 sj |
||
|
||
POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: MAV Date: 02 Jun 01 - 07:36 PM Wavestar,
What I don't understand is the contention that MAV and others seem to be making that each party should be the most extreme versions of themselves they can be.
Let me clarify then, the battle is not between Rs and Ds, but between conservatisim and liberalism. What results when compromise occurs is wish-washy moderatism. (Not a real policital position but a result of both)
Anyone who calls themself a moderate is just afraid to take a position or display any guiding principles. These politicians are the real liars (regardless of party) and will vote by public opinion poll to make sure they always get re-elected in order to perpetuate their cushy political careers.
Extremismof any sort is almost never the most practical or rational application of ideas or idealogies
Following the Constitution is not extremism.
Let me borrow a phrase and ask you to name all the great moderates who made their mark in history.
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: GUEST Date: 01 Jun 01 - 04:47 PM Seems to be back on point, so continued HERE |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: GUEST,Turtle Date: 01 Jun 01 - 02:24 PM Let me echo what Susan A-R said. I too am a left-of-center Vermonter (okay, currently living in Minnesota, but always a Vermonter) who has voted for Jeffords repeatedly, and sat in in his office in Montpelier on occasion. (That occasion was the beginning of the Gulf War; six or seven of us ended up in Jeffords' office as the discussion before the vote was taking place; and after a while Jeffords got on the phone and talked with us for forty-five minutes about his vote. He didn't agree with anything we said; we knew we were unlikely to change his mind; but he listened to us and discussed the issues with us gravely and respectfully.)>br >br I listened to Jeffords' speech last Thursday, and saw the integrity that I've often voted for. I don't always agree with him politically, but neither (obviously) do the hard-line Republicans. He's been unbeatable in Vermont for decades (so much so that more than once the Democrats haven't even bothered to run a candidate opposite him), and NOT because he's a Republican.>br >br Put me on the proud-to-be-a-Vermonter list. Thank you, Jim! |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: DougR Date: 01 Jun 01 - 01:58 PM Ain't it the truth, LH? **BG** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Ebbie Date: 01 Jun 01 - 12:15 PM " people who will pick holes in your arguments, point out how absolutely faulty your whole viewpoint is and how much you are in need of reassessing your entire grasp of reality, remind you what a dense, witless goof you are, and so on." Well put, Little Hawk! :) |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Jun 01 - 12:04 PM Yeah, sweeping statements are great fun! Of course, they do leave you open to vicious counterattacks by people who will pick holes in your arguments, point out how absolutely faulty your whole viewpoint is and how much you are in need of reassessing your entire grasp of reality, remind you what a dense, witless goof you are, and so on. It's that kind of zesty repartee that has made these political threads such a going concern on Mudcat... :-) Good thing I admitted to the tongue in cheek... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Jim the Bart Date: 01 Jun 01 - 10:19 AM We've had our share of smart guys - both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton we're men of high intellect, who dissapointed their constituents while in office. Politic success is not dependent on "book learning". The "C" student in the White House is smart enough to surround himself with packagers and handlers who know how to work the system and sell the product. In this way he's a lot like Reagan, but without the baggage of principles. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: DougR Date: 01 Jun 01 - 02:26 AM Ebbie: an interesting way to put it. LH hasn't needed much encouragement before, seems to me, but I'm sure he will take your advice to heart. Sweeping statements are right down LH's alley! **BG** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Ebbie Date: 01 Jun 01 - 02:09 AM Keep that tongue firmly in there, LH, because those are sweeping statements. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: DougR Date: 01 Jun 01 - 01:33 AM Susan A-R! Good to hear from you! Havent' seen you online in awhile. I've missed you! Alex: You're a riot! Really funny! LH, don't get carried away. Everybody knows Bush is stupid! I'm sure all of us in the US of A, though, appreciate your assessment of our voting habits. DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Little Hawk Date: 31 May 01 - 10:06 PM Actually, here's a scary possibility... Maybe Bush actually is very, very smart! Smart enough to appear stupid enough to get elected... Why am I saying this? The American public is nervous of really smart men, and does not generally like voting for anyone whom they instinctively feel might be smarter than themselves. That's why Adlai Stevenson never had the ghost