BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The got elected because Florida voters voted Republican.

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

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

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

So you're saying they're equal opportunity?

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

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

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

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

"Given? By who, pray tell"

U of MN.

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

You don't like the simplicity of block grants?

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

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

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

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

I never said that.

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

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

I is one of the root problems.

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

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

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

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

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

to be continued

mav out

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

in another post, these choice tidbits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then he said......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in another post

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

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

Next

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

What about big business????

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

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

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

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

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

Been busy, haven't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like a good reason for an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't dispute the warming trend.

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

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

Newt says you're welcome for the Block Grant.

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

Looking forward to your return.

mav out

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

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

No racism here. Nope.

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

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

Yes, they read the paper and understood the ballot.

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

Not that you have a any bias or anything.

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

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

"The Republicans lost"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mav out

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

"Nobody ever made whiskey from beer"

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

"Crack is a black drug"

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

Yes, I've seen pictures of it.

"Whites make the laws"

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

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

So's Jesse! Aren't you?

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

Seems logical and fair.

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

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

What if you're a white crack smoker?

"No racism here. Nope"

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

How does the color of a drug translate to racism?

Why would you want to be a racist?

Hey, how's your great leader BILL CLINTON?

mav out

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

New York Times Left-Winger: Shun Corrupt Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

'Standard Definition of a Bribe'

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

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

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

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

Not the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Ha!

mav out

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

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

Spaw

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

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

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

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

wdyat12

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

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

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

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

Yall are what I said - crap

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

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

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

Go figure

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

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

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

- LH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- LH out

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

Dear kitties,

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

You guys ARE the flamers.

Thanks for helping me with my thread.

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

Prepare to be BUSH-whacked.

mav out

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear BS2,

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

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

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

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

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

??? and catspaw accuses me of raving.

"Yall are what I said - crap"

You say the nicest things.

Remember!.......

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

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

Oh, so you're a manly man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what would I know about it?

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

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

"Call ya momma child"

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

"Ever hear of Hoover and the Wall Street Crash"

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

No, exactly what is a Wall Street Crash?

"WE can do it again"

YOU (the clinton party) Have done it again!

Go figure

I'll be right back, I'm figuring

mav out

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

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

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

Hey Mister M,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both camps then hated me equally.

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

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

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

Talk to you later

mav out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A move worthy of the Big He himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's hope that this time, they are wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also worth noting, this is about Money not Morals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bye

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

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

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

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

Spaw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The got elected because Florida voters voted Republican

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in another post

Looks like a good reason for an amendment.

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

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

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

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

Insufficient. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

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

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

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

Newt says you're welcome for the Block Grant

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

Regards

John

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

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

Click to Read Report

And why would they do it?

58 Million Us Dollars buys a lot of silence

THIS IS CRIMINAL and We must do something about it.

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

Dear clinton tp catspaw,

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

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

The attitude is all I'm EVER talking about!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fluuuuuuushhhhhh! gurgle gurgle Slurpppppp!!!

mav out

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

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

Spaw

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

Dear Skeptic,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Greyhound? I miss the connection"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that's what I was talking about.

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

No, that's what I was talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Come on over for dinner some time.

mav out

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

Dear Skeptic,

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

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

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

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

Including the duties and responsibilities of the Court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And vice versa

Come on over for dinner some time.

Would either of our reputations survive? :-)

Regards

John

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

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

Regards

JOhn

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

Sir,

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

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

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

I can live with it.

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

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

The rest of the story is;

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

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

Not the "State", the Legislature.

U.S. Constitution: Article II

Section 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[page 6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will try to find the incident.

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

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

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

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

"The contract had some good points"

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

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

" 'Come on over for dinner some time'

Would either of our reputations survive?

Ha ha, I said I like reasonable people.

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

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

My wife can really "throw it down".

How about McClellands afterwards?

regards,

mav out

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

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

Catspaw,

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

Me neither but there are anti-conservative bigots.

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

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

Say hi to your brother (clinton)

mav out

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

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

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

Mav,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His politics are the only reason to be a Newt fan

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

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

Yes to all except the McClellands Regards

John

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

Stack;

"...this little turd?"

Have a bite.

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

Something you seem to be quite familiar with.

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

smoochies,

mav out

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

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

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

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

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

- LH

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

Dear Kat,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just trying to help.....

mav out

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

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

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

Associated Press Saturday, March 3, 2001; Page A04

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Little Hawk,

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

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

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

The democrats/liberals are not monothestic!

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

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

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

Do they understand the difference between;

Makers and Takers?

Private sector and Public sector?

Earning money and legalized theft?

Respect for law and contempt for law?

Night and Day?

Right and wrong?

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

No difference between Reagan and Maxine Waters?

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

New York Republicans are a very poor example of GOP.

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

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

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

respectfully,

mav out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- LH

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

Hate, LH??  Hardly.

Disappointed?   Certainly.

Now, go wash your hands. :-)

Best, Greg

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

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

- LH

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

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

Spaw

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

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

- LH

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

Dear Cats,

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

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

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

This comment says what about your level of consciousness?

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

Little Hawk,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or they take credit for what goes right.

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

We just beat everyone else to it, even China.

How about that social decay in Somalia or Haiti?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What's your problem with the UN?"

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

Would you please take them off our hands?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why should you subsidize the lazy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toksha

mav out

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

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

- LH

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

Dear Little Hawk,

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

The east coast people are largely a rude lot.

mav out

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

Dear demoCAT,

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

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

Ok, fine, this will be fun.

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

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

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

History can not be unwritten.


mav out

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

Dear Little Hawk,

I would be remiss were I not to mention that:

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

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

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

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 12:00 PM

MAV - I think that there have always been individuals in both parties who took a racist or authoritarian stance, while there have been others who did not. Your historical examples are interesting. It's more what the respective parties are doing right now that would concern me, I guess, but I still don't have much faith in either one of them, although there are plenty of good people in both.

I think a system without political parties of any kind whatsoever would be a far better one. When we vote for the Orillia town council, there are no political parties to vote for, just individuals. Accordingly, those individuals are free of the influence of a party machine. Thank God. Party machines rapidly become self-serving entities, rather than public servants.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 01:06 PM

Dear Little Hawk,

"I think that there have always been individuals in both parties who took a racist or authoritarian stance, while there have been others who did not"

Yes, but the democrats are the traditional racists. Even today they treat their duped minorities like crap by taking their vote for granted and most recently placing the clinton pick (Terry McAlluff) in charge of the DNC and throwing Maynard Jackson on his @$$!

"Your historical examples are interesting. It's more what the respective parties are doing right now that would concern me, I guess, but I still don't have much faith in either one of them, although there are plenty of good people in both"

OK.......the democrats are still racebaiting (ala Jesse and the NAACP dragging ad) and the other aforementioned democrat racists Alabama's George (murdering racist) Wallace, South Carolina's Senator Ernest (confederate flag) Hollings and x-Klansman Bobby Jim Karl Byrd, Senator from West Virginia (the so-called "Conscience of the Senate")

W has picked HIGHLY QUALIFIED ethnic minority members and placed them in PROMINENT POSITIONS in the cabinet. This puts them up before the black community as role models and demonstrates achievement will be rewarded by the GOP. He also has been meeting with the black clergy of the US thus by-passing and undercutting the enraged "Civil Rights Leaders"

"I think a system without political parties of any kind whatsoever would be a far better one. When we vote for the Orillia town council, there are no political parties to vote for, just individuals"

Why? In this country we have a system of checks and balances. When the two parties are alike, the term "bi-partisanship" can occur and real mischeif could result. I hate bi-partisanship.

In NE, the Unicameral Senators are non-partisan, but you can tell who's who in a real hurry. The town elections in rural states are also often non-partisan.

"Accordingly, those individuals are free of the influence of a party machine"

As a result they may also be free of any clue to the voters as to whom they will serve, government or citizens.

When there are real ideological differences between the parties they tend to keep each other from straying too far from center. Right now we are pretty well to the left but heading towards the right.

