BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Tinker
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 10:57 AM

Dear Guest,

I will join in the call to ask you to join and pick a moniker. Yes, this forum has separate rules for unidentified guests. Too often they are only Flamers and Trolls. If you wish true serious discussion at some point you must "sign in" in a identifiable way.

Many of us have found ways to meet in the real world and have forged friendships that would other wise boggle the imagination.

It is a music forum and the best of the scholarship hereabouts deals with music. But as you've noted there is thoughful response in many areas.

That said if you choose to reject Max's (Above all else this is His site) free cookies. You can type in a consistet moniker next to guest. Having noticed you avoid flights of fancy I offer a few suggestions.

I considered several like Dr Spin, Marcus(Aurelius?), DubyaEBee, (to close to a current 'catter and too tounge and cheek for yur style), but how about WEBb.

Remember Jack Webb on Dragnet ( Just the Facts Mamam...) I cast my vote with the final selection. If you want to be part of the club, you have to join...

Tinker

Who likes her cookies with milk and a lullabye....

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 07:45 AM

Oh Claymore, what say you about the information I provided to clarify your claims of historical authenticity now?

Is it possible you might have forgotten more about the historic events being discussed than you would care to admit?

The current president, just like his father, is as much a secretive liar as his father was--history just hasn't proven it yet, because it is too soon to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 02:07 AM

Taliesn: You expect a response from me? Forget it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 12:37 AM

(quote)
"Were Clinton's lies worse than Reagan's? I expressed the opinion that Clinton's were worse because he did so under oath."

"A fine line, perhaps, but isn't that what the rule of law is all about?"

You consider Reagan's outright lie to the American people as not under oath as in the oath of the ofice of the presidency?

Well this is interesting indeed. Using your own measure then you're saying that Reagan's bald-faced *lie* from the Oval Office
in saying to the American people that he would *never* make deals with terrorists while he had already OK'd the sale of weapons to Iran to *illegally* fund the contra war , made officially *illegal* by the Congrssional passing of the Boland amendment
( with a Republican Senate since 1980 ) .
And this after truning tail in Lebanon after the terrorist bombing of a few hundred marines in their beds which gave the greenlight to the terrorist network that Reagan talked big but failed to deliver
any viable deterrence and thus subsequently opening the door to evermore emboldened terrorist ops that ultimately led to 9/11.

That's an awful *fine* line to pass your *ideologically correct* smell test. Add Reagan's active support of one Saddam Hussain
which is ,according to the Bushites , as alarming a clear and present *terrorist* danger and , more than ever , as a source of terror for something far worse than the World Trade Center attrocity.

I guess that 8fine line* is in the ideological jaundiced eye of the
agendaed beholder. You may not choose to rebut , but thankfully the record is there for anyone to avail themselves of. Now if only Bush dubya Jr. would lift the very vigorous embargo of his fahter's Presidential papers which are ,every bit ,the property of the American people and *not* the Imperial Bush dynasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Troll
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 12:19 AM

Clinton was pursued and vilified and eventually impeached precisely because he DID lie to the American people. Had he said,"Yeah. I did it. And the rest of it is between my wife and me", I don't think that any of the rest of the investigation would have happened. Instead, he stonewalled and was finally forced to admit the truth. By then, enough people were angry with him that the republicans felt that it was safe to call for impeachment.
It wasn't the sex that did it. It was the lie.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 11:22 PM

Mick: I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you, anymore than I do Taliesn.

Your post took me to task because I did not reply to a GUEST. Before I even had a chance to reply (time constraints whatever) another Mudcat member stated an opinion and you took him to task. He refuted several points made by my retractor that you obviously accepted as fact, without any research of your own.

Your reply to Claymore was that you would need some time to research Guest's statements. You obviously took them as fact when you attacked me. Why research them? Because they supported your own point of view? Is that fair?

I seem to recall several posts you made over the past three or four years where you berated GUEST postings because they did not identify themselves and were presenting points of view that you did not agree with. I could research it if you wish, but I think your responses to Guest posts you found offensive were more vitrolic than most that I have posted here on the Mudcat.

As to your snide remark about my glib response, I assume you are referring to the one that I made in response to another Guest that suggested that I had a right to be a Puritan. I assumed Guest intended it as humor, and my reply was intended as humor also. Evidently you didn't take it that way.

The fact that I did not reply to the post I assume you refer to in your post (7:00 P.M. yesterday I think)is between me and GUEST, whoever that might be.

