic voters, based on historical voting trends. AL GORE: Thank you, Florida! PALAST: Altogether, it looks like this cost the Democrats about 22,000 votes in Florida, which George Bush won by only 537 votes. The US Civil Rights Commission is also on the trail. They called in Bush, Harris and Roberts. Bush did not convince his critics. UNNAMED MAN: You screwed up this state. You sealed the ballot. PALAST: Commissioner Edley and his colleagues will be in Miami tomorrow to hear from voters wrongly disqualified. DR CHRISTOPHER EDLEY: US Civil Rights Commissioner If you are going to do it, by all means as a matter of due process and fairness, it's got to be done with excruciating care. It's a democracy, the vote counts. There is a lot of public concern that the contractor selected is a firm that seems to have ties to the Republican party. PALAST: They will be putting our evidence to Database Technologies. Their vice-president told us that "manual verification by telephone calls" does not mean ringing people up to check they have got the right person. So were they paid to produce a list which they knew would name thousands of innocent black people? In fact DBT told Newsnight that Clayton Roberts and the State of Florida: "... wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon." So did they use their powers to prevent the count of 22,000 votes for the Democrats? You don't have to be black. In Palm Beach, America's privileged nurse their tans and their anger. UNNAMED WOMAN: I thought I voted for Al Gore but unfortunately I voted for Pat Buchanan, and I wasn't happy about that, because I am a Jewish voter and he would have been the last person in the world I would have voted for. PALAST: Whacky butterfly ballots caused thousands in this Democrat town to accidentally mess up and they were refused replacement ballots promised them by state law. JOANNE CARBONE: >From the time the elections started until that awful decision that the Supreme Court made, I came across hundreds of people who made a mistake and I saw over 13,000 complaints filed by people who live in Palm Beach County. PALAST: In all, Palm Beach voting machines misread 27,000 ballots. Jeb Bush's Secretary of State, Katharine Harris, stopped them counting these votes by hand. She did the same to Gadsden County, one of Florida's blackest, poorest and most Democrat counties, where machines failed to count one in eight ballots. Again Harris stopped the hand count. This alone cost Gore another 700 votes, in an election in which Harris declared George Bush winner by only 537 votes. KATHARINE HARRIS: In accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, I hereby declare Governor George W. Bush the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes for the President of the United States. PALAST: Harris was a busy woman. In charge of Florida's vote count and co-chair of Bush's presidential campaign. LOIS FRANKEL: Had she really been unbiased? Wouldn't the appropriate actions for her to be to say -- let's really get to the bottom of this election and let's make sure every vote is counted. PALAST: Lois Frankel represents Palm Beach in the state legislature where she leads the Democratic opposition. FRANKEL: She wanted George Bush to win. She interpreted every rule, every law in a way to help George Bush. PALAST: We are driving down to Miami to witness an American ritual. In Britain, you count the votes, then announce the winner. In Florida they declare the winner first and here we are, still counting the votes. WOMAN'S VOICE: She is showing the ballot in front of the light. They can see the light through where the chads have been punched through. Then she holds it in front because sometimes you can see things in different light. They have a whole column. PALAST: Normally these are machine-read, right? UNNAMED WOMAN: Right. PALAST: They are carefully going through the 179,855 uncounted ballots that Harris did not want tallied. They'll know the winner next month. Sources tell Newsnight that Gore's ahead by 20,000 votes. The Biltmore, grandest hotel in Miami. Democrats are upstairs eating with their richest friends charging $5,000 a plate. Let's see if we can get in. Not far away from the millionaires on the balcony a voter had taken hostages at gun point protesting against the election fraud. But here it is back to champagne politics as usual. One Democrat whispered they would have done the same as Katharine Harris if they had the chance. But another, party chairman, Bob Poe, remains bitter about this. BOB POE: Chairman, Florida Democrats Jeb Bush, Katharine Harris, Clay Roberts did everything they could to stop every legitimate count of the vote. And that's what did us in. PALAST: All fingers point to the Jeb Bush crew in Tallahassee. Investigators want to breakthrough the iron shutters. EDLEY: I have to say that thus far we have been disappointed by the explanations, or perhaps I should say the lack of explanation provided by the state officials. When we spoke with the Governor and the Secretary of State and even with the Director of the Bureau of Elections underneath the Secretary of State, they were pointing fingers at everybody else, saying "look it wasn't our responsibility," they were in charge, which is a disheartening disquieting thing for us to hear - who should be held accountable for what clearly was a system that broke down. PALAST: State officials point the finger at the counties and say it is their responsibility to check if the names on the list are real felons before disqualifying them. Clayton Roberts says his job is just to pass on the list. Roberts now admits he didn't bother to check with DBT, if innocent people were on it. ROBERTS: Please turn off that camera. PALAST: Off camera he said: We did not call and say did you check the list again... the whole tenor of this is like OK you screwed up you didn't check with DBT and if you want to hang this on me that's fine. It is certainly fine for George W. Bush. Even if investigators conclude that Jeb Bush and the Republicans conspired to steal this election, the man in that house for the next four years will be George W Bush. NOTE: Under Florida Law, the contract with DBT can't be all that "secret". Arguing that a contract contains proprietary or confidential information is pushing things a lot. I'm trying to get a copy or find a link to see exactly what the deliverables were Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Jim the Bart Date: 19 Feb 01 - 05:50 PM I don't understand why all the capitalist nations have always been so fearful of communism. Capitalists dogma states that the superior product will prevail in the open market. If you truly have faith in the capitalist system how could you lose even a minutes sleep over the "communist threat", particularly when everyone knows how poorly the communist states perform? All that fear because a balding Russian bureaucrat pounded his poorly made shoe while screaming "We will bury you?". . .Remember, Kruschev wasn't talking about the bomb - he was talking about some form of historical imperative. We were the ones threatening to bomb a small, rural enemy back to the stone age for not bending to our will. Too many have died because foolish men have tried to force their "principles" on those who refused to agree. And it doesn't matter if the executioner was a communist or a capitalist or an anarchist, for that matter. Not to God and not to the children of the man who lies dead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,kendall Date: 19 Feb 01 - 07:55 PM I've often wondered the same thing. There must be a profit in it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 19 Feb 01 - 11:15 PM Dear Kendall Clinton, "Where was the Constitution when the Supreme Court selected our president?" It was busy saying that the legislature chooses the electors, not the state Supreme Court as the SCOTUS ruled 7 to 2! "Wanna know who is really responsible for the economy of the last 8 years? Bill Gates" Bill Gates and other entreprenuers, whose capital was freed up by tax cuts (by Reagan and the Gingrich revolution) "Who finally killed communism? Lec Walesa thats who" Yeah right, no actually it was Gorbechev he's the real hero. Kamikazi Gorbechev. You revisionists are incredible. "The Actor making meaningless speeches did shit!" Nice language, you're just mad because I'm contradicting your propaganda. Get a grip and nicen up. The speeches merely made "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down that wall" "Furthermore, his tax cut in the early 80's made things worse" It doubled the revenue to the treasury, go look it up. The commucRATs spent it, (just like in Maine) go look it up. More people paying less taxes equals "MO-MONEY" By the way, 60% of Americans recognise Reagan as best president.