"Thank God. Party machines rapidly become self-serving entities, rather than public servants"

I disagree (of course)

The democrats claim to serve victims (name a category there's a program) but they actually cater to self-serving bureaucrats (the public sector)who consume most of the loot confiscated from the taxpayers.

The bureaucrats represent most (85%) of organized labor/crime membership who's campaign contributions go 100% to the democRATs.

The GOP serves the private sector (citizens and business) who are under constant persecution by the various layers of parasitic regulatory and taxation authorities.

Business contributes about 60% to the GOP and 40% to the RATs (probably as protection money, just like Rainbow PUSH)

Too bad we can't convince business to give us 100%.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 03:05 PM

As a result they may also be free of any clue to the voters as to whom they will serve, government or citizens.

It isn't a question of either/or, it's a question of both/and. A public servant needs to serve both government and citizens in an impartial manner. That's his job.

Had we all grown up in a society which simply formed a national assembly of representatives, and had never had political parties, we would not see any need for them, and we could still have a democracy, and a far friendlier one at that.

You can create a deliberately adversarial system, which is what we have...or a system that is cooperative and not adversarial. I believe the latter would be far healthier in psychology. There would still be plenty of differences of opinion, but they would not be perpetuated along party line and ideologoy. They would arise spontaneously, according to individual use of intelligence and observation...rather than traditional established loyalties to artificial notions.

To deliberately divide a public into adversarial blocks which perpetuate themselves generation after generation is to create a state of ongoing social warfare (I don't mean "shooting" war, but war nonetheless). That is what has happened in both our justice system and our political system. It's divisive and destructive. It hampers independent thought. It precludes fairness, and enshrines intolerance. It perpetuates pointless hatred and prejudice on many levels. It operates on a win/lose basis when it is entirely possible for people to operate on a win/win basis. Try it in a family and see what happens. It's not good. A nation is a very large extended family.

You take the adversarial system for granted, cos you grew up with it.

I don't. I envision a completely different system. This is why I can't get too excited over this or that political party...or really believe in them in the final anyalysis. They are products of a destructive philosophy in the first place....which is: I win, you lose. In a system like that, everybody loses in the end.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 05:10 PM

Dear Little Hawk,

"It isn't a question of either/or, it's a question of both"

Actually no. In the US we are governed by consent, allegedly. That is we (the people) give the power to the government to do certain things on our behalf, like patrol the borders and defend us against invasion.

"A public servant needs to serve both government and citizens in an impartial manner. That's his job"

Government needs no "serving"! The bureaucracies are easily as self-serving as I mentioned earlier. Since government produces no product (other than regulation) it has no income other than confiscation. We need representation (those selected from among ourselves)to protect us from government's greed and expansion.

GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY!!!!!

"Had we all grown up in a society which simply formed a national assembly of representatives, and had never had political parties, we would not see any need for them, and we could still have a democracy, and a far friendlier one at that"

Who would police them and expose corruption?

"You can create a deliberately adversarial system, which is what we have..."

Man is adversarial in nature, it is a natural trait which leads to self-preservation.

"...or a system that is cooperative and not adversarial. I believe the latter would be far healthier in psychology"

You are describing the democrat party, they never have internal dissent (except for Trafficant). They stick together no matter what the issue. Their corruption is profound and runs from top to bottom.

A prime example of this is how they wound up defending the criminal and amoral behavior of the clintons and are now smeared with their taint.

"There would still be plenty of differences of opinion, but they would not be perpetuated along party line and ideologoy. They would arise spontaneously, according to individual use of intelligence and observation..."

First of all you assume they are all intelligent, Sheila Jackson Lee (who asked if the Mars lander could find the American flag planted there by the astronauts) and all those who stood in solidarity on the White House lawn after impeachment come to mind.

Republicans, on the other hand, argue all the time....we like it!

"rather than traditional established loyalties to artificial notions"

They are not artificial, our side stands for the principles outlined in the Constitution, the democrats seek to destroy it.

"To deliberately divide a public into adversarial blocks which perpetuate themselves generation after generation is to create a state of ongoing social warfare (I don't mean "shooting" war, but war nonetheless). That is what has happened in both our justice system and our political system. It's divisive and destructive. It hampers independent thought. It precludes fairness, and enshrines intolerance. It perpetuates pointless hatred and prejudice on many levels. It operates on a win/lose basis when it is entirely possible for people to operate on a win/win basis. Try it in a family and see what happens. It's not good. A nation is a very large extended family"

We now and always have stood for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!!!

Divide and conquer, you have put your finger on a very major point I've been trying to make and it is exactly what the democrats do very efficiently.

They divide and them make victims of all the groups just so they will be dependent on the liberals. They then create social programs which benefit mostly the unionized employees inside them who pretend to serve the public.

These programs are not designed to get results. Success would put the liberals out of business.

The only goal for them is PERCEPTION!

Decade after decade liberals perpetuate and expand these useless programs blaming their failures on GOP interference, even though they (GOP) have traditionally been the minority.

That is why I say the liberals are racist. Not only do they need to know your ethnic background on applications for programs or employment, right off the bat, they also divide by sex, disablility, perversion and marital status.

Let's take a look at all the groups that make up the core of the democrat party activists;

Government labor unions, teachers unions, non-government labor unions, various ethnic minority groups, NOW and other screaming topless lesbians, Act Up and other Militant homosexual groups, Militant vegetarians, PETA and other "animal rights" groups, Green Peace and other extreme anti-business groups, most people receiving "entitlements", University professors, and of course their students etc.

All of the groups just mentioned directly benefit from handouts from the federal government and have not too much else in common with each other. Then there is the liberal controlled press.

Our current president, the much maligned President Bush IS A UNITER! That is what he ran on, that is what he is doing and it's making the democrats insane.

If he succeeds in undoing their mischief, they are toast. They will no longer be needed.

Then the Libertarians and the GOP can duke it out. HA!!

"You take the adversarial system for granted, cos you grew up with it"

Yes, we also have football, hockey, basketball, motor-racing boxing and WWF, all adversarial but not all exclusive to the US I'm sure.

"I don't. I envision a completely different system. This is why I can't get too excited over this or that political party...or really believe in them in the final anyalysis. They are products of a destructive philosophy in the first place....which is: I win, you lose. In a system like that, everybody loses in the end"

Well, we have the systems we have, America is a unique experiment in freedom, but there have been plenty of failed attempts at Marxism. I'd rather they were tried somewhere else.

Little Hawk, as a musician, are you more content to listen to top 40 on the radio, or to make your own music?

And if your answer is to make your own music, isn't it good to get together with others and jam?

My analogy is this, liberals would have you listening to the radio.

Conservatives would have you making your own music.

AND GETTING PAID FOR IT!!!...And not taxing your pants off!

This post is already too long, so I will get back to you on the powers expressed in the Constitution, or you can look in the Britanica under US Government/Constitution.

Time for me to make some music (fix the furnace in my apartment house)

Remember.....any tool can be the right tool.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 08:40 PM

MAV and Little Hawk,

Who would police them and expose corruption?

As opposed to what we have now? It is the nature of any bureaucracy to hide it's mistakes. It may well be part of our nature as humans. Like the little dance that some (non mudcat) performers do, claiming "innovation" instead of saying "oops"

Little Hawk said You can create a deliberately adversarial system, which is what we have... and you replied Man is adversarial in nature, it is a natural trait which leads to self-preservation. and LH went on to say ...or a system that is cooperative and not adversarial. I believe the latter would be far healthier in psychology

One reason for the adversarial system was an attempt to diffuse power, not concentrate it. Well, at least they tried. Have to give them a little something for the effort.

It may well be a chicken or egg question. There's some new work going on in that seems to show that, at least in part, nature is much more cooperative than it is competitive. So is the system adversarial because man is truly that way, or was the assumption made that man was that way and a system was set it on that assumption, thereby proving the assumption?

Not to claim that it's all cooperation, just that it's not all competetion.

A prime example of this is how they wound up defending the criminal and amoral behavior of the clintons and are now smeared with their taint.