Kendall, Bobert, a few others and I were talking about lying. Is it acceptable? Were Clinton's lies worse than Reagan's? I expressed the opinion that Clinton's were worse because he did so under oath. A fine line, perhaps, but isn't that what the rule of law is all about? If you think it's acceptable, so be it.
What you think about it is your business, not mine.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 09:16 PM

I understand you perfectly, Bobert. I like sometimes to state what abuses I see on BOTH sides of an issue. Hopefully, someone out there is listening. People have far more in common with one another than they are usually prepared to admit in the heat of an argument.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 09:06 PM

Right on, Little Hawk, and what I'm about to say isn't based on hatred of anyone but I believe that the folks who are so steeped in hatred of Bill Clinton do not possess whatever internal wiring is required to understand what you are saying. They are the "true believers" that Eric Hoffer talked about. They are the folks at the football games who strip off their shirts when it's 10 degrees. I'm not saying this with one once of hate for them. But tons of compassion. Thats what keeps us going. Trying to win one back from the darkness that one must feel, the hopelessness, the utter loyalty to hatred.

Yeah, I may mess with Bush butmit is not Bush, the man, who I hate but his policies which are anti-human, anti-Earth and will not take mankind further down the road toward civilization.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 08:30 PM

It's the same as it has ever been. People are biased. Very much so. When they are biased in favor of a politician they make all sorts of excuses in his defense, explain why he had to do whatever he did, explain why it was the right thing to do...etc...ad infinitum. Why? Because they believe he's RIGHT!

When they are biased against a politician they attack everything from his looks to his wardrobe to the way he talks to the things he did and said...and they do not TOLERATE any flaw they can uncover or imagine they have uncovered about him. You could say they go berserk in their bloodlust to utterly discredit and destroy the man. Why? Because they believe he's WRONG (and is a threat to their existence in some way).

Now, this enthusiasm for personal hatred doesn't speak too well for most of us, does it? Isn't it just a bit small-minded?

I think we would be better served protesting POLICIES we disagree with rather than engaging in endless innuendo, hatred, and character assassination toward individuals toward whom we were prejudiced from the start anyway.

How well would most of us do if entrusted with running the USA from the executive office? I wonder.

My objection to George Bush is not that I think he's stupid (I don't actually know that he is), not that he can't pronounce "nuclear" (does it matter?), and not a bunch of other stuff like that. My objection is that I disagree with his foreign and domestic policy in a number of pretty critical ways. I disagree with his philosophy, it seems. This does not mean I have to hate him on a personal basis.

As for Clinton, the only other president I have seen attacked with the sort of vitriol he received was Nixon in his second term. It passed all point of decency with Clinton. No human being should be grilled about his private sex life in such a manner in a public forum, when his sex life has little or nothing to do with public policy decisions.

Hating these guys achieves nothing, folks. At least, nothing useful. Opposing a mistaken policy, however, may achieve something quite useful in the long run...if enough people oppose it vigorously enough.

Remember that competing political parties make it their business to get you to focus on personalities...rather than on matters of substance....and they also make it their business to ridicule and denigrate their opponents and encourage public hatred and ridicule of them. This is no way to build a stable and healthy society. It's low and mean.

And it's damned silly. It leads nowhere but to bitterness and endless conflict, and it obscures what's really going on in the USA and in the World at large.

I think when it comes to matters of real substance that the Reagan administration did almost incalculable damage to the North American financial system...and as a result of that...to the whole world society. But that's just my opinion. It is not based on hating Ronald Reagan, who, all in all, seems like a nice enough man to me, but a man seriously out of touch in some ways. I don't think he was mentally fit, at least in his second term. Again, my opinion, that's all.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 08:01 PM

Like I've said, GUEST, if it won't fit on a bumper sticker, they ain't got no use fir it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:22 PM

"The American President" series ran on PBS in 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:21 PM

Any more of you right wing history erasers care to argue about these issues?

I stand by what I said the first time. To suggest that Clinton's offenses were more serious than those of Nixon's and Reagan's are bizarre in the extreme.

But then, the post-Reagan Republican mantra conveniently became...

"I do not recall...I cannot recall".

Seems the Mudcat right wing ideaologues are stuck in that same Reaganesque selective amnesia he was so good at faking for the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:18 PM

Clinton, Whitewater & Lewinski, from "The American President" website. I quote:

"Unlike any president in history, Clinton was besieged by attackers with a determination and a vehemence that bordered on outright hatred by his opponents, especially on the far right-wing of the Republican Party. The nation had never seen anything quite like this display of vitriol. By the end of his term, Clinton found himself, his staff, and the First Lady the subject of numerous special investigations. By the end of 1999, no indictment or specific charges of criminal activity by the president or Hillary Clinton had resulted from these investigations, although several of their Arkansas associates have been indicted, tried, convicted, and imprisoned—including Clinton's replacement as governor of Arkansas.

