A new start for the Politics thread for the new millennium. I'll move the posts starting 1/1/01 from the old Politics thread into this thread. The retired Politics thread can be found in the Mote Archives.
2. robertjayb - 1/1/2001 12:19:03 AM
.
R.I.P., Alan Cranston
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Former Sen. Alan Cranston of California, a nuclear arms control activist who ended a 24-year Senate career in 1993 under the cloud of the savings and loan industry scandal, died Sunday at 86.
3. Greystoke - 1/1/2001 9:58:58 AM
Rehnquist says courts should stay out of election disputes.
Only weeks after legal experts questioned whether the Supreme Court's Florida recount ruling might be political, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said he hoped the U.S. court system ``will seldom, if ever'' become embroiled in another presidential election.
Rehnquist's annual report to Congress on the U.S. judiciary did not mention the criticism leveled against the high court. Nor did the chief justice, who was in the majority, attempt to defend the 5-4 ruling that rejected a recount of Florida presidential election votes and handed the election to George W. Bush.
Rather, he expressed hope that the courts would never again have to decide a presidential election.
Rehnquist got to the point immediately, addressing the election in the opening paragraph of his 15th year-end report to Congress since becoming chief justice.
...
This was not the first time that Rehnquist defended the court against allegations that the recount ruling was political. He did so after Justice Clarence Thomas denied -- the day after the decision -- that political views counted in this or any other decision.
Thomas told high school students the court was a nonpartisan, deliberative body that focuses only on the law.
``Don't try to apply the rules of the political world to this institution,'' Thomas said. ``I have yet to hear any discussion in nine years of partisan politics among members of the court.''
4. Greystoke - 1/1/2001 10:01:26 AM
Autodaffy
"Are you a whore to your ideology? "
?????
"Which Watt are you quoting?"
I believe the article is quoting James Watt. Follow the link and see for yourself.
5. jexster - 1/1/2001 12:46:32 PM
The Supreme Court banned statistical sampling to determine apportionment of representatives among states. The ruling did not prohibit using sampling-adjusted census numbers for other purposes including revenue sharing and apportionment within states.
Thus Concerned, concerned that a fair and accurate apportionment based on statistical sampling will hurt the Republicans, exalts his political sophistry over statistical science.
The following two experts comment on such dissembling.
6. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 12:48:05 PM
In this week's New Republic there is an article about the serious deficiencies of Bush's pick for Secretary of State. He is super cautious about using U.S. military force in anything but the most compelling cases involving vital American interests. He opposed U.S. intervention in Kuwait and was an advocate of premature termination of the operation. He also opposed U.S. military involvement in the Balkans. If left up to Powell there will be no involvement outside the U.S. on humanitarian grounds. Moreover, he was one of the main saboteurs of Clinton's attempt to introduce humane treatment of gays in the military. Moreover, several examples of Powell's dishonesty were cited in the article. As I recall, one of them was letting Les Aspin take the spears for the fiasco in Somalia when Powell was equally if not more to blame. He is apparently quite a smart and coldly calculating politician and not one who has much loyalty to those who appoint him.
7. CalGal - 1/1/2001 12:54:51 PM
Wonkers,
I'm really looking forward to Powell being forced to deliver, for once. I agree that he is very much a calculating politician, and a clever one at that. However, this has been known about him for a long time. For all that there are many who lionize him, his media coverage has always included the reality.
8. jexster - 1/1/2001 12:56:01 PM
The issue is NOT whether statistical sampling should be used to produce a more accurate count. The Census has used sampling corrections since 1970.
The scientific issue is which statistical methods will produce the most accurate results, especially in a society that is more mobile than ever with an higher proportion of foreign born than ever.
Jonathan Caulkins, Carnegie Mellon's Heinz School of Public Policy and Managemen:
It is often said that "the Devil is in the details" but with census sampling the Devil may be in the debates over the details. Even if essentially every statistician agreed that some form of sampling would be preferred to direct enumeration, we cannot expect unanimous consensus concerning exactly how that sampling should be done.
It seems possible that two equally or nearly equally valid sampling
approaches might lead to population estimates different enough to matter for political or budgetary purposes. For example, one approach might assign one more congressional seat to one state than another does. If so, then it is not hard to imagine acrimonious court cases pitting dueling statistical experts against each other in a way that makes the lay observer mistrustful of sample-based estimates, statisticians, and perhaps even science and mathematics more generally.
9. jexster - 1/1/2001 12:56:14 PM
Ed Kaplan, professor of Management Sciences and Public Health at the Yale School of Management:
If the goal is to estimate the population of the country as well as the distribution of various features of that population — race, income, employment, etc. there is no question that properly employed, statistical sampling can be used to improve the accuracy of the existing approach. The objections raised, of course, are more due to the anticipated consequences of such statistical corrections than due to the 'science' underlying sampling itself.
If it was demonstrated that the employment of sampling would not change greatly the results of the census — on the apportionment of congressional seats, for example — then the opposition would not be nearly so strong.
There will always be those who take the word enumeration'[constituton] literally, but this argument is of course a joke, as the 'enumeration' currently invoked is itself an imperfect sample.
Importantly, this cuts two ways — if it was demonstrated that the
employment of sampling would not change the consequences of the exercise, I suspect many proponents of sampling would also disappear.
Proponents might disappear, but politicians won't. When votes, political power and money are at stake, politicians will go to the mat. Count on it.
Until I finish the next 3 semesters of statistics and Econometrics that I've scheduled, I'll have to take these guys words for it or those of Rask and Slackjaw.
10. CalGal - 1/1/2001 12:59:50 PM
Does anyone doubt that if statistical sampling favored the Republicans and hurt the Dems, each would be arguing the opposite side? No. Nuff said, really.
I've always known that it was a tad alarming that the Dems rely on stupid people to keep their numbers up. But still, what with the bad voting and hiding from the census coming up at the same time, it feels very rubbed in.
Did anyone read that Slate article about how it appears that the overvotes, legitimate in nature, will be what puts Gore over the top? Now that's pretty funny.
11. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:00:08 PM
Gee I missed that. I liked Alan Cranston. Though he didn't know my name I am sure, though he never did actually, he did know me by site when I worked in the Senate for a dear friend of his. He was a giant in the Senate
12. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:04:01 PM
Cal...ask concerned....WRT the so-called "overvotes", that article refers to the punch and write-in votes for the same candidate as opposed to two votes for different candidates.