To say nothing of how they leaped to the defense of Bush Sr for the Weinberger or Armand Hammer pardons....oops they didn't. Although they made the very generous offer to include investigation of those pardons along with the clinton fiasco. Which offer suddenly stopped the Congressional hearings on the pardons. Plenty of blame to share all around, as always.

And maybe in part because way back when, the belief was that you couldn't really trust al those colonists to do what's right, so lets create a system

They are not artificial, our side stands for the principles outlined in the Constitution, the democrats seek to destroy it.

Politicians seek to destroy it. True, some are better at it than others.

As long as we rely on a party or ideology to in any way guarantee "right" and "freedoms" and argue the necessity of any system (as opposed accepting purported sufficiency) for moral autonomy, we loose.

By its nature, any bureaucracy defuses responsibility. Blaming one side or the other adds to the effect of moving power away from the individual.

LH said To deliberately divide a public into adversarial blocks which perpetuate themselves generation after generation is to create a state of ongoing social warfare (I don't mean "shooting" war, but war nonetheless). That is what has happened in both our justice system and our political system. It's divisive and destructive. It hampers independent thought. It precludes fairness, and enshrines intolerance. It perpetuates pointless hatred and prejudice on many levels. It operates on a win/lose basis when it is entirely possible for people to operate on a win/win basis. Try it in a family and see what happens. It's not good. A nation is a very large extended family

Inherently so.

Mav, you said We now and always have stood for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!!!

Divide and conquer, you have put your finger on a very major point I've been trying to make and it is exactly what the democrats do very efficiently

I disagree. We (whether republican or democratic) manage to pay lip service to the idea with varying degrees of success. Dividing is what the "game" is all about.

We have some protections built in to make the inevitable intrusions seem less oppressive. For every assault on individual rights you can detail by the democrats, I can do the same for the republicans. And then we can try to justify our positions and claim "On, yeah but in this case it was Okay becasue....". And liberals can do the same. To what affect? The basic relationships of power remain, encased in the "armour" of various interpretations of what the constitution means, implies or "really" says. ZThey divide and them make victims of all the groups just so they will be dependent on the liberals. They then create social programs which benefit mostly the unionized employees inside them who pretend to serve the public. These programs are not designed to get results. Success would put the liberals out of business.

The only goal for them is PERCEPTION!

Decade after decade liberals perpetuate and expand these useless programs blaming their failures on GOP interference, even though they (GOP) have traditionally been the minority.

Stepping back, it's always "In this case". Whether its communism, politically correct behavior, corporate rights or welfare, the unifying principal seems to be that individual rights get argued away "In the name of".

Let's take a look at all the groups that make up the core of the democrat party activists; Government labor unions, teachers unions, non-government labor unions, various ethnic minority groups, NOW and other screaming topless lesbians, Act Up and other Militant homosexual groups, Militant vegetarians, PETA and other "animal rights" groups, Green Peace and other extreme anti-business groups, most people receiving "entitlements", University professors, and of course their students etc.

Which groups you don't like. Then there's the list that the democrats don't like and ....so what? The issue is how we can all live together and is the current distribution of power the only, the best or just minimally sufficient? Which ought to be what the real debate is about. Playing the "hero-villain" game is a distraction.

LH said You take the adversarial system for granted, cos you grew up with it

And if you look at other "systems" that are cooperative in this country (some of the tribal councils come to mind), they manage quite nicely in dealing with advesarial sports without them "infecting" their society. And LH added In a system like that, everybody loses in the end"

What's always fascinating is that everyone argues so hard to prove that there are winners. A line from somewhere (e e cummings maybe) comes to mind. "Though they sang in their chains like the sea"

My analogy is this, liberals would have you listening to the radio.

Conservatives would have you making your own music.

It's not their choice to make. They both assume it is. Which is Little Hawks point. Both define for you and me what is "best". Individual moral autonomy is taken away. It isn't a decision that should be left to any political persuasion. It ought to be left to the individual, or the least number of individuals absolutely necessary. It isn't. By either side. It ought to extend to all aspects of life, not just the political.

LH, problem with the "powers" in the US Constitution is that it always gets into a discussion of what words mean and away it all goes.

Here's a quick link for the constitution: BLICKY TWO that also gets into some of the issues.

Mav, On Taxes, take a look at this link: BLICKY ONE

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 01 - 11:12 PM

Thanks for the perceptive comments, John.

MAV - I actually don't mind a bit that you have the beliefs you have, although they're different from mine in a number of areas. I sometimes get quite involved in stating my own beliefs, not in order to change yours really, but in the process of self-discovery, which is an ongoing one.

I realize that many people feel man is inherently competitive. I don't. I feel that mankind is inherently desirous of improving things, reaching toward greater perfection. That can certainly result in competition in any free marketplace where things are being sold, but the essential desire of people is to improve things. To reach for the stars in all fields of endeavour. This is noble.

To deliberately engage in lies, brainwashing, misleading propaganada, slander, and/or violence...which is what happens in an extremely competitive system is not noble, it is ignoble in the extreme. These are things which happen often in current political systems, in organized team sports, and in the world of commercial advertising, etc. It happens most notably in war, which is the ultimate competitive act.

All of that is contrary to Jesus' spiritual teachings, MAV, and I am curious about that, because I get the strong impression that you, and many Republicans consider yourself to be devout Christians.

Jesus never taught people to be competitive, but he did teach them to reach for the highest perfection in every aspect of their lives, and to be merciful toward others, and to share what they had with others.

So did Buddha and Lao-Tse, and all the great religious prophets of ages past. I don't believe any of them taught competition, but they all taught self-improvement.

Many of their followers, however, have gloried in competition, even to the point of killing those whose views differ even in a very minor sense from their own.

A win/win scenario is always better for people than a win/lose one. Better in a marriage. Better in a political system. Better in a divided world.

Your founding fathers were trying to throw off the distant rule of a senile monarch who was out of touch with reality. They succeeded in that objective. What they did not succeed in was to overcome their own ruthless instincts for domination. They created a society perpetually divided against itself from within, and filled with an utter disregard for the territorial rights of all its neighbours...who were: Native Americans all over the continent, Mexicans, Canadians in British North America, black slaves, Central Americans, Carribean peoples, South Americans...anyone who fell under the hammer of Manifest Destiny.

That's what happens when your basic philosophy is survival of the fittest (meaning those with the most guns and money, these days). It's a philosophy for barbarians and conquerors. It is not what Christ taught or recommended to heal the world.

End of theological discussion for today.

Remember: I'm not trying to change you. I'm just discussing things that interest me, that's all. I respect your right to believe what you believe.

Little Hawk out - or...wait...

p.s. by "serving the government", I simply mean that a civil servant should fulfill his governmental duties to the best of his abilities, according to his job description...assuming he agrees with those duties. That is serving the governmental structure that has employed him, and serving the public as well, to the benefit of both, hopefully. If he thinks it's not to the benefit of the public, then he should refuse to do it, and/or resign.

I am not recommending Marxism. I'm recommending a mixed system of private enterprise and socialism, without any political parties whatsoever, but with elected representatives from every region, who form a unified national council that debates issues and passes legislation. If a representative failed to properly represent his area, they would, I'm sure, vote him out next time around. You could even have provisions for recall, if that wasn't good enough.

I know it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, barring a cataclysm unlike anything that any of us have seen yet...most of us would probably not survive a cataclysm of that dimension, but some of us would.

The present deluded system has so much inertia that I doubt anything else could budge it. That won't stop me from dreaming of a better world.

- LH out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST, MAV
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 11:31 AM

The EPA - Simply Out of Control !

Maybe you can't relate to this yet, but it is just a matter of time until the EPA police take over every aspect of our lives, no matter where you live in this Country The State of Ohio contracted with Envirotest to perform auto emissions testing on cars and light trucks that are designed to simulate driving at highway speeds. The testing process involves putting your car on a dynamometer that allows the wheels to turn at highway speeds. Pollutants are measured exiting from the tailpipe during this process. If you pass the test, you don't get the specifics; you give them $19.50 and they don't even tell you how you really did. Did you just squeak by or did you tickle the lower limits of the sensors? Government secrecy at its best! What happens if your car doesn't pass? Governor Voinovich has designated a number of service stations to perform repairs on your vehicle should it fail the test. The Government forces you to spend your own money to get it repaired!This can cost hundreds of dollars!!