Whitewater and Paula Jones

The most serious attacks on the president were those which charged him with a White House cover-up of financial impropriety in his Arkansas investments prior to becoming president. The issue involved a failed savings and loan company operated by Clinton business associates, James and Susan McDougal, who had questionable business dealings in real estate on the Whitewater River in Arkansas. Once the charges of a possible cover-up were made, Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, called for a special prosecutor to be named. When the first special prosecutor, Republican Robert B. Fiske, Jr., turned up no evidence of crimes or cover up, Republicans demanded his removal. Under the Independent Counsel statute, a federal court replaced Fiske with Kenneth Starr, a conservative attorney and former federal judge also retained by various right-wing clients and anti-Clinton corporations, namely tobacco firms.

Searching for evidence of crime and cover-up, Starr began an open-ended inquiry into every corner of Clinton's life, both before and during his presidency. No stone was left unturned, including an unprecedented subpoena of the First Lady to testify about the surprise appearance of subpoenaed but lost billing records from the Rose Law Firm (in which she had been a partner in Arkansas) that mysteriously turned up on a table in the White House. Any personal or business associate of the Clintons, past and present members of his political staff and administration, and just about anyone who might have knowledge of their private and public actions were subject to subpoenas as witnesses to be questioned. Any criminal actions uncovered in the search for evidence against Clinton were subject to prosecution regardless of their links to Whitewater or to the president. This open-ended use of the special prosecutor's office marked a new step in how the political opponents of an incumbent president might use the law to target the chief executive and then determine if he might have committed a crime. (This inverted the normal presumption of due process, which is to find evidence of a crime and then investigate to see who might have committed it.)

Although the Clintons weathered the storm for the most part, it is clear that much of their time was spent dealing with their defense. His first major setback came in May 27, 1997 when the Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 in Clinton v. Jones that the sexual harassment suit brought against the president by Paula Jones could go forward while he was in office. Faced with the likelihood of a civil trial, Clinton agreed to a settlement in the case, paying Jones nearly $1 million but without making an apology or admission of guilt. Later he was ordered to pay a fine ordered by a federal judge for his misleading testimony in the early stages of the case.

Lewinsky Affair and Impeachment

Just as the Jones sexual harassment case seemed to be over, the news broke in January of 1998 that a young White House intern named Monica Lewinsky had had a sexual relationship with the president. Clinton denied the charges on national TV. Starr then expanded his Whitewater investigation, alleging that Clinton had lied under oath in the Paula Jones case when he had denied having had sex with Lewinsky. The special prosecutor was convinced that Clinton had lied, that he had tried to cover up the affair, and that he had instructed others to obstruct justice by lying on his behalf.

The next seven months found the American public consumed by the Lewinsky affair, following every nuance of the investigation by Starr and debating the merits of the case. Nothing like this had so captured the attention of the American public since Watergate and Nixon's resignation from office. Startling revelations came out, including taped interviews in which Lewinsky described details of the affair as well as a dress that contained samples of the president's DNA. On August 17, 1998, Clinton acknowledged in a televised address to the nation his "inappropriate" conduct with Lewinsky, that he had lied about it to the nation, and that he had misled his wife. But he refused to admit having ever instructed anyone else to lie or of trying to orchestrate a cover-up involving anyone else. A stunned nation fully expected his resignation or impeachment.

Starr then sent his report to the House of Representatives alleging that there were grounds for impeaching Clinton for lying under oath, obstruction of justice, abuse of powers, and other offenses. After a vitriolic series of House hearings, all of which were televised, and the release of thousands of documents about the matter and their posting on the Internet, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that an impeachment inquiry commence on a strictly partisan vote. The televised House inquiry riveted the American public to their televisions. The House adopted two articles of impeachment—charging the president with perjury in his grand jury testimony and obstructing justice in his dealings with various potential witnesses.