And yes, as the Orlando Sentinel reported, in a conservative county, using scanners not Votomatics, Gore's net gain was 130 votes. I believe the correct count is now Bush +27 or thereabouts.
13. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:06:17 PM
But anyone who seriously contends that Bush won Florida should seek professional help anyway.
14. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:09:28 PM
Cranston even came to me for vote briefs a couple of times when he couldn't find his LA outside the Senate Chamber. That was before Senate Offices had C-SPAN.
A gentleman and Senator of the highest caliber.
15. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 1:24:14 PM
Cal, True. Of course Gore whom I supported is even more of a calculating politician than Powell. But, aside from a few issues like capital punishment and the war on drugs and crime, I agree more with Gore on the issues than Powell. I think Gore is more willing to project U.S. influence for good in the world than Powell. However, I recognize that it is easy to go overboard on this as in Vietnam. Clinton did the right thing in Yugoslavia. His only mistake was in not acting decisively sooner (maybe not possible). And it's hard for me to accept Powell's position on gays in the military after his own experience as an African American and his support for affirmative action in the military and elsewhere for blacks and other minorities. Maybe it was a purely political calculation. But I have difficulty with political calculations on that kind of an issue. It's more basic even than how many redwoods are we going to allow Pacific Lumber to murder.
16. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:29:45 PM
This one's for EricC...
WASHINGTON (AP) - After they are sworn into office this week, the congressional Class of 2001, mostly upper middle class, faces votes that could affect their stock holdings, from high-tech companies to health insurance firms.
Fifteen of the 52 newly minted lawmakers own stock in high-technology
companies such as Intel and Microsoft, according to an Associated Press review of financial disclosure forms filed by the candidates during the campaign etc etc...
17. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:36:31 PM
Wonkers,
Gore was just weak at covering his math work; I don't think he is any more calculating than Powell or other political sorts.
18. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 1:39:09 PM
"And it's hard for me to accept Powell's position on gays in the military after his own experience as an African American and his support for affirmative action in the military and elsewhere for blacks and other minorities."
And considering the fact that one of his daughters is a lesbian!
19. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:42:01 PM
I've always known that it was a tad alarming that the Dems rely on
stupid people to keep their numbers up.
If THAT is a "tad alarming".....
"I also have picked a secretary for Housing and Human Development. Mel Martinez from the state of Florida."--Austin, Tex., Dec. 20, 2000
20. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:43:16 PM
Cellar,
I have a feeling that slowly, over time, the culture of acceptance of that sort of hypocrisy is going to fade.
21. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:43:40 PM
At least the semi-literate dems the wingnuts around here love to chuckle over know the office in question!
22. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:44:43 PM
Jex,
There is no connection between the two, you do realize. Just doing my bit to keep you focused.
I frankly don't think that any of the picks are really going to hurt the country, although I'm looking forward to the Ashcroft fight. That'll be fun.
23. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 1:47:08 PM
CD, I didn't know that. That makes him even more of an evil person. I find it easier to forgive a Jesse Helms than a Powell.
24. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:47:27 PM
Well I think there is Cal....more than a connection in fact.
If voters should be required to have enough intelligence to cast an unmistakable vote for the candidate of their choice for a particular office, I, for one, think it only right and proper that a president should be required to have enough intelligence to know the office he is choosing a candidate for...
25. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:52:42 PM
The problem is not in the picks per se. The problem is in the unprecedented pick of Cheney as de facto president.
Each of the picks, save Norton and Ashcroft, is thoroughly undistinguished. There is a good reason for that. Cheney, has no political base, yet he is the firewall between Bush and the real world. The scheme, as I have said, is transparent. The picks themselves present little risk of independent action, gray automotons mostly who owe all to Nanny Warbucks. Yet, the scheme, is cabinet based. Its a political-organizational disaster waiting to happen
Cheney is the achilles heal of the administration, a defacto president without portfolio, without a political base, without pulpit bully or otherwise, not especially admired even by his admirers
26. CalGal - 1/1/2001 1:54:25 PM
Jex,
Oh, I see where you are going, then.
But it's not so much that voters have to have intelligence. It's the disconcerting notion that the ones who don't are disproportionately Dem.
Also, the fact that the candidate might not be all that bright is irrelevant, since we don't have intelligence requirements for elected officials.
27. jexster - 1/1/2001 1:57:09 PM
Sorry I wasn't clear. Actually I had just answered an e-mail from one of the two republican friends I have where he made light of the name of the UnInaugural Committee, "Trust The People"...it was a cross post of sorts thus the confusion
28. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:11:51 PM
Cal...have some fun
Ashcroft's 1999 Tactics Against Judge White Under Microscope
Even if Biener doesn't like it!
29. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:20:19 PM
RD - Delete this....its a repost. But I think it topical and funny so sue me, delete me, or eat me, as you will.
30. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 2:32:17 PM
Here are some interesting quotes from the article Jex linked to:
In reality, a review of White's nomination – the first defeated on the Senate floor since Robert H. Bork's – provides no evidence of racism by the man who would be America's top law enforcement officer
he has supported 90 percent of the black nominees who have come up for a vote. He also pointed out that he signed laws in Missouri honoring Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a state holiday and Scott Joplin's house as a state historic site. "I will continue to support African Americans for the federal bench because America needs their strong minds," he said in a statement in October.
Of course I am sure mere facts are not enough to derail Jex once he is on the attack.
31. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:53:34 PM
As you said JJB, its "political"
Look Biener, Its A HORSIE!!! Font
32. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:55:47 PM
southern-fried racism
33. jexster - 1/1/2001 2:57:53 PM
"This could be a bloodbath," a Democratic Senate aide said.
34. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:02:35 PM
Gee, I guess I called that one, didn't I?
35. jexster - 1/1/2001 3:03:32 PM
JJB, this must sound familiar
Ashcroft is taking heat for some seemingly pro-Confederate comments he made in the magazine Southern Partisan; he was also one of two members of a federal
commission to refuse to sign a report on the plight of minorities. (He thought it was too negative.) But no one has produced evidence that racial animus had anything to do with his efforts to stop White. And in the heat of a close election, there was a much more obvious explanation.
"Pure politics," a GOP Senate aide said. "I guess it turned out to be bad politics."
BushShit...pure BushShit...please chew with mouth closed!
36. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:07:12 PM
Jex - no one has produced evidence that racial animus had anything to do with his efforts to stop White.
So in your world no proof of racism is in fact proof of racism. I pity you. I really do.
37. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:07:56 PM
48K?
38. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 3:07:58 PM
48K?
39. PelleNilsson - 1/1/2001 3:31:55 PM
48K+1
40. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 3:40:06 PM
Speaking at Bob Jones U and speaking in support of the Confederacy is racist. Period. End of story.
41. CalGal - 1/1/2001 4:04:24 PM
It's true that Ashcroft needed to get White derailed as a political necessity, and that his behavior wasn't racist. But couple that with the standard genuflections that all Republicans have to make to the racist faction of their party, and it puts a nice tidy package together. At this point in time, "critics" don't see much possibility of his nomination being derailed, but I dunno. Either way, it will be fun. I don't think Bush realized he'd have this sort of problem when he screwed the Montana guy over.
42. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 4:24:30 PM
Cellar - End of story.
Pure fiction.
43. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 4:26:13 PM
Cal - But couple that with the standard genuflections that all Republicans have to make to the racist faction of their party
You are far too intelligent to make statements this ignorant.
44. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 4:28:17 PM
You mean Ashcroft hasn't spoken at Bob Jones U or made statemnts in support of the Confederacy, J.J. ?
45. CalGal - 1/1/2001 4:35:51 PM
JJ,
Hey, I'm one of those Dems that doens't know how to punch chads or fill out census forms.
But don't be silly yourself. Of course the Republicans have a racist faction; it's what they get for being the ones who oppose affirmative action. The Dems play the race card whenever they can, too, but they use it for purposes of fear, not hate, so they get a minor gimme.
46. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 5:14:49 PM
Cellar - You mean Ashcroft hasn't spoken at Bob Jones U or made statemnts in support of the Confederacy
Speaking at Bob Jones U doesn't make Ashcroft a racist any more than it makes the dozens of Democrats who have spoken there and received honorary degrees racists. I have yet to see any statements by Ashcroft in praise of the Confederacy or in favor of racism. I see lots of accusation, but no substance to back them up.
47. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 5:24:18 PM
Cal - Of course the Republicans have a racist faction
Bullshit. There may be racists who call themselves Republicans, but so do the Democrats. The GOP has never had an organized faction of racists unlike the Democrats who had one for decades.
it's what they get for being the ones who oppose affirmative action
I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept, but if you oppose discrimination, you have to oppose all discrimination no matter who the victim is. Democrats claim they oppose discrimination, but the fact is they only oppose discrimination against their constituents. They actively promote discrimination if it will help their constituents.
The Dems play the race card whenever they can, too, but they use it for purposes of fear, not hate, so they get a minor gimme.
Dems are the only ones who play the race card. They do it openly, too, at every opportunity. Republicans don't use race to promote fear or hate.
48. OhioSTOPAS - 1/1/2001 5:38:32 PM
"Willie" Horton . . . Jesse Helms . . . "a little too much diversity" . . .
Must have been some OTHER Republican party.
49. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 5:38:33 PM
Such bullshit I don't know where to begin.
So I'm not going to bother.
50. CalGal - 1/1/2001 5:45:22 PM
JJ,
I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept, but if you oppose discrimination, you have to oppose all discrimination no matter who the victim is.
I said nothing about opposing discrimination; I said they opposed affirmative action. The Dems' inconsistency is not the point; I was neither denying or excusing it, but stating a fact. The Republicans oppose AA and that is the single biggest reason why the white racists are in their camp. Keeping them happy is an unpleasant task that many of them must undertake periodically.
And the fact that the Southern Dems were racist and organized about it for years is also besides the point: this is politics, it doesn't have to be fair. The Southern Dems defected to the Republicans, who picked up all their nasty baggage. The Dems were never as vulnerable to the racist charges as the Republicans were because they held both factions in one tent and also because, alas, times have changed. But the Republicans had a party that promoted the end of affirmative action, so when the racists moved over to that side, they were expected to deliver.
It's no use denying the truth, JJ. It doesn't have to be fair. But the fact is that the Republicans have a platform that encourages white racists, and they need them for the numbers. The fact that you and in fact most Republican politicians personally dislike racists is completely irrelevant. I personally loathe a good 50 or more percent of the idiots who wear the Dem label; but I'd really rather they keep voting for Dems until the Republicans get their act together and I can switch hit occasionally.
Dems are the only ones who play the race card. They do it openly, too, at every opportunity. Republicans don't use race to promote fear or hate.
Sentences #1 and #3 are completely untrue. Sentence #2 is true for both parties.
51. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:03:01 PM
Cellar - "Willie" Horton
Republicans never mentioned Horton's race or put his picture on television.
Jesse Helms
Fritz Hollings, Robert Byrd, . . .
"a little too much diversity"
I have no idea who said this or in what context. It is not representative of the GOP now or ever.
Must have been some OTHER Republican party.
I am not responsible for your delusions.
Such bullshit I don't know where to begin.
Your bullshit has been coming through loud and clear.
So I'm not going to bother.
That will be a first.
52. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:19:26 PM
Oh let's change the subject. Sort of.
53. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:32:15 PM
CalGal - I said nothing about opposing discrimination; I said they opposed affirmative action.
Republicans oppose quotas, set-asides and preferences. They are very specific about their opposition because these things are discriminatory.
The Republicans oppose AA and that is the single biggest reason why the white racists are in their camp.
There are white racists in both camps. Neither camp is responsible for those who claim membership while holding beliefs antithetical to the party.
Keeping them happy is an unpleasant task that many of them must undertake periodically.
The GOP does nothing to keep them happy or encourage them. In fact they have done enough to discourage them that Duke joined the Reform Party.
And the fact that the Southern Dems were racist and organized about it for years is also besides the point
It is not beside the point. Democrats were the party of racism and segregation. In order to distance themselves from their past and to attrack black voters, they have engaged in a campaign for 30 years to accuse Republicans of the crimes the Democrats were guilty of.
The Southern Dems defected to the Republicans, who picked up all their nasty baggage.
This is still not true. A handful became Republicans, but the majority remained as Democrats.
54. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:32:29 PM
Cal - (cont)The Dems were never as vulnerable to the racist charges as the Republicans were because they held both factions in one tent
But the Republicans have never had a racist faction, so they should not be vulnerable. That is why Democrats have had to lie and distort the record to escape their past.
But the Republicans had a party that promoted the end of affirmative action
Ending preferences is not racist whether that policy appeals to racists or not. Republicans do not oppose preferences to appeal to racists. Republicans strongly support the enforcement of civil rights laws which racists oppose.