of a chance. Remember him? Too intellectual. Americans will always vote for a war hero, a guy who grew up in a log cabin, a jus' plain folks type of guy, or a good ol' boy, before they'll vote for a "pointy-headed intellectual". Do you think Pierre Trudeau would ever have gotten elected in the USA? Not a chance! The guy was brilliant, and everyone could see that. He was so smart that it even made Canadians nervous... (this whole post, BTW, is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it does make a certain point concerening American politics that I think is valid at the same time) - LH |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Susan A-R Date: 31 May 01 - 09:34 PM Getting through this thread has been interesting. As a Vermonter who is an independent, leaning to the left of the democrats, I have voted for Jeffords. I've also sat in in his office. He generally does what he feels is right, and is a decent listener and good human being. I'm pretty proud of him, and he probably was elected by a lot of democrats, independents and republicans. frankly, Doug, our Governor, a democrat in name, is more conservative than Jeffords. I'm also pretty sure that, if Jim had to run for his seat, He'd win, but what a waste of time and money. No one has given him a serious race in years. I don't see anyone in the Vermont republican party calling for a special election, cause they know they'd lose big time. I'm proud of my entire delegation. Now 2 out of 3 are independents, like many Vermonters, including me. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Whistle Stop Date: 31 May 01 - 12:49 PM That Guest up there was me. I now have my (good?) name back. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Ebbie Date: 31 May 01 - 12:43 PM Mousethief, they now have a dress code in the White House- suits instead of blue jeans, ties instead of open collars- surely that gives the perception of integrity? And perception, as we know, is all important. You can get away with a lot as long as people perceive you as doing the right thing... I'm just glad there are sites like Mudcat around, keeping people sane and aware. Paraphrasing someone else: Keep telling big lies long enough- and people will believe it. In the mass, Americans may easily buy into it. I'm waiting for the day when the masses start thinking of the Bushie as being cute, with his mangled syntaxes and all; I have already heard the view that he really is smart, that he is just lulling his enemies into a false sense of security... |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: GUEST Date: 31 May 01 - 12:39 PM The promise to "restore honor and integrity to the White House" was a perfect campaign promise -- it smeared the incumbent administration (including the Democratic candidate for President), but its meaning was strictly in the eye of the beholder, so the promiser didn't have to worry about being held accountable. Pure snake oil -- it's amazing that anyone took that seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: mousethief Date: 31 May 01 - 11:43 AM Oh --hahaha-- John P, --he he he-- you didn't believe that --snork-- thing that Dubya said --giggle-- about bringing "honor and integrity" --guffaw-- back to the White house --bwahahahaha-- did you? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: John P Date: 31 May 01 - 10:32 AM Yes, it would be nice if the Dems and Reps would learn to work to together. But after eight years of attack dog tactics from the Rs in congress, I'm afraid the Ds are seeing this as payback time. As long as we are locked into this two party system, we will have adversarial politics that doesn't accomplish much of what needs to be done. Since the country seems to be so evenly split between moderate conservatives and moderate liberals, one thing that would help would be if President Bush lived up to his promises to be a consensus builder who will work with both parties. He also promised to bring honor, integrity, and a sense of morals back to the White House. Perhaps if he took all that to heart and did the right thing and nominated some moderate or even slightly left of center judges we could avoid some of the the worse gridlock. Maybe if he were honorable enough to govern in a way that took into account the views of the majority that didn't vote for him, we could get something done. But, of course, he can't even listen to the views of the moderate members of his own party, or avoid being a bully when they don't agree with him. I'm hearing stories about White House staffers high-fiving each other when they managed to publicly humiliate Jeffords for not automatically falling into step with the President's agenda. Why do these people still have jobs? Remember the whole honor and integrity in the White House thing? John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Little Hawk Date: 30 May 01 - 04:11 PM Yes, consensus is virtually impossible to achieve in a system founded upon adversarial principles...and that is the whole problem in a nutshell. That's why I would be in favour of abolishing political parties altogether and voting for individuals instead, as is done in local city councils all over the place. Political parties are divisive and self-serving by their very nature. A council that meets as a single united body (combining various different viewpoints) can formulate policy in a far healthier manner than a government divided into partisan power blocks that struggle to humiliate and undercut each other at every turn. Native American society was built upon consensus, but the modern political system is built upon combativeness. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Wavestar Date: 30 May 01 - 04:10 PM I agree, Doug, it would be nice if BOTH sides would work together. In the meantime, though, I'll stick with gridlock, because although there are Republican congressmen and women that I respect and agree with, the ones currently at the top of the party aren't they. (Read: Bush.) As long as his is the agenda, I'll stay with gridlock. What I don't understand is the contention that MAV and others seem to be making that each party should be the most extreme versions of themselves they can be. Extremismof any sort is almost never the most practical or rational application of ideas or idealogies. -J |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: mousethief Date: 30 May 01 - 03:56 PM Indeed, gridlock is a huge victory. It means the government are interfering in our lives far less than usual. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: DougR Date: 30 May 01 - 02:38 PM The problem with consensus building is that it takes two to tango. Anyone who believes that the Democrats have made any effort at all to build a consesus evidently has not witnessed what the Democrats did prior to Jeffords leaving the GOP. The Democrats, under Daschel, did everything they could to block any legislation proposed, and any appointment the President wanted to make. That's consensus building. Consensus building in the minds of most liberals appears to be the Republicans rolling over and saying to the Democrats, "Oh, you don't like this piece of legislation? You don't approve of this appointment? Let's scrap it then!" Now that the Democrats are in the majority in the Senate, the Republicans will assume the former role played by the Democrats. What we will see, I believe, is gridlock like we have never seen before. I assume most liberals will view that as a victory. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Ebbie Date: 30 May 01 - 01:47 PM Cal Thomas/Chicago Tribune (One of 'yours', mav):"There are plenty of people to blame for the debacle that has put Democrats in the majority for the first time since 1996, starting with the political novices who thought they could 'punish' Jeffords because of his refusal to vote for the Bush budget. Jeffords (from Vermont) was not invited to the White House for ceremonies honoring a Vermont teacher. There was also talk among some Republicans of further punishing Jeffords by canceling dairy support benefits, which go to farmers in Vermont and throughout the Northeast. You can do that with a solid majority but not when the Senate is divided 50-50. The White House denies any plans to punish Jeffords but no one believes it." Then: "Democrats play to win; Republicans play to be liked." hahahhahahah Are you listening, MAV? hahhahahhah Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Jim the Bart Date: 30 May 01 - 10:22 AM I think the point keeps getting lost as we fumble around the concept of what "loyalty" means in the political context. Bush campaigned as a consensus builder - one who would allow disparate ideas to be brought to the table so that better decisions on policy could be formed without the rancor that was the legacy (at least according to the Republicans) of the last administration. Instead, Mr. "What you see is what you get" shut out even the voices in his own party who weren't willing to swallow his package whole. He is a liar and a transparent shill for big business and the oil industry. Cheney is getting better, though - I hardly see his lips move when Bush speaks anymore. The sooner this sorry bunch gets packed off, the better. John P - I couldn't agree with your post more. Mav - It's hard to accept when your guys let you down (like Clinton did for so many Democrats). But if you keep trying to defend the indefensible you might begin to lose credibility. Later, folks. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: GUEST,BobP Date: 30 May 01 - 10:01 AM Actually he made it his specific business to assist in the tax bill passage. It turns out to be the big "Ed" bill that passed with ease in the house last week that lies at the bottom of this strange business. Apparently the only way to stop this legislation is to kill it in a senate committee and no existing chairperson wanted to take the heat, so Jeffords was drafted. And, the first sentence in the post above makes no sense, Jeffords has always voted via a different drummer. If losing Jeffords makes the repubs more detestable, how does that help? Seems to me if the repubs become totally dispicable, the end product is a one party system. Personally, I don't want to see Buchanan or Duke on the national political stage, and losing Jeffords enhances the chance that they'll be back.