The Senate, charged under the Constitution with judging the evidence, opened its trial in mid-January 1999, and it became immediately clear that a two-thirds majority vote to convict Clinton and remove him from office would not emerge. Those voting against impeachment argued that these were private matters, involving "low" and tawdry actions, and not "high crimes and misdemeanors" involving offenses against the state. Those voting against Clinton argued that even in private matters, a president who commits perjury and obstructs justice is subverting the rule of law, and it is that subversion that becomes the "high crime," and not the original offense. He was acquitted on both counts on February 12, 1999. Forty-five Republican senators voted guilty while forty-five Democrats and ten Republicans voted for acquittal. On the second article of obstruction of justice, fifty Republicans voted for conviction while forty-five Democrats and five Republicans voted for acquittal. Thus, the second president to have been impeached in U.S. history (Andrew Johnson was the first) remained in office, acquitted and with two years left in his second term."

http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/BC/BC_Domestic_Affairs.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:13 PM

Nixon & Watergate, from "The American President" website. I quote:

"In late June 1973, the roof fell in when White House Counsel John Dean testified before the Senate committee investigating Watergate. He claimed there was "a cancer growing on the presidency" and implicated Nixon himself in the cover-up of the Watergate affair. A month later, another White House aide, Alexander Butterfield, revealed that the president had covertly tape-recorded all his conversations in the Oval Office. The evidence was subpoenaed by a special prosecutor investigating Watergate and by the Senate committee.

(In an unrelated investigation, massive financial improprieties were traced to Vice President Spiro Agnew, including tax evasion and outright bribes while he had been governor of Maryland. He resigned his office on October 10, 1973 and pled nolo contendre (not contesting charges) in federal court. Nixon nominated the House Republican Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford for the vice presidency. Under provisions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, Ford was confirmed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.)

From this point forward, the great political battle turned on the tapes. Nixon claimed that "executive-privilege" made him exempt from legal subpoenas ordering him to hand them over to investigators. The special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, pressed Nixon for the tapes—and Nixon asked the attorney general to fire Cox. Attorney General Eliott Richardson refused, claiming he had promised the Senate that he would protect the independence of the investigation. Richardson, resigned in protest rather than carry out the order. Nixon then asked Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus refused and Nixon fired him. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork agreed to fire Cox. This episode, known as the "Saturday Night Massacre," seemed to many Americans to resemble a coup d'etat against the rule of law. Nixon buckled, and two days later promised to release nine tapes that Cox had demanded. He also had to appoint a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who proved just as tenacious in going after evidence.

Nixon had lost public confidence. By March of 1974 his two top aides and former Attorney General Mitchell were indicted. Nixon stubbornly refused to surrender all the tapes. A federal court ruled that he did not have to turn them over to the Senate committee, but that he did have to provide them to the federal grand jury and special prosecutor Jaworski. In July, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in U.S. v. Nixon against his claim of executive-privilege and ordered him to turn over the tapes. Meanwhile, on July 27, the House Committee on the Judiciary approved three articles of impeachment against him involving obstruction of justice and the abuse of presidential power. "Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office," the first article concluded, "engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations . . . to cover-up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful activities." The second article charged Nixon with using the CIA, FBI, Secret Service and IRS to harass opponents of the administration. It also charged him with maintaining "a secret investigative unit within the office of the President" that "engaged in covert and unlawful activities." The third accused him of obstruction of justice for refusing to cooperate with Congress in the inquiry. All of the articles of impeachment were approved by the Democrats and a small group of Republicans on the committee."

http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/RN/RN_Domestic_Affairs.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:10 PM

Reagan & Iran Contra, from "The American President" website, I quote:

"The investigation by a special Senate committee—presented on national television —revealed that North and John Poindexter (Reagan's national security adviser) had routinely lied to Congress, destroyed official documents, misled cabinet officials, and practiced a foreign policy agenda characterized by deception and a flagrant disregard for the truth. Even though his role in the affair remained suspect, President George Bush eventually pardoned six key players in the Iran-Contra scandal in December 1992, after he had lost his reelection bid to William Clinton. Among those pardoned was Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who was scheduled to be tried for perjury.

Although the scandal damaged the Reagan administration politically, there emerged no serious call for his impeachment. Unlike in the Watergate cover-up, no "smoking gun" linked Reagan directly to the affair. Although Colonel North always believed that Reagan had authorized the covert action, he refused to acknowledge having ever directly talked with the president about it. When John Poindexter testified under oath that he had purposefully kept Reagan out of the loop in order to protect him, the link to Reagan could not be proved. The one person who might have implicated Reagan, CIA Director William Casey, died from cancer before being subpoenaed. And President Reagan was never called to testify under oath. When asked unofficially about what he knew, Reagan professed not to remember ever knowing anything about channeling funds from arms sales to the Contras. He did not deny knowing about it, just that he could not remember.