It's no use denying the truth, JJ.
I hate to disappoint you but the truth doesn't come from the DNC or Jesse Jackson. In fact if you find the truth in either place, it is purely accidental.
But the fact is that the Republicans have a platform that encourages white racists
The Democrats have a platform which encourages the likes of the PETA and the ALF. Should the Democrats have their feet held to fire for every thing those groups do?
Sentences #1 and #3 are completely untrue.
We've seen a dozen example of Democrats using race as a weapon in the last month. Provide some examples of Republicans doing the same thing.
55. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:34:59 PM
Just in case
56. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:39:32 PM
"Republicans oppose quotas, set-asides and preferences. They are very specific about their opposition because these things are discriminatory."
And that's why the opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and won't offer jobs to Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell, and didn't have any porch monkeys at their last convention.
57. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:40:33 PM
"Republicans never mentioned Horton's race or put his picture on television. "
LOL!
58. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 6:41:34 PM
JJ, Give us a break. You have a fantasy view of the GOP. You belong in the Democratic party.
59. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 6:42:08 PM
"A handful became Republicans, but the majority remained as Democrats."
So Nixon's Southern Strategy didn't work, eh?
News to millions, J.J.
60. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:43:54 PM
Wonkers - I hardly have a fantasy view. It is just that I can see it free of the influence of Democratic propaganda.
61. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:44:35 PM
Cellar - You are a dupe.
62. wonkers2 - 1/1/2001 6:45:14 PM
Whether Ashcroft's motive in helping block White's appointment, racial or political, his conduct was shameful and he got what he deserved. He lied about White's record on capital cases. Whatever happened to the GOP's pious bleating about the importance of telling the truth?
63. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 6:48:11 PM
Cellar - And that's why the opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and won't offer jobs to Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell
If the GOP had opposed eminently qualified individuals for these positions based on their race, that would be racism. That kind of mentality remains the province of Democrats.
64. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 7:40:22 PM
So the GOP supports unqualified lawn jockeys instead. Brilliant!
65. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 7:41:03 PM
And don't forget that Great Moral Bellweather of Our Time, J.C. Watts.
66. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 7:41:56 PM
What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats/
Republicans drive their wives to the abortion clinics. Democrats call them a cab.
67. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 8:11:11 PM
Cellar - No, The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans judge people by their abilities and Democrats judge them by their political beliefs.
68. arkymalarky - 1/1/2001 8:12:21 PM
Hahahahaha!!!! JJ, do you have a wind-up key in your back?
69. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 8:19:37 PM
Arky - No, but I think Cellar does.
70. arkymalarky - 1/1/2001 8:21:16 PM
But Cellar's a communist, not a Democrat!
71. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 8:31:22 PM
Make that an Anarchist, arky.
72. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 8:32:18 PM
"Cellar - No, The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans judge people by their abilities and Democrats judge them by their political beliefs."
You've got that precisely backwards.
73. arkymalarky - 1/1/2001 8:34:18 PM
Uh-oh. This Bush election has radicalized the radical. At least you didn't say Nihilist.
True Democrats like me are covering their eyes and whistling really loud with their fingers in their ears, hoping 2002 hurries up and gets here and brings with it a Democratic majority in both houses of congress.
74. JJBiener - 1/1/2001 8:44:14 PM
Cellar - You've got that precisely backwards.
Sorry, #48026 proves otherwise.
Arky - True Democrats like me are covering their eyes and whistling really loud with their fingers in their ears, hoping 2002 hurries up and gets here and brings with it a Democratic majority in both houses of congress.
Dare to dream, Arky. Dare to dream.
76. Cellar Door - 1/1/2001 8:57:58 PM
Pas de tout, J.J. I stand by #48026 -- especially in light of the Supremes recent decision re the "election," and Uncle Clarence's performance the next day before a group ofvery carefully chosen high school kids on C-Span.
77. joezan - 1/1/2001 11:47:39 PM
Cal:
But the Republicans had a party that promoted the end of affirmative action...
A platform many, many Democrats signed onto, you might add.
And no Republican needs to apologize for promoting the end of AA.
AA is wrong. It is discriminatory, demoralizing, and it promotes mediocrity - which the US can ill afford in a global economy.
78. CalGal - 1/1/2001 11:57:38 PM
Lord, when will someone see my point? I am not saying that the Republicans are baaaaad for wanting to end AA, I am saying that it's what drew the ignorant white racists to their side and added the requirement to subtly cater to them in order to win key elections.
79. don s. - 1/2/2001 12:01:53 AM
"He also pointed out that he signed laws in Missouri honoring Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a state holiday and Scott Joplin's house as a state historic site."
Scott Joplin? Oooh. Well, I'm convinced.
80. joezan - 1/2/2001 12:04:12 AM
Cal:
But you offer this as one of the reasons you can't see yourself voting for a Republican.
If it's not bad, then what's the deal?
Are you worried about your image?
81. robertjayb - 1/2/2001 12:05:55 AM
.
TIME magazine? Who needs it?
Lagos, Nigeria...
Nigeria's foremost Independent newspaper, The Guardian, has named outgoing US President Bill Clinton its Man-Of-The-Year 2000 for his support for Africa and his quest for peace around the world.
"He struck such a chemistry with Africa that he was once labelled the first black president," the paper's Managing Director/Editor-in Chief, Eluem Izeze, said in a front page piece explaining the choice Monday.
"Whether being patted on the back by the great man Nelson Mandela, or swinging in Babanriga (Nigeria's traditional attire) in the dusty village of Ushaffa, near Abuja (Nigeria's capital city), or championing the African Growth and Opportunity Act in Washington, he stands in full length as a friend of Africa," he wrote.
82. joezan - 1/2/2001 12:09:17 AM
...and Africa still starves.
83. CalGal - 1/2/2001 12:15:40 AM
Joe,
?????
AA? No. The only thing that has kept me from voting Republican for a long time now is the power that the religious right held, which was well out of proportion. It is nearly at the point of being just another special interest group, rather like feminists and unions on the left. Irritating, but nothing to get much fussed about.
I am far less concerned about the RR than I was even a few years ago. I don't see myself voting Republican for a while, though, because any party that goes for a dolt like Bush over McCain is one that values status quo a little too much for me. But that is a philosophical, rather than political, objection. Much like my objection to Bush himself.