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: John P Date: 30 May 01 - 09:42 AM OK, back to Jeffords: Why is it that political parties feel they have the right to try to force their members to vote a certain way? I've heard both Republicans and Democrats say things like, "This vote is a real test of party loyalty. A wrong vote here loses you the support of the pary." Why would anyone belong to any party that would do that? A congressperson disagrees with the party line on a vote or two and gets cut out of the flock? How does that make any sense? It certainly seems to have backfired on the Rebublicans this time. I wish they were all independants, with membership in several policy-based parties. A senator could vote with the Fiscal Conservatives on financial matters, the Green Party on conservation and ecology, the Socialists on health care and insurance, and so forth. We could tell a lot about a politician's viewpoints by reading a list of his or her party affiliations. As things are now, as far as I can tell, Republicans and greedy power-hungry jerks that I rarely agree with and Democrats are greedy power-hungry jerks that I agree with only slightly more often. What happened to the Republican party, anyway? When did fiscal conservatism change into endless mindless calls for tax cuts? Have any of them ever consulted a financial counselor? There is no finance person in the world who doesn't say that getting out of debt comes first. Pay off your debt, then start saving. It seems pretty basic, and anything else seems fiscally irresponsible. I think what's really going on is that the rich people who chose George Bush for president are getting rich off the interest we are paying on our national debt. They also don't like having government regulations on big business, so they like a cash-strapped congress and executive branch that can't afford to pay for regulatory laws and rules. They like poor people to have fewer social services available, because that makes the peons more dependant on their employers for the basic things like food and shelter. Someone who will starve if they lose their job is more likely to put up with being mistreated and underpaid. Of course, the tax cut also gives those rich folks even more wealth. I suppose if I had ten million dollars I would feel a burning need to have twelve million instead. Greedy jerks. All this huge tax cut is going to do for me personally, apparently, is provide about half of one month's house payment. In exchange, I get a government that can't afford to do anything, including getting out of debt. I like regulation. I think it is pretty obvious by now that businesses don't regulate themselves. They are not good neighbors, they don't care about anything except maximizing their income, and they are willing to make decisions that are disastrous for all of us in the long term in order achieve some very short term gains. They need to be watched constantly, and slapped down hard when they don't behave. We are losing our little remaining ability to do that. My taxes are high, but I can afford them a lot more than I can afford a poverty-stricken government. The only regret I have about Jeffords' defection is that he didn't do it in time to stop the tax cut idiocy. John |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: MAV Date: 29 May 01 - 07:05 PM Hey Mouse,
Easy there,
So MAV, you're saying it's okay for you to name-call here, because someone in Washington DC who's never even heard of Mudcat calls names?
It's ok for you and me to call public figures names, that's just the way it is, always has been always will be.(First Amendment right?)
I don't think it's ok for ME to call anyone here names, and except for playing around with some people's screen names, I don't think I have.
You're Alex or Mousethief, a pretty good guy, and hopefully if we ever meet, my friend.
When I see people talking about right-wing extremists, conservative morons etc. I don't take offense, but I may fire back in kind.
If an individual gets vulgar or downright nasty, I try to either make fun of them or at least be acidly confrontational without resorting to potty words.
Sometimes I get some chuckles from the audience, sometimes I don't.
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Greg F. Date: 29 May 01 - 04:28 PM Jesus wept. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Little Hawk Date: 29 May 01 - 01:25 PM I don't know why, but I'm getting a good laugh out of all this. :-D MAV, you have successfully hijacked another political thread. Be afraid, liberals, be very afraid! I reminds me of guerilla theater in the late 60's. I'm gonna go polish up my Che Guevara memorial plaque and sing antiwar songs to calm my nerves until this whole thing blows over... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: mousethief Date: 29 May 01 - 12:48 PM So MAV, you're saying it's okay for you to name-call here, because someone in Washington DC who's never even heard of Mudcat calls names? I fail to see the logic. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: John P Date: 29 May 01 - 09:17 AM Mav, I am just asking you to be a better person. Defending your actions by saying that others do the same thing so it's all right if you do it is not a step in that direction. Please take responsibility for your own actions. John |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 May 01 - 06:20 AM argue: To debate, discuss, bring reasons for and against...to persuade by discussion and reasoning...to maintain a position by giving reasons...to reason, dispute keenly.