The call for Reagan's head also was undermined by a speech he delivered from the Oval Office on March 4, 1987. In a vintage Reagan performance, the president acknowledged that his administration, unbeknownst to himself, had traded arms for hostages. He said that the entire operation had happened because of patriotic staffers who misinterpreted his policy in their zeal to defeat terrorism, to liberate American hostages, and to aid the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. Most importantly, Reagan refused to make excuses for himself and bluntly admitted that the whole affair had been a serious mistake. Just prior to the speech, a special investigative committee appointed by Reagan and led by former Senator John Tower of Texas had determined that the president—though guilty of managerial negligence—was not directly involved in the transfer of funds to the Contras, which was considered the more serious offense."

http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/RR/RR_Foreign_Affairs.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 05:34 PM

Doug, you posted a remark that never responded to the post and I responded to by questioning you as to why. I don't care what you like about that as this a public forum. All it required was an answer. When one engages in the dialogue, they must be prepared to take the response to their opinion. You chose to get in the debate and takes stands.

As to what I thought of Clinton's character, once again you don't really know what I think but you choose to comment on it. All you know is that I am a Democrat and an independent thinker (as evidenced by my stances on the gun debate and the abortion issue). If you would be so kind as to give me a source of where I said that I approved of Bill Clinton lieing, I would be grateful and be happy to stand corrected.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 05:24 PM

Mick: I assume when you chastise me about not replying to a Guest thread you were referring to the one a Guest posted at 7:00 P.M.

What would you have me do? I read the thread but as I recall, the subject under discussion was Clinton's lying and Reagan's lying. I don't recall any mention of Nixon, Ford, Carter, a special counsel or anything else. We were talking about whether or not it is acceptable to lie.

Since you indicated that you do not "jump in any threads anymore" you may not be aware that this subject came up in other existing threads. In one of those, or perhaps somewhere in this one I stated that it was wrong of Reagan to lie. It was wrong of Clinton to lie too!

This isn't a matter of being conservative or liberal, at least not in my opinion. It speaks to character. I don't think Clinton has much and you disagree. That's your right. However when I feel the need to be lectured to, by you or anyone else in the forum, I'll post a thread.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 05:07 PM

Claymore, you are really so full of it sometimes.......... I purposely asked DougR these questions to see if he would come up with the answers that I was looking for. But I see that you could not contain yourself. I will answer your assertions as soon as I have had some time to examine them. Several contain "truths" that I don't quite remember that way, but I will check the record.

Next time, let the man answer for himself. The point wasn't about the facts of the case as much as it was to demonstrate a typical attribute of average "conservatives" as well as average "liberals" who don't bother to engage in a debate to the extent of checking others facts.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 03:28 PM

Big Mick, I'm sure that DougR can speak for himself, but when I read Guests contribution, I regarded it as a complete thread creep and totally bogus on the facts.

1. Just to name a few, it was a complete lie to state that the previous Special Prosecutors were investigating crimes and Starr was not; lying to a Federal Grand Jury is a crime. Thus the lie.

2. The statement that Reagan admitted to Walsh he had authorized the Iran-Contra exchanges is a lie. He never did, and numerous others testified to that issue.

3. His extensive use of the words "extra legal proceedings" is a lie. Virtually everything Starr did was approved by the Supreme Court, after extensive litigation by the Clintonites on every issue. That's called legal.

4. His discussion of the Boland Act is a complete lie; the Sandanistas were never duely elected, and once the elections were held, they lost. You might want to rethink the words "patently offensive" in light of this...

5. The most patently offensive thing done during the Iran Contra affair was the requirement that a person under indictment by the Federal Government, should be compelled to by a Democrat Congress to testify in front of the Nation, against his own Constitutional rights. I personally cannot think of a more egregious abuse of power than that, and as we both know, the Supreme Court said as much.

Again, we are not talking about a view or opinion here; you yourself call them facts. I see no reason why any one would want to spend the time attempting to answer patent lies, and it is that this point, I go to spend my holiday...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 02:16 PM

Mick,

In case you haven't noticed, a bumper sticker is about all you need to explain the conservatives response to any complex issue. They do tend to get bogged down when dealing with, ahhh, details. But look who's their *Main Man*. I rest my case.

(But I still like ya, Doug...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:56 PM

I don't jump on many threads anymore, as I have pretty well said what I need to say in most. So in this one I must add an Amen to my friend Tom, and to ask DougR and Biskit a question.