So I don't know where you got the idea that I voted against the Republicans because of AA, but 'tain't so. I was just correcting some of JJ's statements.
84. don s. - 1/2/2001 12:16:37 AM
Perhaps if Bubba had shared some of his fries.
85. Cellar Door - 1/2/2001 12:14:13 PM
Talkin' 'Bout Good and Bad Hair !
86. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 12:20:17 PM
I think the writer of that column had that copy laying around waiting for an excuse to use it. Its attachment to Colin Powell and Condi Rice is pretty thin.
87. Cellar Door - 1/2/2001 12:55:17 PM
Talkin' 'bout Good and Bad Hair,
Don' matter if you're dark or you're fair,
Go on and swear,
See if I care,
Good and Bad Hair!"
Ah yes -- back when Spike was still talking to his father, and before he lost his mind.
"I think the writer of that column had that copy laying around waiting for an excuse to use it. Its attachment to Colin Powell and Condi Rice is pretty thin."
Any Lawn Jockey will do!
88. ranheim - 1/2/2001 12:58:34 PM
Cal
And Gore was not status quo in the Democratic Party?
Remember! I voted Harry Browne. And am registered as a Democrat in Louisiana. But, I wonder where all of you anti-Republican Party people get the idea that Bush is a "dolt". He has an MBA from Harvard. Gore is the one who dropped out of law school. And wasn't there an attempt at Divinity School as well?
Due to the fact that the Washington press claims that Gore is a policy wonk, he is brilliant?!
89. Electric Slide - 1/2/2001 12:59:51 PM
Cellar--did you really report me to Nolan the witch?
Very uncool.
90. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 1:02:34 PM
Any Lawn Jockey will do!
Does having straight hair make you a lawn jockey?
Best not tell James Brown!
91. Cellar Door - 1/2/2001 1:16:06 PM
Is James Brown a Republican?
"Cellar--did you really report me to Nolan the witch?
Very uncool."
I'm the King of Uncool.
92. jonesatlaw - 1/2/2001 1:35:10 PM
As a white guy I really don't know what to think about Bill Clinton as a "Black President." I have heard the claim made by many blacks, and having no basis in experience or data to debate it, I guess I accept it. However, he did pick up where Carter left off in sub-Saharan Africa, and that is overwhelmingly a good thing.
Yes, Africa still faces huge problems. Their governments are still not stable mature democracies, their economies are still being plundered by klepotocracies in far too many instances, and the strong man will continue to dominate the continent for some time to come. However, South Africa has undergone a tremendous change for the better. If it continues the current trends, it can be a strong leader for change on the continent.
Africa faded from the American radar screen with the end of the cold war and the transition in South Africa. It may yet re-emerge.
93. jonesatlaw - 1/2/2001 1:46:40 PM
I hope that Bush continues to be engaged in Africa, supporting the efforts of the most democratic nations to answer the problems they face with regional action instead of the US playing nanny and having to try to impose solutions.
94. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 1:59:12 PM
instead of the US playing nanny and having to try to impose solutions.
Lawyerin' Cuz: What would you give as an example of the US imposing solutions there?
From the little I've read, I think Bush's policy will be very hands off (in Africa).
95. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 2:00:43 PM
Also, which nations in Africa qualify as the "most democratic"? (This might be better answered in International.)
96. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:01:35 PM
I wonder where all of you anti-Republican Party
people get the idea that Bush is a "dolt".
- He's all but given the job of Chief Executive to Cheney before he's even sworn in[sic]
- He abdicated the most important decision of his post-election political life, the decision whether or not to file a federal lawsuit for injunctive relief against the
recounts to James Baker
- "I also have picked a secretary for Housing and Human Development. Mel Martinez from the state of Florida."--Austin, Tex., Dec. 20, 2000
97. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:04:53 PM
Would You Go To A Doctor Who Calls An "Appendectomy" a "Tonsilectomy"?
In other words, who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground?
98. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:07:17 PM
99. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:07:26 PM
"It was just inebriating what Midland was all about then."—From a 1994 interview
100. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:09:20 PM
Since the policy recommendations that come out of Heritage, or the Cato Institute, or even the American Enterprise Institute are so predictable, what purpose do these organizations serve? Good question.
101. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:12:11 PM
Since the policy statements that come from the mouths of Democrats and liberals are so predictable...
102. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 2:13:44 PM
Ronski: Apparently New Hampshire has elected a libertarian representative (he ran as a Republican to get in, but says he's really a libertarian).
Some Republicans are calling for him to resign the office for comments he made about the killing of police.
If he switched parties instead, would that make him the highest elected libertarian official?
103. concerned - 1/2/2001 2:23:48 PM
Do I detect a hint of disingenuousness from Jexster? Clowntoon offloads work to Bore='good'? Bush may or may not do same with Cheney='bad'?
104. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:26:38 PM
Ranheim:
I wonder where all of you anti-Republican Party people get the idea that Bush is a "dolt".
Have you never listened to the man? I wouldn't say a man was intelligent who brags that he doesn't like to read. Remember, someone always has to graduate last in their class.
And it isn't just "anti-Republican Party" people who think Bush is all hat and no cattle.
105. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 2:28:07 PM
Concerned - Do I detect a hint of disingenuousness from Jexster?
Not at all. What you detect is Jex flailing around trying to find some excuse to pour out his hatred. Consistency has no place in such a troubled mind.
106. concerned - 1/2/2001 2:28:48 PM
Bush has you lefties right where he wants you. Underestimating him.
107. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 2:30:20 PM
Judith - I wouldn't say a man was intelligent who brags that he doesn't like to read.
Where exactly did Bush brag that he doesn't like to read?
108. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:30:37 PM
I have no problem with Bush "delegating" to Cheney...but that's not what I feel he is doing. He is turning over the office to the man, period.
109. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 2:32:06 PM
Judith - I have no problem with Bush "delegating" to Cheney...but that's not what I feel he is doing. He is turning over the office to the man, period.
I didn't realize that you were privy to inner workings of Bush's transition team and his plans for his administration. What is your source for this information?
110. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:33:45 PM
JJ:
In interviews. Do you think I just made that up out of thin air? I am not the only one who says it, you know.
He said he hates to read...he said he has his people read all that "policy stuff" and break it down for him. He likes to relax by playing video games; Clinton was a voracious reader...Bush is not. I can live with that. But I don't have to think Bush is smart. Do I?
111. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 2:35:20 PM
JJ:
I didn't realize that you were privy to inner workings of Bush's transition team and his plans for his administration.