The Ohio EPA came up with a radio spot that was really good! It was a mother/daughter commercial in which the little girl is asking the Big Question - Why do we need to get our car tested? Mommy comes up with some rather convincing answers, Mommy representing the environmentalist whackos. If you don't get it, we represent the child and Mommy is Big Government, protecting us from ourselves.

When you have politicians jamming auto emissions testing down your throat, you have to wonder what they are thinking. But you have to understand what's important to them in order to understand their environmental policy.

When you are a politician, the most important thing to you is getting money to spend. The Federal EPA, simply out of control, sets standards for pollutants and then places the burden on the states to institute programs designed to meet those standards. They threaten to cut off highway funding if the state doesn't comply. Now if you are Voinovich, you are not to enthused about losing that money you want to spend on those projects that make you look good, so you simply go along with the environmentalist whackos. George is supposed to be a Republican (conservative) but he acts more like a liberal when it comes to the environment. He'd rather convince you that all this testing is going to make Ohio a better place for our children and grandchildren. It's not the cars that cause the majority of pollution as the EPA administrators have told us. It's industry that tips the scales. So if you really believe the EPA that we have a big problem here, we're just going to have to stop making things. It's time to give the planet back to the native Americans who took much better care of it in the first place.

The federal EPA has been testing the air for many years now. There are some places in the country that have poor air quality. This isn't due to cars that have not been maintained, but to mother nature trapping the air. LA is like a bowl with a lid on it. Air is trapped and the pollutants can't readily escape. No amount of auto pollution testing is going to change that.

But the problem with the EPA is that when air quality is improved, they panic because if the air is clean, they don't have jobs. But since they control the standards, their problem is not a problem. The EPA simply raises the standard . All of a sudden, pollution is a big problem again and they all get to keep their jobs. In order for the EPA to grow and prosper, higher and higher standards need to be set. What really needs to be done is to scale back the EPA. The problem is that if anyone dares to suggest this in the political arena, the media labels them as anti-environmentalists. This kind of publicity can be death to a politician.

Then there is the American Lung Association. They used to be content with simply attacking the tobacco industry, but now they have turned to air pollution for continued notoriety. The lung people have spent millions upon millions of dollars on research to find a cure for cancer. Cancer is taking as many lives as ever and all the research hasn't amounted to beans. They support the EPA's stricter standards, saying that the health risk is too great. Why almost every day, people walking down the street fall over dead after a out of tune car goes by. The problem is that these organizations put the fear into all of us by intimidation. The American Lung Association sued the federal government when the Bush administration frozethe pollution standards. I think it's time to put the American Lung Association out of business whenthey use our money to sue the taxpayer that supports them. They are not going to get any of my money if I can help it.


mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 11:45 AM

BEIJING, March 11 (Xinhuanet)

-- Following are the standings after the first-round matches of the Chinese Football League on Sunday (tabulated under games played, win, draw, loss, goals for, goals against, points): Shanghai Shenhua 1 1 0 0 3 1 3 Yunnan Hongta 1 1 0 0 2 0 3 Dalian Shide 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 Beijing Guo'an 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 Liaoning Fushun 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 Shaanxi Guoli 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 Sichuan Shangwutong 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 Bayi Zhenbang 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 Shandong Luneng 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Chongqing Lifan 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Shenyang Haishi 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Qingdao Beer 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Shenzhen Ping'an 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 Tianjin Taida 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 Enditem

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 12:02 PM

Dear Vote Frauds,

Unlike those other mavs, I speak with an American accent.

mav out

PS Thanks for "bumping" the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST, Stackley
Date: 11 Mar 01 - 05:41 PM

No such thing, Merde Allure Vagissant!

Fortunately for your country and the rest of the world, you are not a represetative American.

You speak with a swaggering,ignorant arsehole accent, with your mouth full of shite.

Now piss off out of here.
Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 01 - 12:33 AM

What in the world is going on now? Has this thread gone completely insane? Why are we getting postings of Chinese football scores?

I don't even care about American football scores.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 12 Mar 01 - 03:25 PM

LH

What do you mean going. We passed insane somewhere in the middle of Bushwhacked six. :-)

Since then it been your basic chaos.

See what happens when you don't pay close attention. I'll bet you missed the part where we all agreed to start a commune and live in harmony with nature too. *BG*

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 16 Mar 01 - 09:50 PM

Dear Stackley, enfant de chienne,

"Fortunately for your country and the rest of the world, you are not a represetative American"

You speak with a swaggering,ignorant arsehole accent, with your mouth full of shite"

Vous est plein de merdre, et ta mere, elle est un couchon crasseux.

Votre pere est un etranger.

Je raffole des gros chiens qui louchent, mais vos dents de devant ont l'air fichues.

Cela vou ennuyerait de me couper les ongles des orteils?

Pourquoi ne cherchez-vous pas un vrai boulet?

Vous me rendez malade! Je t'emmerde espece de porc a la manque!

"Now piss off out of here. Cheers"

Tire-toi, morpion! Va te faire foutre, fumer a l'haleine de roquet.

Ne vous excusez pas!!!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 16 Mar 01 - 10:26 PM

mav,

Stackey really does deserve to be completly ignored.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 16 Mar 01 - 11:35 PM

Oui oui! Mon Ami!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: wdyat12
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 12:44 AM

Mav,

You are very angry and you show it. This format may or may not be the place to vent, but you are venting angerin every post. Does it help when we listen or does your anger grow when we engage you?

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 09:19 PM

Dear wdyat12,

"You are very angry and you show it. This format may or may not be the place to vent, but you are venting angerin every post"

Exactly what are you talking about?

I'm not the least bit angry, I'm having a great time. I only fire back when shot at or hadn't you noticed? God knows I've received more than my share of "incoming".

Being called $h!+ repeatedly does get a little old.

I'll bet the couchon is still reading his French dictionary and scratching his head.

"Does it help when we listen or does your anger grow when we engage you?"

Geesh, lighten up.

It helps when you treat American conservatives like they have a right to live.

I'm perfectly capable of having a meaningful conversation with anyone who bothers to try. Ask Skeptic or Little Hawk.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 01 - 09:47 PM

Yes, MAV is perfectly reasonable when given the chance. Like anyone else he tends to react badly when smacked across the face repeatedly.

As for being angry...well, there are a lot of angry people out there, and that may include you and me. Look at what happens in traffic all the time. People are under a lot of stress in this society.

Conservative versus liberal debates seldom stay reasonable for very long, but we might as well all give it a try at least...

What's the alternative? Nothing very good.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: wdyat12
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 02:09 AM

You both have your points. Whatever happened to "A kinder, gentler" anything? Don't get me wrong, but we are so divided. Is there no middle ground with any of us?

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: psyco
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 02:10 AM

?

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: wdyat12
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 02:24 AM

Hi Psyco!

Glad to see you made it.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: wdyat12
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 02:59 AM

MAV,

Show us your music. Go to Paltalk and play us something you like. We will be very receptive, but please no old flame songs. Looking forward to hearing you. I know you're good

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 18 Mar 01 - 12:26 PM

Dear Skeptic and Little Hawk,

"Stackey really does deserve to be completly ignored"

Yes, but I couldn't resist hurling those French "power-sults" at him. I think they contain a great deal of subtle humor (like, "Would you mind clipping my toenails?")

I do take your comment as an indication of moral support.

Thanks!

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

Little Hawk,

Thank you for your kind words.

"Conservative versus liberal debates seldom stay reasonable for very long, but we might as well all give it a try at least..."

If you want warm water, it requires both hot and cold water to be mixed.

I appreciate passionate debaters as opponents (of course especially when the facts are on my side)

If you want reasonable and well thought out compromise, the extreme views must be discussed.