It really is possible... |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: kendall Date: 28 May 01 - 09:53 PM Carol, I think he likes to argue. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 May 01 - 09:00 PM "Looks like this has become a thread about MAV instead of Jim Jeffords."
That's the idea isn't it? But surely the point of the Jeffords thing is that here you have a party machine that has scraped into power with a razor thin majority (and a very questionable one at that), this was achieved on the basis of a pledge to act moderately and inclusively. It then proceeds to act as if it had a landslide majority and a massive mandate. In those circumstances it is hardly fair to criticise someone for sticking to the policies they were elected on, and dumping the political affiliation that is now being used to overturn those policies. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: MAV Date: 28 May 01 - 08:59 PM Hey Little Hawk,
I NEVER get my panties in a bunch.
Mouser,
I don't believe I've ever seen Clarence Thomas called "Uncle Tom" at mudcat
No, probably not, when I said "your side" I was referring to the democrat black caucus of the House of Representatives. The NAACP did it too I think.
I've always been talking exclusively about national figures.
Carole,
Looks like this has become a thread about MAV instead of Jim Jeffords
Yes, funny how that happened isn't it? I didn't do it on purpose....Honest.
Thank you Mr M.
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: CarolC Date: 28 May 01 - 08:13 PM What's he trying to do, kendall? |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: kendall Date: 28 May 01 - 08:05 PM Neither did I until I realized what he was trying to do. You gotta give him credit, he knows what buttons to push! |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Greg F. Date: 28 May 01 - 06:37 PM The usual result of his infantile comments. Kendall: While from your description he may suffer from MPD, the only MAV we get to know here is the one that comes across on the forum. Can you spell "asshole?" I don't find what you style his "leg pulling" to be the least bit amusing or entertaining. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: CarolC Date: 28 May 01 - 06:32 PM Looks like this has become a thread about MAV instead of Jim Jeffords. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: mousethief Date: 28 May 01 - 06:19 PM Mav, I don't believe I've ever seen Clarence Thomas called "Uncle Tom" at mudcat before. Can you provide a link? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 May 01 - 05:15 PM "Well, this is a political thread isn't it?"
"Look at me ya-boo sucks to all of you lot." That's a political discussion? |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Little Hawk Date: 28 May 01 - 04:38 PM I can. "First amendment". There. kendall, are you saying that MAV is actually a whiney, panty-wearing liberal masquerading as a passionate conservative??? My god, that would be leg-pulling on a truly Olympic scale at this point. It's a shocking assertion. Just who is pulling whose leg around here is what I want to know... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: kendall Date: 28 May 01 - 04:21 PM I have met MAV. He is anything BUT a moron, no my friends, he is a world class leg puller, and, as long as we resist, he will pull even harder. Can you say "First amendment?" |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: MAV Date: 28 May 01 - 04:06 PM Christ, Mav, you truly are an total effing moron after all
Thanks, you're so "thoughtful" and say the nicest things.
How about a little tolerance here? mav out |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Bill D Date: 28 May 01 - 02:40 PM does the term 'bear baiting' mean anything to some of you? Look it up |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 28 May 01 - 02:23 PM Now John, you don't suppose having that sort of demonization crap constantly said about you might get your dander up, do you? Your own obnoxious behavior, of course, plays no part in this?. Puh-leeze! Christ, Mav, you truly are an total effing moron after all. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: MAV Date: 28 May 01 - 02:19 PM Dear Peg,
All the Vermonters I know are thrilled about this...as is just about every other human being I have spoken to about it so far. :)
Could be, but many hardcore liberals nationwide are not too happy with him.
Check this out, especially the part about the potential for the public's perceived notion of "democrat obstructionism"
Miller called him a Double Double-Crosser!
That's why I say he'll get nothing. His name is MUD....
Gee......! Maybe he could become a MUDCATTER!