feel the love, mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 19 Feb 01 - 11:53 PM Oh rabid one, "What was that about a rape? Look MAV Clinton was bad enough on his own merits without you Right wing types making up charges" He was accused and didn't deny it. Instead he said you should talk to my lawyer about that. The RATs didn't even go read the evidence, ignoring the facts doesn't change them. "Furthermore, the WORST of what he did doesn't come close to the actor and his Iran-Contra, and arms for hostages" clinton, selling out the country to Communist China for a few bucks, disgracing his family and the whole country (except of course for the RATs, who have no morals or respect for the law) seems much worse than ending the cold war. Like I said, maybe you should ask the hostages if they approved of the action. The arms were DEFECTIVE!!! Just like you, the Congress also forgot that the President sets foreign policy. "How come you never mention his promise to "Balance the budget" Ok, I'll mention it. THE RATS SCREWED HIM!!! He got his tax cuts and they promised spending cuts which they never delivered. They spent even more since they now had it. Thanks for asking that question. "and the fact that he never submitted one in 8 years?" He did, are you familiar with the term "dead on arrival"? The RATs ignored his budgets and wasted trillion$. Perhaps you don't understand, you see the Congress (RAT in this example) formulates the budget, the President only makes suggestions. "Just the oposite, he drove us up to 5 trillion dollars in debt" No, you don't seem to understand, the Congressional democRATs with Tip O'Neil and Dan Rottencowskin drove up the $5 trillion debt. (see above comment) "He was a liar" Well he lied to our enemies, I don't have a problem with that. Oh wait, maybe you're one of them. "and a crook" No, the check kiting, furniture stealing congressional RATs were the crooks, some went to jail, some are gone, some are still Kennedys. "yet, he gets an airport named after him" Yes, and 60% of Americans call him the best president in history. "Clinton gets a blow job" Not only that, He GAVE an asprin factory in Sudan a blow job.....Ka BOOM!!!! "he is the anti-christ" If you say so, I'm not up on these things. "Your priorities are as screwed up as most of the rest of this country" Yes, thank you. It's good to be in the majority. If this really was a democracy you'd be in big trouble wouldn't you. This has been fun, we should do this more often. mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 20 Feb 01 - 12:26 AM "No, I suspect you wouldn't. And do you long for the good old days when "they" knew their palce and when "they" got a little uppity, why they just got lynched?" That, folks, was a CHEAP SHOT! You BASTARD! Don't you dare accuse me of racism! This is the hateful gotcha politics I despise. "THERE IS NOTHING MORE TRIVIAL THAN SKIN COLOR!" (Newt Gingrich) Jesse and the RATs are and have been racebaiting forever. How would you explain our friends Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, JC Watts, Condaleza Rice, Collin Powell etc. And don't you cry UNCLE TOM! We don't care what color you are. IT DOESN'T MATTER! Anyone can participate in the American economy. (ever look at the people on the floor at the NY stock exchange?) Do you suppose they will be moving up to manage a McDonalds or maybe they have another career path in mind? You can apologise for that one. mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 20 Feb 01 - 07:26 AM Mav, Then don't quack like a duck. I don't know what you are. You call people names, try to fit everyone into your neat little boxes, accuse others of being, in your own words racist bastards and rant against anyone (complete with name calling), who doesn't agree with you, labeling them with your own endearing terms. It was, however, a cheap shot. Far to indirect. The implication of racism may be unwarranted. More directly, if you don't want to be accused of being a bigot, stop acting like one. As to Powell, Rice and the rest, I'd call them the Secretary or State, the National Security Advisor and so on. I don't cry "Uncle Tom" as they aren't. Or even accuse W of tokenism. Whether I agree with his or their politics, they were solid choices for a conservative president. As to anyone participating in the American economy, that's more problematic. If you mean: have equal opportunity to compete, perhaps. If you mean: don't have to overcome more obstacles, jump through more hoops and such, no, that usually isn't the way it happens. I apologize for assuming that because you seem to be a bigot that you are also a racist. Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 20 Feb 01 - 09:01 AM Nicen up? you telling ME to nicen up? You use words like Rats and Bastards then tell ME to nicen up? I have looked it up. Raygun did not submit ONE balanced budget in 8 years. Bugga bombed an aspirin factory? get real man! Why do you not mention your buddy bombing Kaddafis child? was that kid a threat to our country? I dont give a rats ass what color Clarence Thomas is..he is NOT qualified to be a supreme court judge. Papa Bush knew that, everyone knows it but you. When he left his former position and went to the supreme court, he raised the collective IQ of both places at the same time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,Merlin Date: 20 Feb 01 - 01:22 PM Could someone please explain how Dubya has the nerve to call himself "pro-life" when he authorizes the murder of U.S. citizens and tries to lean on the people who can least afford it, leaving thousands of children hungry? Pro-life means supporting all life, not just what is convinient. Also, does anyone realize that he is supporting the presidential pardon system only so that he can pardon his brother for Silverado? I don't know how anyone can call themselves human while supporting someone with such a blatant disregard for human life. Call me naive, but that doesn't add up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: catspaw49 Date: 20 Feb 01 - 01:41 PM Well Merlin, I'm sure that MAV will be around to tell you that you are naive and also explain everything to you. MAV can explain everything and anything!!! He can explain it all. Don't be bothered by the fact that he lives in the world of the terminally screwed and is able to categorize all things in those special little niches in his mind. It all makes sense to MAV and that should be good enough for everyone. Even if it is complete gibberish and the ravings of a paranoid, it is the "MAV World Order" and he will gladly preach to you about it. So Merlin, kick back and get ready. Break out the popcorn and a beer and wait for the laughs. He has one helluva' future as a stand up comic!!! This is your chance to get in on the ground floor of a promising career. If at any point you begin to become ill though, let one of us know. That happens a lot with MAV and is the main thing holding him from comedy stardom. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 20 Feb 01 - 01:46 PM Dont be too hard on him. it must be very lonely way out there in reich field. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 20 Feb 01 - 05:04 PM kendall, No. He isn't lonely out there at all. Just more outspoken in a less than receptive arena than most. Guest Merlin and others, Mav seems to be an example of a fairly common "type". They start at absolute conviction and then find facts that fit (ignoring those that don't), hide intolerance behind some ideology (religion, patriotism, communism, capitalism, socialism, political correctness, fillintheblank-ism). Demonizing anyone who disagrees. (A time honored technique of the terminally convinced). And it works all too well, as history demonstrates. They don't just go away. Spaw gets pissed off at them. I find them very scarey because of their absolute conviction of having THE answer. Calling them names doesn't work. It just reenforces their sense of martyrdom. Of course, them calling anyone who doesn't agree with them names is fine, because they, after all, are right and terribly, earnestly, very sincere and their opponents are (by definition)wrong, misguided or evil. To them, all that name calling does is "prove" that you can't refute their position. And after all, its all for our own good. We're just to dumb to understand the "realities" they see so clearly. They have a nice, neat package that explains the why of all the injustices in the world. They become the victims of "others". LSC, Clinton, Reno...... names don't matter all that much, just that there is a group to blame for why the world doesn't go the way they hope it should. Mocking someone who sees themselves as a martyr is just reenforcing their sense of rightness. The biggest danger is to underestimate just how far a True Believer is willing to go in support of their 'principals". And how many people will follow along blindly because they need a simple answer to why the world isn't the way they need it to be. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Jim the Bart Date: 20 Feb 01 - 06:25 PM Skeptic - John - I believe that you have done as much to de-fuse friend Mav than anyone in this forum, and for that I'm grateful. He defeats himself when he raves, but beneath his buffoonery there are some dangerous ideas disguised with a veneer of logic. Your patient refutations and counter-arguments have de-pantsed the guy completely, in my opinion, but there is enough substance in his statements to make them appealing to less critical thinkers. Friend Mav - You don't have to be an Uncle Tom to get played; young Bush has a lot of "advisers" who are expert at dis-empowering minorities through "passive acceptance". I include here a piece of an article I clipped out of The Nation that I think expresses this quite well. "With Rice's nomination, the point may be that a black can be just as staunch in spouting conservative foreign policy as the next wonk. With Paige, the point is that a black can promote the sort of educational policies that help some black folk while potentially harming a larger segment of the community. It is clear that such a state of affairs does not constitute racial progress. The irony is that Powell, Paige and Rice were chosen in part to prove an inclusiveness that is meaningless if their very presence comes at the expense of representing the interests of the majority of black folk, especially those poor and working-class folk who are vulnerable and largely invisible. The lesson the Republicans would have us learn is that not all blacks think alike, that we are no ideological monolith in liberal captivity. The real lesson may be that a black face does not translate into a progressive political presence that aids the bulk of black folk. Especially when that face must put a smile on repressive policies that hurt not just most blacks but those Americans committed to radical democracy. If that counts as racial progress, we need an immediate recount." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: catspaw49 Date: 20 Feb 01 - 06:43 PM John, don't misunderstand me, as I certainly understand you. Your points regarding that type of personality and the way they process and then regurgitate information is quite accurate. They frighten me too for exactly the reasons you state. I am not in the least angered or pissed outside of the normal amount that you are or anyone who is generally dealing with the MAV's of the world. I'm laughing a good bit and truly enjoying screwing around. There are plenty of good folks (you're doing a great job) on this thread who are refuting his points and making excellent ones of your own. As you know, you aren't going to change him and he is obviously not going to change you. So we carry on this thread for the "enjoyment" of many and also to discuss between "reasonable" people some of the problems and trends we are currently seeing. I'm enjoying the interplay. But in Mav's case, since he is changing nothing here (nor we him), in the context of this forum, why not jack around with him. In essence, that's what you are doing too.(:<)) Enjoy........ Spwa |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 20 Feb 01 - 06:43 PM I'm afraid my sense of humor fails me when dealing with someone who truly believes that the Actor was a great president.An undistinguished man from an average college who spent his whole life pretending to be someone else. It's another case of The Emperor Has No Clothes! His own biographer, a close friend, said he was "out of it" much of the time. I know he quoted lines from B grade movies as though they were real. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 20 Feb 01 - 07:01 PM Spaw, Reasonable!!!! Who told you I was reasonable!. It was troll wasn't it I want names and dates. This time all eight of him have gone too far. When his friends find out....well, his friend.......okay, this guy he sometimes waves to out the window, .....find outs, he's in big trouble. But yes, I'd figured out where you were coming from. I just took a little literary license to make a point. And you do rage well. Nice to watch a master at work. On the other hand, a little jacking around aside, the Mav's of the world have the potential (and the misguided desire) to do great harm. And while neither I nor Mav will convince each other, I hope there's at least one person out there who's reading the exchange and saying...yeah...never thought about that. Getting people to think is step one. See, just a crazy idealist at heart. But still a lot concerned. Because I know lots of Mavs. They tend to reproduce and vote. Ooops, they figured a way around that, How about reproduce and get appointed to the Supreme Court. Saves so much time that way. And holy warriors are scarey. I hear the media recount in Florida has Gore by 20,000. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Feb 01 - 11:55 PM Republicans live under the illusion that it is their job to save the world from Democrats, liberals, and Communists. Democrats live under the illusion that it is their job to save the world from Republicans, conservatives, and Communists. They're both wrong. The world doesn't need either Democrats or Republicans and the only country that can't see that is the USA. So rave on, guys. The Duopoly contines to rule, by the simple means of divide and conquer. And you've still got more atom bombs than anybody else, and more toys too! Yippee! - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: DougR Date: 21 Feb 01 - 12:48 AM I fail to see much difference between the two points of view. Each side is convinced it's right. Each is confident the other is wrong. One side is criticized for calling the other names, while the other side calls the other side names and feels perfectly justified doing so. And Kendall, perhaps you haven't heard the result of the latest Gallup poll reporting that the majority of those polled, when asked who is the greatest president in history reported that it was, as you call hime, "The Actor." Or is the Gallup organization just a tool of that great right wing conspiracy we hear and have heard so much about over the last couple of years? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Metchosin Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:20 AM Well as P.T. Barnum said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the people." Bedtime for Bonzo .......one giant step for Bonzokind |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Metchosin Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:40 AM Good Gawd! In a nation that has produced some of the most brilliant minds and statesman in western civilisation and Regan is the best they can come up with. That's like subscribing to TV Guide in hard cover. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: DougR Date: 21 Feb 01 - 12:11 PM Make of it what you will, Metchosin, I'm merely reporting, not advocating. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:00 PM Doug R. I fail to see much difference between the two points of view. Each side is convinced it's right. Each is confident the other is wrong. One side is criticized for calling the other names, while the other side calls the other side names and feels perfectly justified doing so. The purpose isn't to call names. And I think you miss the mark a little. One side is convinced it has to be right, the other hopes they are right. Entering into the "fray' with the absolute knowledge of being right (whatever your politics) is generally going to end up with name calling. And being closed minded isn't limited to any political persuasion. Slipping into name calling is far to easy. But there's a fine line between the name calling (a fairly aggressive verbal action) and asserting an uncomplimentary point of view about someone, personal or otherwise. To dredge up a past post, is Mav really a bigot? I don't know. Does he come across as one? A lot of the time, yes. What level of name calling is it to express that opinion? Probably debatable. Speaking for myself, why would I bother to post if all I was looking for was validation? I live in a fairly liberal college town but with a significant conservative element. It would be easy to find a group that agreed with me and sit around and congratulate ourselves on how right we are. The forum provides a lot of food for thought, all the posturing and name calling aside. Mav can be irritating. And sometimes thought provoking. Will either of us change? No. But maybe we'll think a little harder about our respective beliefs. Do I agree with Little Hawk? Sometimes. Do I expect Little Hawk to agree with me? I hope not. I expect to learn from both. I think the underlying differences are fairly significant. The "mainstream" disagreement seems to be on whether you believe in a strong democratic value or a weak one. IMO, under a strong democratic value, you judge social, economic, technological and political issues first on how it contributes to fostering a strong democratic society(for want of time, consider "strong democracy" as fostering self actualization and maximizing empowerment at the lowest possible level, with the goal of maximizing same for everyone). A weak democratic value puts other values first, whether they be money, religion, personal power, social justice for all, scores on tests, expert knowledge or whatever. Generally characterized by central controls, with power lodged fairly high up in the hierarchy, cumbersome obstacles to change and values other than a strong democratic one being used to make decisions. A good example of applying basic values first, are the Amish. The common view is that they resist technology. In fact, what they do is first apply their basic values (religious tenets, extended family, sustain ability, and so on) to the new technology to see if it conflicts with those basic values. If it does, then the basic values wins and the technology is rejected. If not, they adopt it. Neither the traditional right or left in this country asks the "strong democracy" question when they look at their particular agendas. School vouchers are looked at as a way of improving education. But what to they do to a strong democratic sense? What is the democratic consequence of the Faith Based initiative? What underlies the idea of zoning boards? Certainly not empowering at the lowest possible level. Should community planning and development be left to experts? Their agenda has little to do with fostering democracy? It seems to me that that sort of analysis is never done. And that the mainstream power groups don't won't it done because the implication is that they will loose power and status. The decision process should begin at the bottom and work its way up. Republican or Democrat, RWE or LSC, are locked into the top down mode. Little Hawk, Agreed. There's not a lot of breadth in American Politics. And a sort of tacit agreement to keep it that way. (Witness the refusal of either Gore or Bush to debate with any of the alternate candidates). Having a strong underlying belief that material success somehow relates to moral, social or ethical rightness seems endemic. On the other hand, we do have the biggest bombs and the most toys. Does that mean we win?:-). Metchosin, You hit it. Not to compare the two but I wonder what Hitler's popularity rating was in say 1940? The poll results are less an endorsement of Reagan than an indictment of the public's lack of general historical knowledge. To paraphrase: Why attribute to conspiracy what can be so easily explained by stupidity? Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Jim the Bart Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:29 PM Eternal vigilance is the cost of freedom. Not an original thought, but a pretty accurate one. Unfortunately, most people in this great democracy don't care enough to pay attention, much less look at public policy with real discernment and discrimination. Which is why there was all that talk about there being little difference between Bush and Gore prior to the election. There were and are very real differences between Dem and Repub, within the current political model. Most people, in my opinion, are not interested in pursuing a new model - it would take time to find that comfortable spot where unconciousness could once again be the norm. My opinion, if accurate, doesn't bode well for democracy and it's future. I have to go Cheers, BArt |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:38 PM Eternal vigilance is the cost of paranoia and human disunity. Endemic poverty, injustice, and war are the results. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:40 PM Doug, I do not question the Gallup Polls. They could be right on the money. What I DO question is the collective IQ of the people who responded to the poll. Little Hawk, much of what you say is true. We Yanks are a screwed up lot in many ways, but, that nuclear umbrella protects you too.Canada stays out of trouble by minding its own business, and, being our best neighbor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:41 PM Doug, I do not question the Gallup Polls. They could be right on the money. What I DO question is the collective IQ of the people who responded to the poll. Little Hawk, much of what you say is true. We Yanks are a screwed up lot in many ways, but, that nuclear umbrella protects you too.Canada stays out of trouble by minding its own business, and, being our best neighbor. In regards to MAV, No Man ever need be a total failure, he can always serve as a bad example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Feb 01 - 02:24 PM Kendall - you're certainly partly right about that. Canada's blessing is that it is a small power without any real enemies, in the usual sense. I've always been very doubtful, however, that the nuclear umbrella actually protects us. Had there been a war we would have been fried to a crisp precisely because of that nuclear umbrella. And there nearly was a war with the Warsaw Pact on at least 2 and maybe 3 occasions, due to either political tensions or misadventure. My impression is that countries are in far less danger when they have a small but efficient conventional force, and no nuclear weapons whatsoever. No one needs to fire nukes at someone who doesn't have nukes to fire back at them...or a huge army to invade them with. I realize that wasn't the case with Japan in 1945, but the USA just couldn't resist trying out the damn things to see what they would really do...specially after spending all that money making them! We've had lengthy discussions before on Mudcat about that one... I once heard a joke about how we could reduce the defense budget of Canada by demobilizing the armed forces and simply installing a series of loudspeakers all along the border which would broadcast a voice saying "We surrender!" over and over again in the event of an attack. Believe me, no one would fire nukes at a place like that! After they came in we would gradually seduce them by plying them with Tim Hortons donuts and Canadian beer. They would soon like us as well as their own cousins, and we could get on with important things, like having song circles, discussing hairstyles and so on. I recommend this approach over the "blow 'em all up" theory any time. After all, they are relatives of ours. Ordinary people just like you and me is what they are. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Jim the Bart Date: 21 Feb 01 - 04:47 PM Please don't misunderstand what I meant by "eternal vigilance". I'm not talking about border patrols, or star wars defense systems, or networks of moles. . .I'm talking about the average citizen's responsibility to remain informed about the events of the day and attend to the affairs of state. You have to know what your government is doing in your name. You have to pay attention to changes in policy and attitude that can be evident in a carefully worded statement made at a relatively innocuous social event or celebration. It's not paranoia that keeps me politically involved. Neither is it the belief that I know exactly what needs to be done in every situation. Rather it's because I believe that out of the clash of ideas better understanding can be achieved (I was going to say "forged", but that sounded just too darned politician-like). Have a great evening, wherever you happen to be tonight. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 21 Feb 01 - 06:26 PM Right again LH.! I read somewhere, (maybe Pravda) that the USA dropped the bomb, even after all was settled except that the Japanese insisted that they keep their emperor as head of state. We wanted unconditional surrender, and after all that, MacArthur lobbied to have them keep him. Another reason was given that we needed to end it before the Russians moved into the Japanese islands. They made it into the Kurile(sic) islands anyway.I wish the bomb had never been invented, but, it was, and we have to live with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 21 Feb 01 - 07:16 PM Skeptic, Sorry I called you a bastard and apology accepted. As to being a bigot, I suppose you will concede that everyone has a certain attachment to their own points of view making only the totally wishy washy weenies qualify as non-bigots. I believe in judging a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. My bigotry against the slavery of taxation and redistribution of the wealth I will wear proudly. That the blacks voted in lock step (92%), delivered by the racebaiting non-reverend hypocrite and moron, Jesse Jackson and that I can see the obvious, hardly makes me a bigot. Please explain the status of the ratification of the 16th amendment by 3/4 of the states. "You call people names, try to fit everyone into your neat little boxes, accuse others of being, in your own words racist bastards and rant against anyone (complete with name calling), who doesn't agree with you, labeling them with your own endearing terms" I CALL PEOPLE NAMES???? I believe that I make the mistake of using the word fascist early on in "Cavalry" and wrongly called you a bastard. I may have made fun of some screen names, but I certainly have received more incoming than I have returned. Please post examples of my outrageous vulgar behavior and I will apologise. I certainly can provide examples of vulgarity or belittling language directed ad hominem from mousethief and kendall, but I won't hold my breath waiting for them to lighten up. I fail to understand however how you believe I should just sit here and take it, but criticize me should I have a knee-jerk reaction. Looks like a double standard to me. I never called anyone in here a moron, idiot, b!tch, @$$h0le or anything close to that. That's name calling as far as I'm concerned. If you are referring to the terms commucRATs, democRATs and just plain RATs, that was a phoney accusation from the gore camp about a campaign ad and I just decided to steal it. Most of my so-called "name calling" was aimed at the corrupt and now desperate DNC headed by none other than your favorite ACTOR, the war hero, BILL CLINTON!! But if the shoe fits..... This is (was) a free country and an established ideology (liberalism) ought to be able to take some criticism. Names like, Pubbies, Nazis, Republicrats, VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY, right wing extremists, knuckle dragging troglodytes and terms like evil, mean spirited, stupid, oppressive have been fired at us by your side for years. False charges such as "starving more children, throwing old people out of nursing homes and killing more people" and "If Republicans are elected more black churches will burn" followed by the aforementioned NAACP dragging ad against Bush in the last election came from the very top of the democrat leadership. (clinton, algor and Garp) These are the (fascist) DNC demonization tactics I referred to earlier and were so abundant throughout the last decade that clinton felt compelled to invent a term for it. THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION! The DNC has been doing this for years and continues to do so. Even the opposing posters on this forum have blindly followed the bogus operendi. But here it is, from your real master, Joseph Stalin, who once said; "Objectively, Social Democracy is the moderate wing of fascism" Hey