This is what "democracy" is all about, not exactly what our current democrat party stands for (but used to)

"What's the alternative? Nothing very good"

That is exactly correct Sir.

The alternative is "bi-partisanship" where both sides are alike on all issues and the likely result is that government always wins and the citizens always lose.

I'm a member of the pro-citizen party.

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

Wydat,

Thank you also for your concern about my state of mind, but don't worry, I'm just practicing up for the "big time"

"You both have your points. Whatever happened to "A kinder, gentler" anything? Don't get me wrong, but we are so divided"

We believe school kids need to be challenged with higher expectations, when they succeed they should indeed have higher self-esteems as opposed to worthless social promotions.

That is compassionate.

We have always believed what "current studies" show, that children are better off with their own parents, a married couple who love and care for them.

That is compassionate.

We believe that parents should have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE to send their children to a learning environment that most reflects the values they want instilled in them, not some government indoctrination center which undermines the parents desires.

That is compassionate.

"Is there no middle ground with any of us?"

If you are an American, we have a concept called the "American Dream". Perhaps its existance or meaning has been lost over the years, but here is what it means to many:

To buy and own your own home, raise healthy kids, make a good living doing something you like.

To have the freedom to; pursue any endeavor you choose and practice the religion you wish. To be better off than your parents were and have the opportunity to excel by your own initiative. (ie, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)

That is the common ground.

SEE? No anger.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 24 Mar 01 - 02:00 AM

BUSH VISITS PORTLAND ME

BOTH PROTESTERS LITTER SIDEWALK

President Bush visited Portland Maine at noon today (Mar 23) and spoke to a full house. The event took place in Merrill Auditorium and was hosted by the Portland Chamber of Commerce. The address was covered by broadcast media from as far as MA.

Despite the inclement weather, most seats were filled by 11:45 and consisted mostly of COC members and Maine citizens.

VIPs included Independent (liberal democrat) Governor Angus King, Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Congressman Tommy the Commie Allen.

President Bush spoke for about 45 minutes detailing his tax cut plan before this audience in the highest taxed state in the US. He was interrupted by applause and standing ovations throughout the address at least 25 times.

The "gathering" of around 9 protesters in front of City Hall was a pathetic mixture of anti-nuke, anti-CO2, anti-business and other obvious losers who were outnumbered 100 to 1 by enthusiastic and cheerful Bush supporters.

They obviously weren't serious about their anti-pollution position as they left their signs and other gargage lying in the slush.

Senator Snowe delivered a response to the press regarding her "trigger" proposal.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 01 - 01:52 PM

This is beginning to remind me of those silly ball kicking games when fans go nuts and hurt each other. Never understood that mind set either.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 24 Mar 01 - 03:20 PM

And let's not confuse fascination with his celebrity as President with acceptance of or agreement with his politics.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Mar 01 - 04:43 PM

"Bush visits portland; protesters litter"

Now there is a headline that says a lot with what it doesn't say. The most significant of all possible subtitles to Bush's visit is what the protesters did? Talk about your non-entities.

Compare:

"Fred visits George. Tom washes car."

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 01 - 07:13 PM

It's sad that a past president commands headlines while the present president has little to say of any great interest. Maybe he really will go away if we ignore him..

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Mar 01 - 08:06 PM

He'll go away to the North Slope and throw arsenic-laden soil all over the place. We need to NOT ignore him very closely.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 25 Mar 01 - 05:01 PM

Hey Skep,

"And let's not confuse fascination with his celebrity as President with acceptance of or agreement with his politics"

Ditto X42 (that's clinton), except now the press doesn't have that problem, the public does. In fact the local press begrudgingly put their story BELOW THE FOLD!

That's why I wrote the stupid headline and story.

Mr. Morse,

"It's sad that a past president commands headlines while the present president has little to say of any great interest"

See Skeptic's comment above, x42's celebrity is fleeting but still titilating to the press. The defenders are becoming fewer and fewer. Now that the protection of the office is gone, look for the immunity floodgates to open as the truth starts to get into the mainstream.

I'll bet it's no accident that "W" and Ashcroft are keeping mum about clinton legal developments.

PRESIDENT BUSH had plenty to say and he was interrupted by applause at least 25 times.

He has been drawing record crowds in "democrat" states (like De Ash Hole's South Dakota) and receiving Rock Star-like reception wherever he goes.

"Maybe he really will go away if we ignore him"

Yes, I guarantee he will go away in 8 years.

Dear Thief,

"He'll go away to the North Slope and throw arsenic-laden soil all over the place"

I suppose you are talking about the issue concerning the 5 to 20 parts per billion allowance of arsenic in drinking water , a standard whose level has yet to be set by the scientific community on the NATURALLY OCCURING MINERAL.

Why don't we have the EPA force communities to BOIL all water, DISTILL THE STEAM and HAND DELIVER it in STERILIZED BOTTLES so we can FLUSH OUR TOILETS and WATER OUR LAWNS with it.

GET A BLEEPING FAUCET FILTER

"We need to NOT ignore him very closely"

No, no, Kendall is right, just keep on ignoring and mocking him.

mav out

PS. All you greenies, check out this "Earth at night from space" photo.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: kendall
Date: 25 Mar 01 - 05:32 PM

The fact is, even as a past, disgraced president, Willy is still more interesting than that smirking doofus in the White house. Sad it is that the American public wants more of Willy and less of Dubbya. Sure he was applauded many times. Why? because he spouts platitudes to the unthinking public! Listen up..THERE IS NO SURPLUS!! thanks to the Actor, we have a 4 trillion dollar debt. That, is real!! this "projected surplus" is predicated on 3 % growth. that is NOT real and doofus knows it. Thats why he is fighting the "trigger" proposal by my own Senators (both republicans). Why is he keeping quiet about the pardons? because he wants to be able to pardon his own crooks. You may be right MAV, he might make it through 8 years, Raygun made it, Willy made it, just tell us what we want to hear and you have it made. To hell with the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 01 - 06:26 PM

American presidents are always interrupted with applause at numerous intervals. It's as predictable as the laugh track on a sitcom, or the cheerleading at a football game. Gets tedious, if you ask me.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 25 Mar 01 - 08:07 PM

Sigh, OK Mister,

"The fact is, even as a past, disgraced president, Willy is still more interesting than that smirking doofus in the White house"

Perhaps to the remaining 10 criminals defending the s**mbag..x42. I'll take boring over criminal any day.

At least you admit what he is, X42.

"Sad it is that the American public wants more of Willy and less of Dubbya"

Well actually according to the Rasmussen Poll:

52+% of likely voters really like "W", (http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1598.html)

According to three seperate polls, over 51%, way back in January viewed the corrupt lying rapist unfavorably. (http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1615.html)

I believe it's down below 40% now.

"Sure he was applauded many times. Why?"

Because he's giving the public what they want and what he promised, a tax cut, civility, integrity, honor.

"because he spouts platitudes to the unthinking public!"

There you go, insulting the American people again, calling them stupid!

You didn't like me calling you an elitist before, but if the shoe fits...(Ooooh, name calling)

"Listen up..THERE IS NO SURPLUS!!"

Listen up..SO WHAT!!!

Basing a tax cut on the surplus is a dirty trick, if it can't be done now, it never can. I say there is a current surplus and it will get even bigger as economic growth increases unabated (lose Greenspan).

The thieving governments at all levels add up to Socialism BIG TIME!

"thanks to the Actor, we have a 4 trillion dollar debt"

Well, clinton did do a lot of evil things, but this one belongs the the commucRAT check kiting bank fraud thieves of Tip O'Neil, convicted and jailed Dan Rottencowskin and Ft. Worthless Jim Wright.

"That, is real!!"

It was over $5T, but I'll take your word for it (see it's working).

The debt is and will continue getting paid down at an unprecedented high rate.

You can't retire it all now!

What about all those poor people in retirement who are counting on their fully matured savings bonds and government bonds......cruel, cold, shame..tsk, tsk, tsk.