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Peg Date: 28 May 01 - 12:14 PM the thing about those online polls is, anyone can vote as many times as they want...and just like "exit" polls, people are notorious for lying, just to shake things up... All the Vermonters I know are thrilled about this...as is just about every other human being I have spoken to about it so far. :)
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: GUEST,Bob P Date: 28 May 01 - 12:11 PM Here's a scenario I would have gladly accepted. Well, the mid-term election results have just come in. Down in florida the new vote counting machinery worked fine, no recounts are planned. For the first time in many years the voters, not the lawyers, have determined the outcome. And, this just in . . . the dems have recaptured the house with a plurality of twelve seats, and the switch announced by Senator Jeffords last night added to the gain of three seats in the senate gives the party of Jackson back to the people. Things are looking down for King George! Well, he surely had his chance. What? Oh that was the a dream? Damn shame! |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: MAV Date: 28 May 01 - 11:47 AM To John P;
Hmm, I was enjoying this thread until Mav showed up
Well, this is a political thread isn't it? Its title implies that it is.
Mav, is there any way you could be a little less offensive in your posts?
Well, I suppose, but the title of the thread and the posted insults to Republicans was in itself pretty offensive, seems the tone was already set.
Your nicknames for our political leaders are childish and insulting
I'm sorry I called Arlen Specter "Specter the Defector" and Trent Lott a "Spineless Weasel". Of course your side calling W a "moron", "idiot" and worse should go unchallenged.
Then there's Justice Clarence "Uncle Tom" Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Judge Ken Starr and of course President Reagan, who's under constant attack and currently languishing in the grip of Alzheimers.
Why can't you just discuss things like a normal adult?
You mean like this?
And for that he has been absolutely pilloried by Bush, Lott, and their right-wing henchmen. Me, I think even the revised tax cut is still pretty much a sop for the rich, but I've still got to admire Jeffords for sticking to his principles
Now there's some DEEP thought....Bush and Lott are NOT RIGHT WING. The idle rich barely get taxed already (I've explained that in detail), the high paid WORKING AMERICANS are who carry MOST of the income tax burden. Jeffords has no principles, he's a foot dragging, self serving obstructionist as are most of the "moderates".
It usually causes you to come across as a reactionary.
So what? Someone has to challenge the left-wing extremists.
re.ac.tion.ary n. an advocate of reaction.
re.act.tion n. 1. a return or opposing action, influence, etc. 2. a response as to a stimulus. 3. a movement BACK to a former more stable condition.
Since "reactionary" is the opposite of "thoughtful"
No it isn't, unthoughtful or thoughtless are opposites to thoughtful.
it doesn't give me much faith in any facts you try to present
Well that's a hell of a note, either they're facts or they ain't!
Mav is not an adult, John. He's a spoiled, opinionated, not too intelligent little brat throwing tantrums & trying to shock mom & dad
Now John, you don't suppose having that sort of demonization crap constantly said about you might get your dander up, do you?
and if you check back, often a lot more childish and offensive
Yes, in fact I urge you to research my posts and see just how offensive my OPINION is.
Here's the dirty little secret. It's not my vulgar language (I don't do that)
It's not that I insult individual posters (unless they have attacked me).
It really is my willingness to stand up to the demogogery, lying and mean spirited attacks of the caring, compassionate, tolerant and THOUGHTFUL liberal anti-Constitutional leftists found here.
When I make general (but true statements) they accuse me of name calling, I call it the "If the shoe fits" principle.
Actual name calling is more like; "GregF is a spoiled, opinionated, not too intelligent little brat throwing tantrums & trying to shock mom & dad.....childish and offensive", but I would never say anything like that.
GregF also says I'm...Best ignored & not encouraged- a lesson some refuse to learn
Yes Greg, you'd think you'd know better than to keep spewing your left-wing hate speech...it only encourages me.
Thoughtful enough for you?
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: POL: A Salute to Jim Jeffords! From: Bill D Date: 28 May 01 - 10:58 AM some folks' stock-in-trade, like Rush Limbaugh, is cantankerous exaggeration for the sake of some imagined effect, as if the world wont see their point unless it is sharp-edged and laced with invective and name calling ...."D'ashole " "whiney @$$ panty wearing liberal"....lots to consider about Jeffords and the situation in the Senate & Vermont, but it IS possible to talk it over without that level of diatribe. ...oh, it isn't, Mav?...sorry, I meant is is for some of us. |
| Share Thread: |