Why, DougR, when we are dealing with perceptions, do you alway jump in, yet when faced with well researched and documented information, such as GUEST gave you, do you refuse to answer except with trite little lines? GUEST gave you concise information to respond to. I would suggest it is because you are like most conservatives who would rather dwell on "the good ole days" and "traditional values" as a perception. Yet when someone makes the distinctions made in the above posts that conclusively show the hypocrisy in such statements, you have no response.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:30 PM

Danged, Curmudgeaon! Man, you speak a million truths. There are so many folks who have given and given and given and then there are folks like Biskit's friends who continue to take, take and take. Bless you, my friend, and thank you for sharing. You will be in my prayers tonight. Fir sure.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:06 PM

Yep, that's the real world, Tom. But I doubt that Biskit is interested in your line of thinking.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: curmudgeon
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:01 PM

Biskit -- You have achieved a level of offensiveness I have not hitherto experienced on Mudcat and you have really PISSED ME OFF!

It is people like you who give Republicans a bad name and worse.
Before you start carping about redistrubution of monies to those you deem "... too damned lazy to work!," get out of your ivory tower and take a look at this world you are so pleased with.

I left a teaching job to open my own business. When the local base closed, many of my customers lost their jobs. There wasn't enough busines to continue.

As my mother was in poor health, I did some substitute teaching so as to devote some time to her while looking for a full time teaching gig..
Surprise! Schools could hire two fresh college grads for what they would have to pay me. Of course they really cared about getting qualified, experienced teachers, but the elderly can't pay any more property taxes and the peoplae like you won't pay any more taxes.

That was ten years ago. In that time I have found only one company that will provide meaningful work at modest pay for people over fifty, but it's only for part of the year. And now they are sending some of the work out of state to get it done by less competent people for less money.

I know I am not alone. In trying to contact one agency for help in getting some firewood, it took two and a half days to get past the incessant busy signals.
My unemployment "benefits" are not quite twice what I am expected to pay in property taxes on a weekly basis.

I don't know who you are, where you're from, or what you do, but I earnestly hope that for a short time, you get to walk in someone else's shoes and see how difficult life can be.

Disgusted -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:54 PM

Aw, come on, Biskit....what about us radicals? I mean, really, expecting either the Dems or the Reps to solve society's problems is like expecting Jerry Springer to end bad taste on TV. Hopeless.

Expecting either one of them to destroy the world as we know it is just a tad more realistic...but what the hell...I am not going to lose any sleep over it. What's the point?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Biskit
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:57 PM

Chicken Little was a Liberal,..AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAieeeeeeee! the sky is falling! The sky is fallllllinnnng!!!! If you don't like the way it turned out, we can try again in two more years. Geeeeezus! Maybe George W. Bush has a better idea than continuously raising taxes which is the Dems answer for everything! It is not our Govts. responsibility to collect money and redistribute it to folks too damned lazy to work! ~Biskit~

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:30 PM

harpgirl - Most countries in the so-called "free world" (in the developed nations, I mean) have a pretty extensive government-funded health care system. Canada's pays for all your normal medical treatment by MD's, and pays part of chiropractic care, etc...but no dental. Drugs are fairly expensive, but less so than in the USA.

The free world, by the way, is the one inside your head and mine...and anyone else's who cares to use their own inclination to think freely.

A country which cannot provide free medical care to its people is either an archaic dictatorship or a place that has sold its soul to certain big-money interests...that is, the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies. The USA is in the latter condition. Most unfortunate for its befuddled citizenry who have little idea that things could actually be better somewhere else.

Now back to that thread title... The "better man"? Hmmm. Is that anything like "the better mousetrap"? I'm skeptical about the whole basic concept. :-) LOL!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:17 PM

Thank you guest, I think so too!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:12 PM

That said, and I agree, Doug has every right to be a Puritan!

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 07:00 PM

kendall and dougr, I think both of you are making valid points. What is frustrating is that neither of you seems willing to accept at face value what the other believes most important.

That said, there has been quite a bit of distortion regarding the historic record regarding presidents lying in general, presidents lying to and defying Congress, and presidents lying under oath.

To review all that, you have to look back to the issuance of subpoenas upon sitting presidents. The issuance of the Clinton subpoena was an unprecedented expansion of the powers of the independent counsel. Neither in Watergate nor in Iran-Contra did the special prosecutors--who were investigating real crimes, not the private sexual conduct of the president--compel sworn testimony from the occupant of the White House.

Nixon was not forced to testify in Watergate despite being at the center of a campaign to subvert the 1972 elections, carry out illegal spying on political opponents and suppress opposition to the Vietnam War. Independent Counsel Archibald Cox, and his successor Leon Jaworski, subpoenaed only the tape recordings of conversations in the Oval Office.