"this "projected surplus" is predicated on 3% growth. that is NOT real and doofus knows it"

That's right, I think it's actually been 4%.

"Thats why he is fighting the "trigger" proposal by my own Senators (both republicans)"

(?)

The "trigger" guarantees no tax cut. IT'S PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR FOR GOD SAKE!

Besides, your guys (the commucRATS)want an instant massive cut, reading the polls, jumping on the band wagon I guess.

"Why is he keeping quiet about the pardons?"

THE PARDONS? Who gives a damn about the pardons? It's the millions of dollars in bribes he took for granting them.(see: X42 legal defense fund, x42 library fund)

"because he wants to be able to pardon his own crooks"

Let the chips fall where they may, we will see the rule of law return to the US.

"You may be right MAV"

Thanks, I try.

"he might make it through 8 years, Raygun made it"

Yes, America loved President Reagan and rightfully so. I hope they put him on the ten dollar bill.

"Willy made it, just tell us what we want to hear and you have it made"

Well it did work for him, but now we have lying X42/algore fatigue.

"To hell with the truth"

That does seem to be the Marxist axiom of the left.

Sorry, I prefer the truth, you?

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: kendall
Date: 25 Mar 01 - 08:27 PM

Americans loved Raygun? a man of moderate intelligence, who spent his whole life pretending to be other people, who promised to balance the budget yet never even submitted one, who lied on tv about Iran-contre and Arms for hostages? Now, he gets a ship named after him while Willy gets a blow job and pardons a few crooks (Gerald Ford did it too). G.W.Bush is a doofus. Thats why he has Cheney. They make good drinking buddies, between them they have at least 3 OUI convictions. What the hell is wrong with our priorities?

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 25 Mar 01 - 09:10 PM

Dear Sir,

With all due respect, your liberalism is showing.

Come on, it's just me, MAV! It's all in good fun. (Isn't it?)

Here's something I didn't write. It has a little liberal slant so you won't feel quite so alienated.

Will you be glad when this is all over? It could be 2 years, it could be 50 years.

Anyway read this, it'll warm your heart.

http://www.foxnews.com%2fpolitics%2f032501%2fbush_conservative.sml/

The AP disclaimer at the bottom is the liberal part I was referring to.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 25 Mar 01 - 09:33 PM

Kendall,

You forget to mention the pardons of Bush Sr. (Armand Hammer and Casper Weinberger)and the bribes he allegedly took (campaign and library). When that subject was raised at the Congressional hearings on the Clinton pardon, suddenly (in about 2 days) the hearings were over.

Mav,

A repeat: Looking at taxes and spending as a percent of the GDP for 1980 - 1986 Domestic spending (democratic priorities) decreased.(So it didn't contribute to the deficit Payroll taxes (the kind you and I pay most of) increased (and didn't contribute to the deficit) Defense spending (Reagan's agenda) increased. And contributed to the deficit Income and Corporate Taxes decreased. Which contributed to the deficit. (most of the tax breaks went to big corporations. Even then Budget Director Stockman characterized the lobby efforts and out right arm twisting of big business as a "greed fest")

Business loved Reagan. he managed to borrow us into prosperity and it only cost around $4 trillion. And now, they don't have to help (as much) in the pay-off.

W is troubling when it comes to the environment in part because his record in Texas isn't too good.

Cheney concurs, as witness his recent remarks on MSNBC about dealing with environmental obstacles to new power plants.

W's proposed "Regulations Czar" believes that regulations should be subject to an acturial analysis, to see if the benefit outweighs the cost. Which may sound fine until you remember that car companies have been accused of the same type of analysis: Is it cheaper to fix the defect or pay off the families of the victims? Perhaps W can at last answer the question: Just how much is a human life worth? The standard argument "Well, its impossible to make everything 100% safe" is true. On the other hand, as a moral and ethical position, refusing to fix something that is going to cause harm as part of its man-made nature or operation seems ethically questionable.

Bashing Clinton (and listing his faults and crimes, real or imagined), is beside the point. W is the point.

Is there a sense of desperation in what he's doing? As in, maybe the Republican's won't be in control of Congress in 2002?

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 25 Mar 01 - 10:39 PM

"Kendall,

You forget to mention the pardons of Bush Sr. (Armand Hammer and Casper Weinberger)and the bribes he allegedly took (campaign and library). When that subject was raised at the Congressional hearings on the Clinton pardon, suddenly (in about 2 days) the hearings were over"

Yeah Kendall

, what the

HELL's

the matter with you?

"Mav, A repeat"

Yes, yes, but still wrong.

"Looking at taxes and spending as a percent of the GDP for 1980 - 1986 Domestic spending (democratic priorities) decreased"

Yes, but the GDP AND tax revenue INCREASED!

The revenue increased from $550B to $991B and the top marginal rate went from 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1989. I other words, IRS collections almost doubled. The economy went nuts, lines at gas stations disappeared.

Reagan had a deal with the unscrupulous democRATS amounting to $2 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in increased revenue. Guess what, Dutch was "stupid" enough to trust the crooks. It must make you proud.

"(So it didn't contribute to the deficit Payroll taxes (the kind you and I pay most of) increased (and didn't contribute to the deficit)"

The brilliant commucRATS are responsible for that one (remember they had both houses?), Tip: "TAX THE BLEEPING POOR"

"Defense spending (Reagan's agenda) increased"

GOOD!...DO IT AGAIN!

"Cheney concurs, as witness his recent remarks on MSNBC about dealing with environmental obstacles to new power plants"

Yes, what it boils down to is, the rest of the world has been successfully RECYCLING their nuclear fuel rods while Jimmy Carter has them burying the RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTE in YOUR BACK YARD! (Genius)

Perhaps you can provide us with some of the nuclear horrors in Europe as a result of this practice.

Meanwhile back at the ranch (CA) Hydro-electric, coal, oil, natural gas and wind power elecrtic generating plants are all unacceptable.

I hope the reasonable people of CA LEAVE, take their business with them and let the tatooed, multi-pierced, green haired, Goth-mo, enviro-bleeps....FREAKING IN THE DARK!

"Bashing Clinton (and listing his faults and crimes, real or imagined), is beside the point"

Well dad, OK. But Kendall started it, I was just agreeing!
"W is the point"

Yes he is, and the contrast is overwhelming.

"Is there a sense of desperation in what he's doing?"

Probably a sense of urgency, but he's got a real good start.

He's got a lot to do...rolling the country back to where it was 50 years ago.
"As in, maybe the Republican's won't be in control of Congress in 2002?"

Depends on developments and the effectiveness of our education efforts and your "propaganda".

You'll have to make it simple enough so the gimme girls, the union thugs, the "dumbed down" public school graduates, the illiterate, those duped newcomers that don't yet speak "the language", the people in the blue areas, the people in Palm Beach County Florida and Kendall's "stupid" public can comprehend it.

But if the LSCs have the rug yanked out from under them by Huge Tax Cuts and MASSIVE ENTITLEMENT KILLS.....and the by the continuation of prosperity in the private sector.....

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 26 Mar 01 - 08:07 AM

It wasn't the "freaks" and "Tree huggers" or the blue haired whackos in California that created this power mess, it was DEREGULATION. Look folks, I am a yellow dog democrat, MAV is a mossback republican, and we will never agree.I have a few republican friends, one is a brother, and they too are dead wrong. There is no more to say. MAV can have the last word (for what it's worth)

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 26 Mar 01 - 10:16 AM

No, Kendall, History will have the last word, not MAV. In a hundred years no one will care about Clinton's sex life, but they will still be apalled at the short-thinking, greed-driven, self-serving "Republican revolution" that our right-wing ideologue friends spend so much time congratulating each other about. I believe that our descendants will look at this period of relative peace and prosperity and wonder why we didn't focus on trying to address some of our core problems (that will seem so clear in retrospect), rather than trying to figure out how the wealthiest few among us could maintain their trust funds.