Well, surprise, I am...they run everything by me first.
112. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:38:33 PM
Indy,
It's news to me, but if the fellow made bizarre remarks about harming police officers, I'm sure the LP wouldn't want him. And yes, he would be the highest elected official, as a Vermont House libertarian was this past election banished to the VT GOP for anti-gay (and thus anti-libertarian sounding) remarks.
Alaska's legislature has also had Libertarians, but I don't think one serves there presently. I'll check to make sure, but I think there are about a thousand elected Libertarians, usually on town councils and the like, nationwide.
Libertarians are occasionally elected to the New Hampshire assembly because it has about as many members as the U.S. House. There's a district every ten farms or so, it seems.
113. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:40:07 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect George W. Bush (news - web sites) will gather an array of experts to ponder the economy's health this week, but an aide said Tuesday his nominees to head the Treasury and Commerce departments will not attend
114. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:41:04 PM
Not at all. What you detect is Jex flailing around trying to find some excuse to pour out his hatred. Consistency has no place in such a troubled mind.
115. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:43:00 PM
116. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 2:43:04 PM
Ronski: I haven't seen the actual quotations so I don't know what they were. The Rep (wish I could remember his name) said they were "barroom talk"--actually, they were letters to the editor--and distanced himself from them.
117. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:45:07 PM
Who said that? Who the fuck said that? Who's the slimy communist shit twinkle-toed cocksucker who just signed his own death warrant?
118. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:46:59 PM
WRT "fall of dotcoms"
Picked this up in this month's issue of The California Lawyer
FuckedCompany.com
119. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:49:17 PM
Free ISP NetZero wasn't making any money. The execs sat around in their board room one day scratching thier heads trying to figure out just why they weren't making any money. The result of that meeting? They now charge actual *money* to their customers. Woohoo!
When: 12/29/2000
Company: NetZero.com
Severity: 75
Points: 171
Comment/view this fuck in the Happy Fun Slander Corner!
120. Ronski - 1/2/2001 2:49:37 PM
Indy,
I should add that the LP is the only political party in the U.S. requiring its members to sign a pledge NOT to advocate violence against the government, ever.
Still, people with distinctly unlibertarian ideas about one thing or another wrest an LP nomination for office from time to time, as wresting these things is not particularly difficult in most jurisdictions, not being all that hotly contested to say the least.
121. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:54:59 PM
Since the policy statements that come from the mouths of Democrats and liberals are so predictable...
Ronksi-
And THAT was PRECISELY Krugman's point. Cato isn't a reputable policy analysis organization, its an ideological hack shop
122. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:56:34 PM
I didn't realize that you were privy to inner workings of Bush's transition team and his plans for his administration. What is your source for this information?
Perhaps public statements reported in the Post, The Economist and the NYT?
Just a guess
123. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:57:39 PM
124. jexster - 1/2/2001 2:58:59 PM
What is their purpose?
Mainly they have become waiting rooms for the conservative nomen klatura — a class of intellectuals among whom talent is much less important than political reliability.
125. glendajean - 1/2/2001 3:00:03 PM
New York Times article about Bush judicial appointments. Have they been reading the remarks of the late Jack Vincenes? (Jack, we hardly knew ye)
Mr. Bolick said that one tactic Mr. Bush might use to deal with any Democratic opposition would be to name people "whose conservative credentials are enhanced by some other feature so it would be hard for the liberals to defeat them." For example, Mr. Bush might fill the first Supreme Court vacancy he has with the first Hispanic person to sit on the court. Such an event might overwhelm any debate over philosophy.
In fact, lawyers close to Mr. Bush have suggested he might do that and he has two ready-made candidates, Emilio Garza, a conservative federal appeals court judge in Texas and Alberto R. Gonzales, a longtime aide who was recently named to be Mr. Bush's White House counsel.
126. Indiana Jones - 1/2/2001 3:00:29 PM
Ronski:
Here's the article. My mistake...the statements in question were actually Internet posts.
LOL. Guess we should all keep that in mind should we ever decide to run for office.
He also wrote a letter but it wasn't published.
127. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 3:05:04 PM
Judith - Do you think I just made that up out of thin air? I am not the only one who says it, you know.
I am sure you heard it from somewhere. I was just curious if you actually heard Bush saying this, or if you are merely repeating what others claim. Since you are so sure of his disinterest in reading, I figured you had a reliable source for the information. It would seem that you are just repeating the "conventional wisdom." Not exactly wise when you are crticizing someone else for their lack of intellectual curiosity.
I find it curious that Bush would say he doesn't like to read considering the fact that he was reading some of Jefferson's writings during the election battle.
128. Ronski - 1/2/2001 3:08:56 PM
Speaking of trite, that was about the thinnest bowl of gruel I've ever seen from Krugman. He usually vents with a lot more style.
129. Ronski - 1/2/2001 3:12:38 PM
Indy,
I think the fellow's political career will be a brief one, whatever party he chooses.
130. Ronski - 1/2/2001 3:16:18 PM
For the Esteemed Cellar, Who Recently Declared Himself an Anarchist
131. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 3:29:13 PM
JJ:
Go ahead and stake your reputation on the fact Bush is a tower of intellect. I don't care. I heard him say in an interview that he hardly ever read anything he didn't have to...I cannot cite chapter and verse, where or when he said this but I heard the man say it and it was probably while he was Governor. I know he was interviewed about his daily routine late last year and he stated he liked to play video games evey day to relax.
You jump on everything negative I say about the guy because you like him and feel differently about him than I do...why is it I am just amused by your position but you are so angered by mine?
And by the way, Bush said he was reading Jeffersons writings during the election battle? Are you basing that on the fact some of Jeffersons quotes ended up in the speech that was written for him or do you actually KNOW he was reading them? Maybe that explains his reliance on Cheney and Baker during the actual "battle"...he was too enthralled by reading Jefferson to involve himself.
132. jexster - 1/2/2001 3:33:25 PM
thinnest bowl of gruel
loutishness
the Cold War....
Nice turns of phrase with so little content!
Against Krugman's charge that conservative "think-tanks" have become little more than waiting rooms for policy hacks what?
a thin bowl of gruel
133. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 3:34:12 PM
Ronski: Krugman has a long track record of supporting academics of the expense of researchers who don't do peer-reviewed work. He has praised right wing economists on many occasions, and has said a lot of nice things about Milton Friedman. So I don't think you can dismiss his concerns that easily.