In the investigation of the Iran-Contra affair, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh did not subpoena Ronald Reagan although Reagan had admitted to Walsh personally authorizing the secret arms transfers to Iran, and the establishment of a paramilitary supply operation for the Nicaraguan contras, in defiance of a congressional ban. Walsh took Reagan's testimony by submitting written questions to the White House, which were answered by Reagan's lawyers. Vice President Bush gave deposition testimony, but was not subpoenaed and did not appear before the grand jury.

Even in the face of extraconstitutional actions and threats to democratic rights, the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigators adhered to the traditional doctrine of separation of powers--between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches--which was interpreted to mean that no court could compel a president to testify personally.

Considering the substantive differences in the above three cases, it is perfectly obvious that Starr acted out of a scurrilous political motivation to humiliate and embarrass Clinton. Clinton should have refused to testify for the good of the office. He never could have been impeached, had he refused.

And DougR, it is patently offensive to attempt to conflate sexual impropriety with funding and arming private paramilitaries in foreign countries for the express purpose of overthrowing a legitimately elected government in defiance of a congressional order, and trade weapons for hostages.

To suggest that the former is worse than the latter defies all common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: kendall
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:52 PM

No Doug you didn't answer. You split hairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:39 PM

You may be right DougR. My guess is that they will declare Vermont a Nuclear Waste Material Repository, and try and get Nevada back in the fold. And Jeffords becomes Chairman of the Dumpster Policy Board...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:39 PM

Someone mentioned the possibility of Chaffee becoming an Independent. That could happen of course, but he may be giving some thought to the rewards that are going to accrue to Jim Jeffords with the Republicans back in power. That will probably give him pause to think about it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:38 PM

Makes two of us, Dougie...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:32 PM

And I answered you, Kendall, in the same thread that you posed the question.

Claymore: Good thread, glad you started it. I don't know about you, but I've never had so many offers to get my ass kissed. You? I'm kind of flattered. Sure glad it was Harp Girl instead of Bobert though.

KimC: Don't let the detractors get you down. Your posts make a lot of sense.

Jimmy: Do me a favor, will you? Define a moderate for me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: kendall
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:59 PM

Troll, I ask you the same question I asked Doug. Clinton lied. Reagan lied. what is the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:37 PM

Oh, heck! There were a bunch of 'em that came out of the woodwork when Larry Flynn offered reward money to the women who had the goods on other elected officials. Hey, this stuff has been going on forever. Who cares? Oh, you do? And you? And even you? Well, there's more to life than other folks sex lives unless, of course, you ain't got one of your own to hold your attention. Go get yourself laid and lay off others for doing the same. Geeeze...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:33 PM

And who divorced his wife on her sickbed. Have you noticed how the righties are trying to resurrect and clean up his image. Remains to be seen if the same people who vilified Clinton's morals will now say that Newt was unjustly pilloried. My bet is that they will.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Naemanson
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:25 PM

I remember Newt as the other guy who was banging an intern in his office.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 11:34 AM

Guest 959, I don't need to point out what TIME or the others are saying to validate my views only to point out that a significant number of others hold them. To the extent you profess your views, they are valid. To the extent that only you and the other person in your bathroom at night, hold those views, goes to the significance.

And after complaining that I have given TIME and the others media sources as some form of validation and then to state that "Everybody knows the local media is worse", may I suggest a bathroom conference with whoever it was that OK'd the use of "Everybody knows"? Or would that suggestion be too dismissive?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 11:12 AM

For those of us who hang around the BS threads, current GUEST is definately *recognizable* and, in my opinion, a cut above the usual GUEST's who rarely have anything of sustance to contribute. And for that reason I will make by 6th plea to this GUEST:

Come on out, my friend!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: harpgirl
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:34 AM

Personally I've enjoyed the debate engendered by a kinder, gentler "trickster." Max doesn't want to change the mudcat structure to solve this fight over anonymity, so I say again, either call"Guest" by his time/date or think of him/her as all the same. That energy is better spent at your considerably artistry, dear Jed...hg

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: JedMarum
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:27 AM

faceless arrogance passed off as wisdom

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:59 AM

Claymore, here is the thing. Some of us commenting here aren't fans of Clinton or Bush. Why is that so hard for partisans to accept? And I am not using the word 'partisan' as a Republican expletive.

The point we are making is that neither party and neither president is meeting our needs as a citizenry. Just ask the 70% of eligible voters who gave your fearless leader quite a mandate when they didn't vote.

And Claymore, I don't know why you think that coming in here and regurgitating what you hear on the talk news 24/7 channels and read in Time magazine is going to influence anyone. Many of us have access to that shite, and are quite dismissive of it for what it is--a ratings game for television advertisers. These guys aren't exactly the august leaders coming out of the Columbia School of Journalism. Even those who are of that ilk, aren't believable. And everyone knows that their local media is even worse!