The real problems that I see are not rampaging big government, or loss of personal freedom. I see a consistant degradation of the environment. A growing reliance on rapidly depleting fossil fuels and the nuclear alternative. Parochial thinking. A growing disparity in the distribution of wealth.

Sigh. I guess when your "leader" is the late-blooming spawn of a man who admitted to having a problem with "the vision thing", you shouldn't expect anything more than the quibbling over current events that passes for political discourse these days.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: mousethief
Date: 26 Mar 01 - 11:07 AM

I thought George W. Khan was going to prevent any and all airline strikes this year? Geez, talk about your short-lived promises. There's integrity in the white house for you.

I like Mav's logic about arsenic in the drinking water. It's naturally occurring, so it's good for us. Like giardia from deer shit, that's naturally occurring too. Must be good for us. His Republican answer: everybody in the USA can get a faucet filter. Now there's something I'd like to see George W. Hun go down in history for: his was the presidency under which everybody had to get a water filter, because of his relaxing of the clean water regulations. I'd love that! Yeah, Mav, keep it up!

Unfortunately not everybody in the US can afford a clean water filter. But do the Republicans care if the people on the bottom rung of the economic ladder die of poisoning from their drinking water? Apparently not. Here's that compassionate conservativism we've heard so much about.

"Union thugs." I like that one. People who want a decent standard of living are thugs and RATS. People who want the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor and middle class are good, God-fearing Republicans. Where have I heard all this before? Oh yeah. Last time the Republicans were in the white house.

I also like the blind faith Mav has in the economy growing at 4%. Looked at the Wall Street ticker lately? We'll be lucky if we pull off any positive numbers at all this year.

And I see Mav has jumped on the Greenspan-bashing bandwagon. Just as foolish as giving Greenspan credit for the economic growth when we had it. The one thing we CAN give Greenspan credit for is the zero growth in working-class income. Can't let the little poeple get ahead. That's for the CEO's and Republicans like Mav. Only they deserve to share in the economic good times. Thanks, Alan, you turd.

Call me all the names you want, Mav. It's a good indicator of inability to actually reason.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 01 - 03:58 PM

I had hopes that I could steer this thread away from endless political wrangling into low humour, inane satire, and worthless doggerel, but I seem to have failed miserably.

(Sigh)

Go to it, guys!

Should I launch a "Bushwhacked - 99" thread so it's there when we need it? :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Skeptic
Date: 26 Mar 01 - 04:10 PM

Dear Mav

Yes, but the GDP AND tax revenue INCREASED

And spending (non-domestic) still increased. So even though GDP increased by 55%, spending on defense rose even faster. Corporate and Income taxes didn't keep pace with the spending and, in fact, declined. Domestic spending increased in dollars but as a percentage, it declined. The growth in GDP didn't help. Reagan tried to borrow us out of a recession based on supply side theory which didn't work.

Its all in the percentages, not the absolute dollars. If I earn $30,000 a year and spend all of it on living, I'm breaking even. If my income suddenly goes up 50% to $45,000, and by expenses go up 60%, oops, I'm $3800 in the hole. In this case, expenses went up before the income was realized. Both domestic and defense spending increased in absolute dollars. But defense increased at a faster rate. If W tries the same trick, we could well see the same result. It only works if the economy grows.

Texas and Florida are now facing budget problems due to revenue shortfalls. Since the economy has been booming for the last 8 years or so, you'd expect that something would have been put aside for a rainy day. Instead, there were fairly substantial tax breaks given and now Florida faces some very tough choices. Jeb's answer was to propose even more tax cuts, of course.

Reagan had a deal with the unscrupulous democRATS amounting to $2 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in increased revenue. Guess what, Dutch was "stupid" enough to trust the crooks. It must make you proud.

Except that domestic spending declined as a percentage of GDP, defense spending didn't. Sounds like Reagan didn't keep his side of the bargin.

The brilliant commucRATS are responsible for that one (remember they had both houses?), Tip: "TAX THE BLEEPING POOR"

No. It was a joint effort of democrats and Republicans with Reagan urging them on. After all, the wage earners don't have much of a lobby. GOOD!...DO IT AGAIN!

Absolutely. How many times will it take before it sinks in that maybe you really can't spend your way to prosperity.

Yes, what it boils down to is, the rest of the world has been successfully RECYCLING their nuclear fuel rods while Jimmy Carter has them burying the RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTE in YOUR BACK YARD! (Genius)

Actually, I was talking about his statement that environmental considerations for things like placement of power-lines, pipe-lines and power plants without having to worry all that much about environmental impact.

As to recycling of radioactive wastes, that was the result of a massive lobbying effort by the utilities. The AEC has a long history of proving itself to be a relatively cheap whore. The utilities paid and the AEC delivered. With the familiar mantra "Because it will cost too much money". Just like ergonomics wasn't cost effective. Its all a matter of what's more important. People or profits.

Meanwhile back at the ranch (CA) Hydro-electric, coal, oil, natural gas and wind power elecrtic generating plants are all unacceptable.

Not really since by next year new generating plants will be on line. The crisis is temporary and lots of blame to share. The State for proposing a stupid regulatory scheme, the utilities for accepting it with eyes wide open, the consumers for not conserving, either passively or actively.

Now california claims that billions in profits were illegal and wants the Utilities to refund the money. Be interesting to see how the Feds respond.

On to more interesting territory.

During the campaign, W claimed (repeatedly) that his goal was that "no child be left behind"

Strangely, in Texas at the time they were being left behind. Until a Federal judge found Texas in violation of federal law and ordered the State to comply with Federal regulations. Strangely under reported by the mythic "liberal press".

And now that he is ensconced in Washington, the "compassionate conservative manifests as he has proposed:

1. Cuts in the already modest funding for child- care assistance for low-income families.

2. Cuts in funding for programs designed to investigate and combat child abuse.

3. Cuts in an important new program to train pediatricians and other doctors at children's hospitals across the U.S.

4. To cut off all of the money provided by Congress for an "early learning" trust fund, which is an effort to improve the quality of child care and education for children under 5. But then, these (and similar) programs tend to benefit the poor and those on welfare who, apparently, somehow don't deserve help. Of course we are talking about children here, but if they have no ,more sense than to be born poor, well, they deserve what ever W's going to make sure they don't get.

Bartholomew,

The real problems that I see are not rampaging big government, or loss of personal freedom. I see a consistant degradation of the environment. A growing reliance on rapidly depleting fossil fuels and the nuclear alternative. Parochial thinking. A growing disparity in the distribution of wealth.

Environmental degredation and the rest have a cause. I'd argue that the loss (whether by choice or fiat) of personal freedom and responsibility are root causes. The environment may be a problem that requires a more immediate solution but in the end , along with big governemnt, big business and the rest, it is a symptom. We ignore the disease at our peril.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 01 - 04:19 PM

That is a more extensive analysis of the points I raised than I had expected, John. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 28 Mar 01 - 10:03 PM

"I thought George W. Khan was going to prevent any and all airline strikes this year? Geez, talk about your short-lived promises. There's integrity in the white house for you"

He can't and I'm disappointed. I'd like to see him tell them to go pack fudge.

"I like Mav's logic about arsenic in the drinking water. It's naturally occurring, so it's good for us"

My point was, it's not like someone is putting it in the water.

"His Republican answer: everybody in the USA can get a faucet filter"

Your disingenuous commucrat answer, force every little berg in the US to spend money they don't have to treat water, most of which will go DOWN THE TOILET or FOR WATERING THE LAWN, just so UNION THUG CONSTRUCTION WORKERS

Now there's something I'd like to see George W. Hun go down in history for: his was the presidency under which everybody had to get a water filter, because of his relaxing of the clean water regulations. I'd love that! Yeah, Mav, keep it up!

Unfortunately not everybody in the US can afford a clean water filter. But do the Republicans care if the people on the bottom rung of the economic ladder die of poisoning from their drinking water? Apparently not. Here's that compassionate conservativism we've heard so much about.

"Union thugs." I like that one. People who want a decent standard of living are thugs and RATS. People who want the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor and middle class are good, God-fearing Republicans. Where have I heard all this before? Oh yeah. Last time the Republicans were in the white house.