David Kendall, "What I DO question is the collective IQ of the people who responded to the poll" There you have it! ELITISM rears its ugly head! The American public is too stupid to have an opinion, they are also too stupid to know how to best spend their own money or elect a president, right???? (oops, I called him a name) mav the hell out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 21 Feb 01 - 07:54 PM Dear Little Hawk; "Does RWE mean "right wing extremist"? If so, don't be naive, MAV, there are RWE's everywhere, and they thrive in Communist systems. In fact they usually end up running them. They are ruthless bastards with lots of firepower at their command" That's what it means, but the term is a creature of the DNC. I can imagine there are hardcore militia types out there (Like the Freemen of Montana or that group in TX) who are armed to the teeth and willing to stand up to the US or various state governments, some being perfectly legit and some are totally whacked out criminals. I would consider them RWEs. Most of these people are former GIs and are patriots in every sense of the word (if they are "right wing") and don't really do much but have meetings and be "at the ready". If they were to encounter real communists, you can bet there would be real combat and to the death, they have nothing in common whatsoever (they think the US govt is red) "I advise you to stay clear of them for your own safety. I sure as hell do, whether I'm in Cuba or the USA" I've never met one, nor do I seek to, but I have met a Libertarian who has a massive arsenal and wants to get a tank, maybe he has a few buddies. Bartholomew, "Your patient refutations and counter-arguments have de-pantsed the guy completely, in my opinion, but there is enough substance in his statements to make them appealing to less critical thinkers" Yes, I don't think so, but I see you would enjoy my being "de-pantsed", oh well. In reference to your article from "The Nation"; The mere presence of well spoken, highly educated and successful Americans of color in these prominent cabinet positions should give all members of that socially abused group pause to realize that they have been just that, not at the hands of the Republicans, but rather the democrats and their own self serving "black leaders". Nobody wants to dis-empower minorities, just liberals. The blacks are welcome at the table of economic freedom and the push is on to reach out to them via the church networks and faith based organizations despite the screamings of protest from the traditional racebaiting "civil rights leaders".
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: DougR Date: 21 Feb 01 - 08:38 PM Skeptic: I wasn't referring to the "message" espoused by either the right or left when I commented that, 'to me, I saw little difference in approaches'. Obviously the messages, the philosophical beliefs, are miles apart. Because each side is so convinced it is correct,however, proponents tend, in my opinion, to have little patience with the views of the other. That is one of the reasons I rarely participate in threads like this anymore. It used to be fun, but as we drew nearer the U.S. presidential election, it became less fun. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 21 Feb 01 - 09:27 PM Skeptic, Sorry I called you a bastard and apology accepted Thanks. And now back to the fray. My bigotry against the slavery of taxation and redistribution of the wealth I will wear proudly And the slavery of free enterprise? Or the slavery of political correctness. Or of the dictator ship of the proletariat, come to that?. I think you're looking at things from the wrong end.. You imply that wealth means something.(A Calvinist streak maybe?) That it has some value beyond the material? What and why? Are there legitimate functions of government? How should they be funded? If government is necessary, some way to pay for it is needed. As I said above, I start with the idea that a strong democracy is the primary goal, the standard against which other values are measured. From that perspective, taxation and the of the accumulation of wealth that works against the strong democratic value is wrong. That the blacks voted in lock step (92%), delivered by the racebaiting non-reverend hypocrite and moron, Jesse Jackson and that I can see the obvious, hardly makes me a bigot No. And I agree in part about the Reverend Jesse. He plays the race card well. Moron? He got the vote out. The voters decided who to vote for. Just like you and I did. Based on our perceived self interest. Arguing that 92% (I thought it was 90%), blindly followed Jesse isn't really credible without lumping them into a neat class. Or should I say stereotyping them? But then you did use the words racist bastard to refer to an African-American congressman who happens to disagree (strongly) with W and the Supreme Court over the election. Please explain the status of the ratification of the 16th amendment by 3/4 of the states I read the article at the link provided. As I said then, if its true, finding a judge to hear the challenge (and media types to carry it) shouldn't be a problem. Federal Judges in California, for instance, are notorious for all sorts of odd-ball rulings). The claims are extraordinary. The fact that no court has done anything about them is curious. A vast conspiracy? All the judges, the media, congressmen, all marching lock-step? Extraordinary claims require some extraordinary proof. And Ocam's razor leads to the conclusion that the reason the contention that the 16th wasn't valid hasn't gone anywhere is because it has no basis in fact. As I recall, the contention was that in reviewing the transcripts of the debate, that there were material errors, misstatements and so on in the resolutions and votes and that the final document didn't match the tenor of the verbatim transcripts. I don't recall that the author got into the final, approved minutes or what the wording was on the resolution that ended up in the official minutes. Those must be approved and adopted by the legislatures. No matter what the debate may have been, it's what's in the minutes as approved that counts as a formal action under most legislative bodies rules of order. I CALL PEOPLE NAMES???? Yes. And they call you names back. And then you call them names. Then they call you names and so it goes. The point was more you seem to look at some action and categorize peopel based on that, rather than engage them to explore alternate explanations. (And I've done the same, but hopefully more on the engage side). Are you a Randite, A separatist? A RWE, RR, anarchist or what? Based on some of your comments I could classify you as any one of them and then go off and assume that because you said A, you must be a "whatever" and that means you believe this and that and the labeling begins. If I'm a liberal then I may share certain views with those you called LSC. Does that make me one. I'd say no. But if you assume that, based on a few commonalities, I am an LSC and label and react to me that way, then that, I submit is bigotry. As it is if I do it back to you. The "insult" is in the interpretation, not the intent. I implied rather strongly that you were a racist, based on limited knowledge of you. That was unfair and we reached detente. What you mean when you use some of the terms you do doesn't matter. Its how I (or others) take it. If we're wrong, call it. I suspect that how some of us take you may not be how you intended to be taken. So someone attacks and you feel wounded. The options are then to continue the flaming or explain what you meant or ignore it. That hasn't usually happened (and you are not the only one guilty but I'm responding from my perspective). Please post examples of my outrageous vulgar behavior and I will apologise. (see below) I certainly can provide examples of vulgarity or belittling language directed ad hominem from mousethief and kendall, but I won't hold my breath waiting for them to lighten up. Then they and you need to work it out. I never called anyone in here a moron, idiot, b!tch, @$$h0le or anything close to that. Again, see below. You go on about the DNC, some agenda they have to destroy America (we're talking a group that has trouble organizing a morning coffee break here, let alone mastermind some vast conspiracy, btw.). All to general and not all that credable. And then you end with But here it is, from your real master, Joseph Stalin, who once said; "Objectively, Social Democracy is the moderate wing of fascism" Excuse me.I take that as name calling, stereotyping and flaming all rolled into one. And yes, the best response to flaming is to ignore it. However, the line between flaming (with the motive of string things up) and stereotyping (which is the nice word for bigotry) is a fine one. The first should be ignored. The second shouldn't. Around here, neither one usually is. And I'm still waiting to discuss the Constitution. (Beyond flat statements). Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 21 Feb 01 - 09:32 PM Hey Skeptic, You said; "Before blasting the liberal media (and it does exist" Well thank you for validating this fact in front of your buddies "(and it does exist, just as its counterpart)" Could you please name all of this obvious and equally large mainstream entity? I had said; "You were aware that the Soviet Communists, Nazis, Chicoms and Cambodians as well as Castro were mass murderers weren't you?" You said; "Most of the people I've run into on Mudcat are fairly well read and have a pretty good sense of history" Then why doesn't (David) Kendall seem to know about the rape testimony and evidence given to the House managers or the bombing of the Asprin factory designed soley to mask the news coverage of the Monica testimony? He just declares me stupid, ignores the charge and otherwise flames. "Speaking for myself, yes, I'm very aware of what the groups you list did" Once again thank you for validating my assertions. "As I'm aware of what the US Government did to the Native Americans" I'm not real crazy about that either, both having family and having spent quite a bit of time, on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge reservations (Sioux/Lakota) If you want to see REAL poverty look there. Much of that happened during the Civil War times and the proper resolution has yet to occur. "what the Allies did to Hamburg and Dresden" My mother and grandmother were brought back from that hellhole by my GI father. We lost family in the holocaust for having consorted with Jews. "what the missionary's did to Hawaii" and the American Indians. I said, "The American defenders of clinton (FOBs and most democRATs) are self identified enemies of the US Constitution. In your not so humble opinion, anyway" Well, if you knew the above facts, then you must also have seen the FOBs on the cable news programs and all of the congressional d's (especially the House members and algor) defending clinton's every action including his sexual foibles, the lying and perjury, money from the CHICOMS etc. knowing full well the full extent of his low budget amoral and criminal behavior. They were so proud of what a good weasel he was when he could get away with practically everything political. Now we have even the most strident lefties jumping ship after hearing of the theft of White House property and ILLEGAL solicitation of gifts, not to mention the involvement of Hitlarys brother in obtaining a pardon for a drug dealer and of course the Marc Rich bribery scenario. The democrats vehemently defended the guy, accusing the Republicans of lying and trying to destroy an innocent man. Now even President Carter is dumping on the felon in chief. The pattern is now clear, we weren't wrong. That reporter was right, clinton is a sxxxbag! My humble opinion seems fairly well backed up. "And you never did answer my question about the Constitution" Troll did so just fine. "They have every right to try to win the battle of public opinion but typically use "ends justify the means" spin tactics instead of revealing their agenda. (aka dirty pool) Strange. That's the same charges leveled at the RR and RWE" Another cute trick the fascists use is to accuse the opposition of exactly what they are doing to deflect the heat. That "ends justify the means" concept is a Marxist adage and not likely to be used by patriotic Americans on the right. "What do you think W's doing with his faith based nonsense?" I think he's very seriously going to........ KILL PROGRAMS! and KILL DEPARTMENTS! "Mav can be irritating" Why thank you, I do my best. "And sometimes thought provoking" Geesh John, you're making me blush. "Will either of us change? No" Hey! We finally agree on something. Keep up the good work (they think you're really a democrat) mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 21 Feb 01 - 09:33 PM MAV, that RATS thing was NOT an invention of the Gore people. I saw it with my own eyes. Once again CLINTON IS NOT MY HERO!! So, the conservatives like to see the blacks get ahead? Sure, but only enough of them to take the heat off the conservatives who actually need them to be poor and ignorant so they can have a work force who qualify for little more than flipping hamburgers at minimum wage. Also, sir, I am anything but an elitist! I quoted hard cold facts about the actor, and you couldn't refute one of them. This country needed a feel good, do nothing president after Carter, and we got it. At least Carter was real. After he left office, Carter went to building houses for the poor while Raygun made speeches for a million bucks a pop. You make it quite plain that you hate taxes. Fine. We ALL do! But, thats the price of liberty. How would you pay the bills without taxes? You are good at running things down, now, step up to the plate and give us your ideas about how to build billion dollar ICBM's without taxes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 21 Feb 01 - 09:42 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Feb 01 - 09:43 PM Kendall, you forgot to sign your post "David." LMAO Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 21 Feb 01 - 09:46 PM You chirp about the democrats defending clinton, how about all those republican senators who voted to NOT impeach the creep? Both of my Senators are republicans, both of them voted to not impeach. Furthermore, I have never called you stupid.I have never flamed you either. As long as you run your mouth in such a careless manner, you will be answered.If you were stupid, I wouldn't bother to respond to you. No, you are not stupid, just dead wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Feb 01 - 09:57 PM Geez, guys, if you're gonna talk about these kind of vital issues, at least be willing to talk seriously and say what you really mean... :-) (joke, okay?) MAV - I actually consider extremists of both right and left to be cut out of the same cloth...although they may have grown up under a different set of influences. They are both far too ready to kill, en masse, those whom they regard as "enemies"...or competitors. On the whole I get a lot of what you're talking about, but we have a different definition of what "socialism" means. I have absolutely no intention of turning the marketing of most goods and services over to a central government, although I am a socialist. I see socialism as useful in certain areas, that's all. Such as government structures, courts, the making of a national currency, certain mass transit systems and regulatory agencies, large educational systems, a health care system, a national armed forces, a postal system, and so on. Those are areas which need a certain amount of universality (i.e.: available to everyone equally), and they are mostly outside of the scope or ability of private industry to accomplish, because they are not done for profit, but to secure a practical result in a social sense. I know you may offer some detailed rebuttal to some of that, but do you get my general meaning? Obviously I am not the kind of "socialist" you mean when you use the word "socialist". I entirely appreciate the usefullness of capitalism in moving goods and providing services, and have no intention of destroying it. It serves very well for about 90% of our daily activites, I'd say, specially on a small local scale. When capitalism becomes very large, as in multinational corporations, it starts to closely resemble socialism...except it dispenses commercial propaganda (Drink Coke!) instead of politicial propaganda. Coke, like Stalinism, is quite bad for you. It rots your teeth and buggers up your digestive system and helps to slowly kill you, as do cigarettes. Stalinism, of course, can kill you quickly, which is even worse. But I digress... I believe that all of us sincerely want a decent and law-abiding society, and freedom for people, and human rights, and all those good things. That much is clear. It's the common rhetoric of words and labels that leads us into mudslinging contests for the most part. Bartholomew - Okay I understand what you meant by "eternal vigilance" now, and I would have to say I agree with you on that. Once again, words can be misleading when taken at face value. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 21 Feb 01 - 10:03 PM Little Hawk and Bart Sorry to step in. I'm on a sort of roll. (IMNSHO anyway) Dear Mav, That's what it means, but the term is a creature of the DNC. And LSC is a creature of the right. With as much or as little legitimacy. I can imagine there are hardcore militia types out there (Like the Freemen of Montana or that group in TX) who are armed to the teeth and willing to stand up to the US or various state governments, some being perfectly legit and some are totally whacked out criminals. I would consider them RWEs. How legit? If you're going to accept the benefits (even passivly) then there are concomitant responsibilities. Refer to Bushwacked Four and the discussion of the social contract. Most of these people are former GIs and are patriots in every sense of the word (if they are "right wing") and don't really do much but have meetings and be "at the ready". Which is fine if that's as far as it goes. And when they decided to go further? I'm not proposing a preemptive strike, but a lot of these types (at least the ones I know) strike me as users. Despite all the rhetoric, what they want is to have their cake and eat it to. Patriots? Maybe. I have an old family friend who's a retired General and Medal of Honor winner. His take of these "patriots" is that they're hiding behind "patriotism" as an excuse for not doing what a responsible citizen should. (And before you leap to a conclusion, his opion of clinton, gore, et ale is even nastier than yours) If they were to encounter real communists, you can bet there would be real combat and to the death, they have nothing in common whatsoever (they think the US govt is red) And thinking the government is red makes it okay? I've never met one, nor do I seek to, but I have met a Libertarian who has a massive arsenal and wants