Frankly, I'm impressed with the level of discussion here. But I am dismissive of anyone coming in and gloating like you did.

Bad form, and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Troll
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:59 AM

William Jefferson Clinton went on national TV and said;"I did not have sex with that woman..." a blatant lie. Never mind what it was about, he lied to the American Public. He's not one damned bit better than any of the other liars that we have inflicted ourselves with.
The Health Plan that Hillary tried to sell was so flawed that she and Bill couldn't even get the Dems to back it. It was not scuttled by the Republicans. It was a bi-partisan effort.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:31 AM

First of all, I opened the thread long before the TV and newspaper commentors began to say virtually the same thing, from Carvell to Brokaw, so my views are considerably mainstream, if not a tad prescient. It was Bush who came out of the White House against all polling advice, took his case to the people in a whirlwind campaign, and was the deciding factor in the Republican win. I never said it was a mandate, but it is clear that it is against the historic nature of off-year elections, and thus earns greater interest than the normal election.

And to the earlier comment about Clinton, Clinton lost steadily during both of his off-year elections (remember Newt as TIME's Man of the Year?).

I do not see this as finished however. With the run-off in Louisiana, both sides will pile it on (shades of Florida). And if Landrieau wins, I look for heavy pressure to be put on Chaffe from Rhode Island to pull a Jeffers, and switch parties.

And, as to the Dems faux pas(s) vs Bush, the election was full of quirks on both sides, witness NJ and Minn, but considering where the polls were (and the general acceptance of their accuracy at the time) it was a good leadership choice by Bush to jump into the fray and try and make a difference for his party. For those of you who wish to recall, Clinton let his side sink or swim in 1994...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Naemanson
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:15 AM

Let's see, the Republicans think the Democrats are weak because the Democrats don't stand in line and slavishly follow orders. I always thought the ability to think for oneself to be an admirable trait.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 01:40 AM

Guest Claymore's opener on this thread is the first I've seen which truly merits the "B.S. " in the title-----hope he hasn't really got one o' those Hielan' swords his name suggests---!!

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:02 PM

Yeah, GUEST, and when one considers that those who *have* health insurance don't have a Patients Bill of Rights, other than government employees, no one really has health insurance. My provider can drop my sorry but if I get really sick and without a Patients Bill of Rights, I gotta take my sick butt to an attorney who is gonna want a check for $5000 or more as a retainer to fight with a company that I pay $9,456 a year for health insurance... ahhh, to fight for droppin' my sick behind.... And that is a fact....

Purdy f**ked up deal but when you're dealin' with the ruling class, that's about all you're gonna get.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Dems Beaten by the Better Man
From: Genie
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:01 PM

Hey, Claymore, last time I checked, having a 51-49 majority in the US Senate and holding power in the House by a handful of seats, not to mention having won several races by very slim margins, does not constitute a mandate for the winning party.

(Nobody's had a mandate since Reagan, and that was due as much to his personal communication skills and charm as to his policies, I think. But even Reagan won some states by a nose.)

I'll agree that the losses the Democrats took in several key races were probably due largely to Bush's "coat tails."
Lots of folks on both sides of the political spectrum generally approve of the way he (with the help of Colin Powell et al.) has handled the "War On Terrorism" -- especially the war in Afghanistan. (I don't know that other Presidents in his position would have done much different in that respect.)
Republicans love Bush a lot more than the bulk of his opponents hate him or his policies. Their base was more energized in yesterday's elections.

But who are you comparing him with ("...a better man..."). The Democrats don't have one clear leader that they rally behind.

The thing that alternately annoys and amuses me is the spin that a lot of Republicans are putting on the election results.
First, they overstate the magnitude (i.e., depth) of the Republicans' victory. Then, after saying the Rebublican wins represent a "mandate" for Bush or a referendum on his popularity (and that of his policies), many of them go on to attribute the outcome to:
-- the meanspiritedness of Democrats
-- the strategic bungling of the Democrats (in getting out the vote)
-- the so-called exploitation of Wellstone's memorial service for political gain
-- the failure of the Democrats to present a clear picture of their vision
and a host of other shortcomings of the Democrats.

I want to say to these Monday morning quarterbacks: Make up your mind. If you want to attribute the (mostly narrow) wins to Bush's popularity, you detract from that conclusion when you throw too many alleged Democratic faux pas and character flaws into the mix.

Genie