I also like the blind faith Mav has in the economy growing at 4%. Looked at the Wall Street ticker lately? We'll be lucky if we pull off any positive numbers at all this year.

And I see Mav has jumped on the Greenspan-bashing bandwagon. Just as foolish as giving Greenspan credit for the economic growth when we had it. The one thing we CAN give Greenspan credit for is the zero growth in working-class income. Can't let the little poeple get ahead. That's for the CEO's and Republicans like Mav. Only they deserve to share in the economic good times. Thanks, Alan, you turd.

Call me all the names you want, Mav. It's a good indicator of inability to actually reason.

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 28 Mar 01 - 10:52 PM

"I thought George W. Khan was going to prevent any and all airline strikes this year? Geez, talk about your short-lived promises. There's integrity in the white house for you"

He can't and I'm disappointed. I'd like to see him tell them to go pack fudge.

"I like Mav's logic about arsenic in the drinking water. It's naturally occurring, so it's good for us"

My point was, it's not like someone is putting it in the water.

"His Republican answer: everybody in the USA can get a faucet filter"

Your disingenuous commucrat answer, force every little berg in the US to spend money they don't have to treat water, most of which will go DOWN THE TOILET or FOR WATERING THE LAWN, just so OVERPAID UNION THUG CONSTRUCTION WORKERS can have short term jobs! Buying faucet filters for everyone would cost a pittance compared to that.

"Unfortunately not everybody in the US can afford a clean water filter. But do the Republicans care if the people on the bottom rung of the economic ladder die of poisoning from their drinking water? Apparently not."

Do you mean to tell me that city people actually drink that horrible crap, period! Do you?

If so, than I can see why you vote D, brain damage from the toxic water supplied by the union thug water department.

"Union thugs." I like that one. People who want a decent standard of living are thugs and RATS."

No, people who beat people up on camera and think nothing of shooting independent trucker during a strike (which does nothing but inconvience the paying customers while committing extortion against a business, artificially setting a high price tag on a likely no-brainer job)those are union thugs. Want more, please get me started.

"People who want the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor and middle class"

That's the stupidist comment I've ever heard......and I've heard a lot of liberal propaganda.

If the poor don't have any money, how do the rich get richer at their expense???????? Duh!

The rich get richer because they know how to and work hard to accomplish that goal. Most of the rich are "work-a-holics"

The poor stay relatively less affluent because they do not strive to improve themselves and their wage earning ability, and are "comfortably numb" in their aquired station in life. (Joe Six-pack).

We have the richest poor in the world. Even on the reservations (the poorest places in the US) they had good sized color TVs, telephones and cars.

You go to a third world country and look at REAL poverty.

"I also like the blind faith Mav has in the economy growing at 4%. Looked at the Wall Street ticker lately? We'll be lucky if we pull off any positive numbers at all this year"

WE?? Oh, so you're invested? Must be an evil rich ba$+ard! I know you're feeling shame (high readings on psychic shame meter)

"And I see Mav has jumped on the Greenspan-bashing bandwagon"

What do you mean "jumped on the bandwagon"? I've been criticising Greenspan for a long time.

"Just as foolish as giving Greenspan credit for the economic growth when we had it"

The only thing he did right was not raising rates earlier.

"The one thing we CAN give Greenspan credit for is the zero growth in working-class income"

Well??? What was the inflation rate? (1 to 1.5%?) A job is worth what it's worth. If the cost of living doesn't go up, the value of a job doesn't go up either.

Knock, knock, knock.....Hello??????

"Can't let the little poeple get ahead"

They can if they stop acting like a bunch of little poor whining victims. Go take some classes, learn a trade, move up the economic food chain.....this is America, poor people make fortunes here.

"That's for the CEO's and Republicans like Mav"

Thanks for the elevation in status, but I'm still "little people" (just one). I still have callouses and cuts on my hands. I get them dirty at work. (I've been a musician remember)

"Only they deserve to share in the economic good times"

I'd like to think so, but I'd have to move to another state where they have some "good economic times".

"Thanks, Alan, you turd"

Yeah Alan, you t**d!

"Call me all the names you want, Mav"

Mouser, you want to go back and find all the posts where I called you horrible vulgar names?????????

I'd say I've been remarkably restrained in my comments restricting myself to simply having a little fun with your screen name.

"It's a good indicator of inability to actually reason"

I agree!!! You, on the other hand, have issued a large volume of gutteral phrases and vulgar epithets which indeed demonstrate the above comment.

Perhaps I'll indulge you in a bit of your own copy/paste quotes just to illustrate your own fecal style.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 28 Mar 01 - 11:03 PM

Sorry about the double post folks, went off line and .....

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 28 Mar 01 - 11:45 PM

HEY!!!

How'd you like the way "W" forced the RATs to kill McCain Feingold???

"W" is such an idiot.

WASHINGTON, March 28 (UPI) -- After spending years calling for campaign finance reform, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., announced Wednesday he might vote against campaign finance overhaul legislation, in part because the final bill might hurt Democrats.

Daschle said Wednesday he would vote against the bill -- even if that vote meant killing the measure -- if the final legislation increases regulated contribution limits beyond what he considers a safe threshold for Democrats.

(he he he)

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 28 Mar 01 - 11:58 PM

Teamsters union backs Alaska drilling to create jobs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Teamsters union Wednesday endorsed a Republican plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, saying it would create more than 735,000 new jobs for Americans.

Drilling in the Arctic refuge is the centerpiece of a Republican energy bill aimed at increasing domestic supplies of oil, natural gas and electricity.

OH MY GOD!

I take back everything I said about all you wonderful union thugs.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: mousethief
Date: 29 Mar 01 - 12:21 AM

Mav is so funny he doesn't even realize when he's calling people names. Come to think of it, we called him on it once and he had some tortured logic to explain how it wasn't name-calling.

His answer is to show that I occasionally get hot under the collar. This more of that mathematics we had over on the Israel thread:

1 wrong +
1 wrong
========
1 right

Hey, Mav, pull your head out. Not everybody in a union is shooting truckers and beating up people on camera. Talk about gross over-generalizations.

Then again you couldn't be as conservative as you are if you weren't stuffed full of gross over-generalizations. Forget I said anything.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 01 - 01:27 AM

I've been thinking about this one for a while. I haven't read all of the posts, so maybe this has already been addressed.

MAV, it sounds like you're saying that it makes more sense to use faucet filters than it does to take good care of our water supply. Is that what you're saying, or am I misreading you?

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: wdyat12
Date: 29 Mar 01 - 04:08 AM

Mav,

God Damnit! Please come and play on Paltalk with an original tune that has all your rancor and railings. Let me know with a PM. I don't want to miss this one. You can say this better in song with this group. You might even get a few more converts. You might even convince me.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 29 Mar 01 - 07:08 PM

Mouse,

"Mav is so funny he doesn't even realize when he's calling people names. Come to think of it, we called him on it once and he had some tortured logic to explain how it wasn't name-calling" The logic is, it isn't true!

Provide posts where I called you a moron, idiot, vulgar name or referred to you as a biological waste product like you have me or any other ad hominem attack and I will apologize.

The entire government employee culture is an offensive burden on the American taxpayer. It's a self-perpetuating force of bureaucrats who PRETEND to serve certain segments of society but in reality consume nost of their budget in wages for meaningless jobs which produce nothing of substance and merely inconvenience those who would attempt to deal with any given department and waste money (aka "the runaround").

I have no idea whether or not you work for a union, but if you do, please tell us what product the union produces and what it would do if the company (the real source of your income) were to leave the country.

I'll tell you what the answers are in case you can't bring yourself to do it:

The union's product is inconvenience and extortion.

What they would do is make noise, attempt to sue the company and give you directions to the unemployment office where you would be forced to deal with

UNION THUG BUREAUCRATS!!!

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWACKED-EIGHT!
From: MAV
Date: 29 Mar 01 - 07:30 PM

Bushwhacked-NINE!