to get a tank, maybe he has a few buddies. I want one too. And as I said, I've met them. And I maintain that at the bottom, a lot are leeches (to use an inflammatory term). In reference to your article from "The Nation"; The mere presence of well spoken, highly educated and successful Americans of color in these prominent cabinet positions should give all members of that socially abused group pause to realize that they have been just that, not at the hands of the Republicans, but rather the democrats and their own self serving "black leaders". Starange that they don't see it that way? And viewing people of color as pawns in the hands of their own leaders and the democrats qualifies as about a six on the genteel bigotry scale. Nobody wants to dis-empower minorities, just liberals. The blacks are welcome at the table of economic freedom and the push is on to reach out to them via the church networks and faith based organizations despite the screamings of protest from the traditional racebaiting "civil rights leaders". Welcome? Where? In business? Is that why people of color (all other things being equal) are passed over for promotions, are hired in at lower initial salaries? Or maybe why they get refused service at restaurants (in solidly red areas). Or have to pay higher points for mortgages? When their neighborhood has been "redlined" simply because its one of "those" neighborhoods. Or when a fellow worker (an African American) who lives in fairly upscale (and heavily Republican, btw) is stopped by the police while walking to a neighbors house demanding to know what he's doing in that neighborhood? And has had the same happen in upscale Democartic neighborhoods too. Reach out? The people o f color I know supported and support the democrats because they view them, patronizing attitude and all, as being a better entree into the mainstream. Linking it to politics, right left or moderate, is simply sophistry to avoid dealing with the underlying racism. I'm not claiming that the programs the democrats have come up are better or worse that the "welcome" from the Republicans. Just that the problem isn't linked to politcis but to people. Doug, I reread your post and realize I leaped before I digested. Sorry. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 21 Feb 01 - 11:28 PM Damn, I hate it when that happens, Evening mister, I see you're busy here too. "And the slavery of free enterprise?" Ya gotta work, even ants and squirrels work, that's just a natural extension of eating. "Or the slavery of political correctness" PC is a violation of free speech. If a govt. funded university promotes it, it's a violation of the 1st amendment. "Or of the dictator ship of the proletariat, come to that?" Wouldn't be prudent. "I think you're looking at things from the wrong end.. You imply that wealth means something" It does if you don't have any. "That it has some value beyond the material? What and why?" It does if you create your own wealth, if you steal or inherit it, it means nothing. If you create it, it's the "Great hunter" deal, you get all the good chicks etc. Must do wonders for ones ego. Those good at creating wealth usually need or want helpers so they can create more wealth (or won't have to do the dirty work themselves) These people either agree to or begrudgingly stay and work depending on the prearranged compensation. You already knew this stuff. Next question please. "Are there legitimate functions of government?" Sure, you know what the Constitution says, I'd even go for a standing army as well as the Air Force. Patrolling and securing the border could probably be construed. Borrow money, control immigration, regulate foreign trade, coin money, weights and measures, post offices, roads, patents, declare war, fight pirates and the mafia, make laws, you know, all that stuff. "How should they be funded?" If you're asking me personnaly, if I had my druthers? I'd like to see the feds provide an ala carte menu and charge the states for the services they care to use. The states would be the highest taxing authority. "If government is necessary" We got more governments than you can shake a stick at. "some way to pay for it is needed" We've got more taxes than you can shake a stick at. There are taxes at almost every step of production which causes products to cost much more and guess who pays all those hidden taxes.....The consumer, from the very POOREST on up. "I start with the idea that a strong democracy is the primary goal" We don't have a democracy, even the town meetings see selectmen or city councillors elected as representatives. "the standard against which other values are measured" Well, I believe the strong nuclear family is the foundation of any successful society. This is the fundamental form of government and usually also not democratic. "I agree in part about the Reverend Jesse. He plays the race card well. Moron? He got the vote out" Yes, but he's a motivational speaker who preaches lies!!! He was "counselling the President" while his pregnant girlfriend was by his side, what a hypocrite. He also has been accused of having another love child. "The voters decided who to vote for" They were told how to vote, some had never voted before and followed the directions exactly and wound up voting for two presidential candidates. We had students arriving in busses with two cards (found discarded on the ground) they went in, registered (one card), and spent 30 seconds voting(second card) "Just like you and I did" Nobody told me how to vote and I'll assume the same for you. "Based on our perceived self interest. Arguing that 92% (I thought it was 90%), blindly followed Jesse isn't really credible without lumping them into a neat class. Or should I say stereotyping them?" Remember my allusion to the disgusting NAACP ad? The class is a group defined by skin color by the lying racists demonizing Republicans (the leftist NAACP) Jesse should have followed his own advice, "Stay out the Bushes". "But then you did use the words racist bastard to refer to an African-American congressman who happens to disagree (strongly) with W and the Supreme Court over the election" The Congressional Black Caucus is blatantly progressive (socialist) and part of the vast race baiting machine. They have no reason whatsoever to be so vicious and disrespectful to W. except their shakey affiliation with the DNC. "Yes. And they call you names back. And then you call them names. Then they call you names and so it goes" No, no, no, no! I have maybe four instances including our exchange, mousethief and catspawl. I may have called others who are not members of this forum a few juicy ones but let's get our facts straight. "Are you a Randite, A separatist? A RWE, RR, anarchist or what? Based on some of your comments I could classify you as any one of them and then go off and assume that because you said A, you must be a "whatever" and that means you believe this and that and the labeling begins" I'm a midwestern pro-life conservative Republican (former libertarian) "If I'm a liberal then I may share certain views with those you called LSC" I didn't coin that term, I though you did, I just started using it because I thought it was familiar to the forum. Someone accused me of not knowing the difference between the three groups. "Does that make me one. I'd say no. But if you assume that, based on a few commonalities, I am an LSC and label and react to me that way, then that, I submit is bigotry" Well, like you said, if it looks like a duck.... besides you could also be seriously putting me on. "You go on about the DNC, some agenda they have to destroy America (we're talking a group that has trouble organizing a morning coffee break here, let alone mastermind some vast conspiracy, btw.). All to general and not all that credable" If you want me to put on a presentation I will, but if you simply review the communist manifesto and see that two of the major tenets are to take over the education system and the media, and then look at where we are today..... If you realize that the labor unions operate on Marxist principles and the bulk (85%) of organized labor/crime is comprised of government workers who simply seek to replicate themselves and create an ever larger government bureaucracy all the while working against the private sector (individual taxpayers) and consuming 70 cents of every tax dollar..... Is that enough agenda or do you want some more? "And then you end with But here it is, from your real master, Joseph Stalin, who once said; "Objectively, Social Democracy is the moderate wing of fascism"" Well, I didn't really mean to include you in that (damn another apology), but that is where I get off on calling them racist bastards, in that they really don't know who their political father is. My point was (that damning comment right out of the horses mouth) that fascism is indeed closely related to socialism. You do remember my definitions of the LSCs don't you? (A communist is a socialist with a gun) I never said ALL Democrats are communists or anything like that. But I will state my belief that there are far more patriotic and reasonable rank and file democrat voters than activists and candidates who are very, very far to the left. Ok? mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 21 Feb 01 - 11:29 PM And I keep messing up the html tags. Oh well.maybe this time Mav Could you please name all of this obvious and equally large mainstream entity? Does Fox-News Count? The Conservative Chronicles? The Wall Street Journal. The