134. jexster - 1/2/2001 3:36:04 PM
Biener quit while you're ahead. The man doesn't watch news programs. ESPN, that's about all the Moron can handle.
Which is fine, if you're Managing Partner of the Rangers.
By the way, look what he did for the Rangers!
And that's why the bastard-president select has a Nanny.
135. jexster - 1/2/2001 3:40:23 PM
Whether you agree with Krugman's judgement or not, Rask is right, you cannot dismiss them out of hand.
The man's been on a crusade against polich quackery for nearly 20 years.
And Cato is, if its anything, trite and predictable. That's fine for the chairpersons of political parties, but not for an outfit that lays claim to intellectual respectability.
136. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 4:53:31 PM
Judith - Go ahead and stake your reputation on the fact Bush is a tower of intellect.
I didn't say he was a towering intellect, did I? Are you unable to accept that the man is reasonably intelligent without him having to be at the either extreme?
I heard him say in an interview that he hardly ever read anything he didn't have to
I heard him say that he doesn't do much recreational reading. Is that what you are referring to? I take that to mean he doesn't read much John Grisham. That is far different from what you implied.
You jump on everything negative I say about the guy because you like him and feel differently about him than I do
I comment on what you say because you have the tendency to make sweeping statements condemning Bush that have no basis in fact. It is kind of like when you take Tommy to task for calling Clinton a rapist.
why is it I am just amused by your position but you are so angered by mine?
What have I ever said that makes you think I am angry? I am just disappointed that an intelligent woman like yourself can be willingly misled and that you repeat as fact accusations with no foundation.
Are you basing that on the fact some of Jeffersons quotes ended up in the speech that was written for him or do you actually KNOW he was reading them?
It was mentioned on MSNBC. I can't prove he was actually reading Jefferson, but I can think of no reason why MSNBC would lie about something like that.
137. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 4:53:53 PM
Judith (cont) - Maybe that explains his reliance on Cheney and Baker during the actual "battle"...
Bush called the shots. He spent several hours each day on the phone with Baker and others discussing strategy. This was also reported on MSNBC and the other news outlets. I thought Bush staying away from the cameras was far more dignified than Gore's numerous appearances where he claimed he wanted to count every vote while his people worked diligently to only count Democratic votes.
138. JudithAtHome - 1/2/2001 5:05:40 PM
JJ:
....can be willingly misled and that you repeat as fact accusations with no foundation.
These "accusations" have foundation. Bush has said he doesn't like to read. How is stating that fact an accusation? Must you have MSNBC documemnt it before you will believe it?
I don't mean reading recreationaly, either...I consider John Grisham to be no better than a video game as recreation, personally. I mean reading history because you want to improve your mind; I mean bbiographies because you wish to learn more about people; I mean comparative religion because you want to see how people come to believe as they do; I mean having an innate curiosity about the world and the people in it. He doesn't have that...or at least, he has shown in the past that he has less of that than what I would wish a President to have. Sorry if you can't see this could be a disappointment for me rather than thinking I have some sort of vendetta against the man.
He's enough for you....he's not, for me.
139. Ronski - 1/2/2001 5:14:28 PM
I'm familiar with Krugman's defense of Friedman and globalization, and his critiques of the looney left. But I think it's pretty lame to criticize a libertarian think tank for being consistenly libertarian.
140. Fielding - 1/2/2001 5:37:49 PM
Ronski:
What is this "Krugman's defense of Friedman and globalization" that you are referring to? I'd love to read it. Friedman spent about a third of his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree slamming globalization, so a defense of both Friedman and globalization could make for some interesting reading.
141. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 5:39:18 PM
Fielding: *Milton* Friedman.
142. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 5:44:28 PM
"But I think it's pretty lame to criticize a libertarian think tank for being consistenly libertarian."
I think you missed his point. It isn't that the think tanks are consistently libertarian that irks Krugman, it is that Bush might end up relying on conservative/libertarian ideologues, rather than respected economists, to fill the economic policy slots in his administration.
143. Fielding - 1/2/2001 5:47:00 PM
Oh, that guy.
Did Krugman really defend Milton Friedman's current views? That is almost as surprising as what I thought Ronski had said.
144. JJBiener - 1/2/2001 5:50:18 PM
Rask - *Milton* Friedman
That's a relief. I thought you meant Kinky Friedman.
145. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 5:50:39 PM
He has defended Friedman's work as an economist back in the late 60s and 70s, when Friedman's macroeconomic analysis anticipated the stagflation of the 70s. I haven't much heard him comment on Friedman's political views, but Krugman would easily separate Friedman the economist from Friedman the libertarian ideologue anyway.
146. Fielding - 1/2/2001 5:55:28 PM
"I think you missed his point. It isn't that the think tanks are consistently libertarian that irks Krugman, it is that Bush might end up relying on conservative/libertarian ideologues, rather than respected economists, to fill the economic policy slots in his administration."
As a separate point regarding "think tanks", Krugman has also complained that think tanks who are funded by partisans of a particular ideology (irrespective of which ideology) tend to produce product that is more like "advocacy" than "research", and less able to withstand academic scrutiny.
147. Raskolnikov - 1/2/2001 6:06:06 PM
That dovetails with why he doesn't want them managing economic policy, but it is certainly worth noting when critically evaluating think tank research.
And I *do* think that being consistently libertarian is a legitimate criticism in itself, as is being consistently Marxist.
148. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 12:36:23 AM
.
A plum for Kathy...
Washington Post
Wednesday, January 3, 2001
Katherine Harris, the controversial secretary of state of Florida and a staunch supporter of President-elect George W. Bush is being considered for the post of the president's special envoy for the Americas, according to sources in the White House and in both Republican and Democratic circles. Sources said she is interested in the position, currently held by another Floridian, Kenneth H. "Buddy" McKay Jr.
Following her role at the center of the Florida vote recount, the sources said it was unlikely she could be rewarded with a top job requiring a Senate confirmation process. The special envoy job does not require confirmation. Several Latin American ambassadors, who got to know Harris through her involvement in the Summit for the Americas held in Miami three years ago and her efforts to promote trade with Florida, have said they would be pleased if the reports are confirmed. The job was created under President Clinton for Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty. When McLarty opted to go to the private sector, he was replaced by McKay, who had lost the Florida gubernatorial race to Jeb Bush.