Chicago Tribune (or are they liberal now. So hard to keep up). US News and World Report? Talk Radio (Like Limbaugh?). The Gannett Chain? Look at who owns the media giants and who's on the Boards of Time Warner AOL, The Times Mirror Corporation and the like. Look at who's on the PBS Board, come to that. Then why doesn't (David) Kendall seem to know about the rape testimony and evidence given to the House managers or the bombing of the Asprin factory designed soley to mask the news coverage of the Monica testimony? Testimony isn't proof. At least not yet. (A hidden Republican Agenda, maybe. Mere acusation is all that's required?:-)) Which evidence apparently wasn't to convincing to the House Managers. The bombing was " soley to mask the news coverage of the Monica testimony. And the evidence of this is? Beyond Propter Hoc, of course. He just declares me stupid, ignores the charge and otherwise flames.. Then respond with facts, not glaring generalities or flaming back. Or, like a coach I know used to say "Suck it up, Cupcake" Once again thank you for validating my assertions Please look up sarcasm. In the dictionary. I'm not real crazy about that either, both having family and having spent quite a bit of time, on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge reservations (Sioux/Lakota) If you want to see REAL poverty look there. And if you've spent time there then you should know that this statement Much of that happened during the Civil War times and the proper resolution has yet to occur. Was my point. And Sec Norton doesn't have a real good history of dealing with Native Americans. And it was actively happening through the late 1800's. I said "what the Allies did to Hamburg and Dresden" and you responded with My mother and grandmother were brought back from that hellhole by my GI father. We lost family in the holocaust for having consorted with Jews Which doesn't exactly justify the firebombing that even apologists feel was simple terrorism. The point is that getting into a "man's inhumanity to man" ends up with a long, long list and no real heroes. Well, if you knew the above facts, then you must also have seen the FOBs on the cable news programs and all of the congressional d's (especially the House members and algor) defending clinton's every action including his sexual foibles, the lying and perjury, money from the CHICOMS etc. knowing full well the full extent of his low budget amoral and criminal behavior And this is somehow linked to being a democrat? Should I assume that the cover-up surrounding Iran/Contra or the defense of Nixon implies the same about Republicans?? Was that because of political orientation or lack of character? My humble opinion seems fairly well backed up. Which one. That Clinton was a scuzbag? Like I've said, I wasn't a fan. Where is the proof? Not opinions. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof. Anyone can spout charges and use the "everyone knows" argument. So far, various juries have found that there was "reasonable doubt" about a lot of the charges.. The rest still haven't been tried. Congressional Hearings and media circuses aren't trials, btw. You may not like it but that's the way our system works. I'm not claiming innocence or guilt. Just reminding you that "innocent until proven" is the standard. As to the defenders, you may want to consider an alternate. That they truly believed Clinton was telling the truth. Or maybe wanted to believe real hard. Does that make them any more an avowed enemy of the Constitution than the apologists for Nixon or IranContra? Only if you've already decided that because they are democrats they have to be enemies. Which you seem to have done. Which goes back to the nature and implication of stereotyping I said And you never did answer my question about the Constitution and you replied Troll did so just fine. No, Troll brought up the 10th amendment. I answered. My question remains. Original Intent, Liberal Interpretation complete with the penumbra of rights? Only the parts you like? Another cute trick the fascists use is to accuse the opposition of exactly what they are doing to deflect the heat Yes They do, don't they. Or to avoid answering the question with a non-responsive statement. That "ends justify the means" concept is a Marxist adage and not likely to be used by patriotic Americans on the right. Not just Marx. It's a common principal of most revolutionaries. As to the Right? Quoted, maybe not. Used? Arguable. How about "the profit justifies the means"? Is that really any better or all that much different? It is a principal of capitalism. I said "What do you think W's doing with his faith based nonsense?" and you answered I think he's very seriously going to........ KILL PROGRAMS! and KILL DEPARTMENTS! I think he's going to hurt faith based charities by overlaying a political agenda on their activities and have it dragged through the courts and the media. I don't think that's his intent, just the way it will happen. But by then, W will probably be history and won't really care. He can blame the failure on someone, anyone else. Which is statement about him as a politician, not as a Republican. And he may kill departments. With apparently little regard to whether they are effective, provide a needed service or the services will be replaced by faith based groups. And since it will still be tax money funding the FB groups, it all ends up as smoke and mirrors. I said "Mav can be irritating" And you said Why thank you, I do my best. You're not all that irritating, relatively speaking. I've dealt with true pro's. Geesh John, you're making me blush. Don't let it go to your head. After all, watching an amoeba under a scope can provoke thought, too. Keep up the good work (they think you're really a democrat) Sort of cute. Regards John PS to Troll: I notice that I've gone a number of posts without pointing out your multiple personality defects, the manifest errors in your opinions and such. No, I haven't forgotten you. Please stop sending me PMs wondering why I'm mad at you. I'm not as that would assume some level of concern for you on my part. I will try to notice you in future posts. All of the various yous except Jimmy-Ray, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 21 Feb 01 - 11:37 PM Little Hawk, I actually consider extremists of both right and left to be cut out of the same cloth...although they may have grown up under a different set of influences. They are both far too ready to kill, en masse, those whom they regard as "enemies"...or competitors. To which all say "AMEN" I believe that all of us sincerely want a decent and law-abiding society, and freedom for people, and human rights, and all those good things. That much is clear. And if we start with that as the underlying criteria for deciding the political, social and economic structures, we'd all be better off. If you're going to try be so damned reasonable, you can't play :<) Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: GUEST,MAV Date: 21 Feb 01 - 11:41 PM Dear David, You chirp about the democrats defending clinton, how about all those republican senators who voted to NOT impeach the creep? Both of my Senators are republicans, both of them voted to not impeach" Not real happy with the RINOs. they've screwed up other votes too. "Furthermore, I have never called you stupid.I have never flamed you either. As long as you run your mouth in such a careless manner" Careless compared to the democrats supporting the crook? "it must be very lonely way out there in reich field" Did I mention that Hitler murdered some of my relatives? I didn't particularly appreciate that comment. "you will be answered" Thanks, it makes me feel important. "If you were stupid, I wouldn't bother to respond to you" Thank you, thank you! I guess it just takes a while to catch on to my style. "No, you are not stupid, just dead wrong" Not dead wrong, I was right about clinton wasn't I? mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: DougR Date: 22 Feb 01 - 12:04 AM No problem, John. Easy to do. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: kendall Date: 22 Feb 01 - 08:11 AM I was ALSO right about Clinton. Big deal. And, you are right about that "reich field" remark. That was uncalled for, and I do apologize. You bring out the worst in me, but, you will probably take that as a compliment! By the way, why do you attach the name David to me? Kendall is my first name. Anyway sir...it is obvious that we are not going to change each others minds, so, why waste time trying? Back when I was a Barry Goldwater republican, I thought much as you do, and, I was just as convinced that I was right. The solution was, mow them all down, let God sort them out. I grew up and wised up. Maybe you will too! LOL Seriously, remember, "On a dead mans door, you can knock forever" my knuckles are sore. out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 22 Feb 01 - 01:09 PM Mav, To finish a thought. There are things that Clinton can and should be blamed for. And will. However, on some of the older issues you continue to rage about, he had his day in court. I may not like the outcome but thats the way it is. I think, for example, that Neil Bush got of fairly light in the Silverado fiasco. Should that be reopened? And if you think so, please refer to the fifth amendment. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwhacked SIX From: Skeptic Date: 22 Feb 01 - 01:35 PM Against all logic and good sense, this is continued on Buswhacked - SEVEN blicky time |