149. concerned - 1/3/2001 2:32:15 AM
Hey, how 'bout Katherine Harris for AG? Talk about 'riffing' off of Stooge Reno. The differences are that Harris isn't corrupt, cataleptic or compromisable, as the DNC and Lefty media have already discovered.
150. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 2:56:58 AM
Matlock would be a good AG too .He always seems to figure out whodunnit, which is what you want in a crimnial lawyer. Or the guy from "Law & Order", Chris Waterston ; who has moved on to play Mr. Big in that naugthy HBO show "Real Sex in the City".
Book em, Danno.
151. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:01:12 AM
I'm not corrupt or compromisiable either. But i might be persuaded to throw a monkey wrench into things, if someone offered me a ambasador-thingy to Jamaica or Costa Rica or somewhere nice. Special envoy to St. Bart's, Bikini Inspector with-Portfolio.
Everybody has his price, and that is a true fact.
152. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:08:37 AM
I read , either in 'USA Today" or somewhere else, that Condoleeezzza Rice has a oil tanker named after her. Now that would be something, I say. I could impress some women with that one you know....
I wonder what it would take, to make something like that happen. Imagine -- the Exxon Art Vandelay! I;d probly get more tail than Randy Quaid ,which I"m told is alot....
153. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:09:38 AM
I read , either in 'USA Today" or somewhere else, that Condoleeezzza Rice has a oil tanker named after her. Now that would be something, I say. I could impress some women with that one you know....
I wonder what it would take, to make something like that happen. Imagine -- the Exxon Art Vandelay! I;d probly get more tail than Randy Quaid ,which I"m told is alot....
154. ArtVandelay - 1/3/2001 3:13:21 AM
Oopps, sorry., my forearm muscles still have the post-Festivus shakes. At least this year I was finally abel to beat Elaine 2 out of3, in Feats of Strength.
Airing of Greivances did'nt go so well thoguh. This year I was on everyones shit list [pardon my español].
155. DaveM - 1/3/2001 5:36:33 AM
1. JJ's "recreational reading" comment pertained to Condeleeza Rice:
The New York Times, 12/18/2000
As a high school student in Denver, she became both a competitive ice skater (getting up at 4:30 a.m. for lessons) and an accomplished pianist (sometimes staying up until 3 a.m. to practice). She did her senior year of high school and her freshman year in college at the same time. Her parents piled up so many books by her bedside table that she stopped reading for pleasure, and still does not.
"I grew up in a family in which my parents put me into every book club," she recalled. "So I never developed the fine art of recreational reading."
As Mr. Bush's top national security adviser during the campaign, Ms. Rice played a variety of roles. She was his private foreign policy tutor, the person, Mr. Bush once said, who "can explain to me foreign policy matters in a way I can understand." She was his intellectual quarterback, "both a good manager and an honest broker of ideas," he said in an interview. And she was his trusted friend, "a close confidante and a good soul," he added.
156. DaveM - 1/3/2001 5:36:46 AM
2. There have been quite a few reports which question Bush's intellectual curiosity. An example:
The New York Times, May 21, 2000
No one has ever accused Mr. Bush of being an intellectual, and the indifference to books started early. Childhood friends recall Mr. Bush reading only two sets of books for pleasure -- the Hardy boys and a series of mystery books about baseball. As one asks about his reading habits, there are a few snickers.
"Did we sit around in those days reading books?" asked Mr. McCleskey, smiling broadly. "No."
George and Barbara Bush led a drive to build a school library (the school did not previously have one), but books were not a major part of a boy's childhood in Midland. Erstwhile acquaintances, while deeply admiring of the Bushes' goodness and decency, have trouble recalling early signs of greatness in the son.
"Well, no, I never did think about what he might do in life," said Austine Crosby, his third-grade teacher. "He was just a good, well-rounded young man, and he did his work."
And academically? "He was O.K.," Mrs. Crosby said, a bit defensively. "He was O.K."
So was he in the top quarter of his class academically?
"Well, in the upper half, anyway."
157. Electric Slide - 1/3/2001 8:53:01 AM
Looking good for the big W. Looking good.
158. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:43:05 AM
One of the arguments CERTAIN people sucessfully used to lobby a CERTAIN former Senator from a CERTAIN southern state to dissuade him from taking the job of Energy Secretary was that Bush was going to get WATTED as in James Watt II
Now he's got two James Watts!
Loser Abrahams An Energy Zero
Looking good for the big W. Looking good.
159. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:47:56 AM
Big W. Lookin Good!
160. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:57:35 AM
Dave -
Lookin good!
161. jexster - 1/3/2001 9:58:45 AM
So the school library wasn't one of the inebriating experiences that Duhbya was referring to in his 1994 interview?
162. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:00:02 AM
MORON!
163. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:00:17 AM
moron
164. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:04:45 AM
Yarafat Accepts Clinton Peace Proposals - LOOKIN GOOD!
165. cmboyce - 1/3/2001 10:09:20 AM
Great pic! (The Whiz is to be congratulated.)
166. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:12:11 AM
Yea sorry Wiz for failing to attribute (where's your TM on this pic?)
and thanks CM for pointing that out (such artistry is TOTALLY beyond me!)
167. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:13:02 AM
The Wiz -
LOOKIN GOOD!
168. jexster - 1/3/2001 10:15:32 AM
Chavez, Ashcroft, Abrahams, Norton - on the hit list, "Good Morning America"
Corporations sloppin at the public trough
169. Cellar Door - 1/3/2001 10:32:51 AM
170. rubberducky - 1/3/2001 10:33:59 AM
so - any commentary on Mineta as Bush's Transportation Sec? does it matter? is he just an excuse to say Bush fulfilled his pledge to nominate a Democrat?
171. JJBiener - 1/3/2001 10:48:32 AM
What Cellar forgot to mention is that the web site he linked above contains the following disclaimer:
All content on The New York Slime web site is intended solely as political satire and social commentary protected under the First Amendment. Quotes attributed to celebreties, living or dead, are fictional and strictly for laughs.
172. rubberducky - 1/3/2001 11:04:30 AM
Why the House May Not Go Demo In 2002
if nothing else, this just goes to show my theory of Congress seats being decided on local issues and that there really aren't any national issues, as a whole, a deciding factor.
173. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 11:47:56 AM
Re the Wiz's picture -- it isn't doctored much... I have the original on my desk, from the Financial Times and the caption reads "Junior partners: Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush and six-year-old Kadeja McElmuray look equally perplexed during his visit to her school in Peoria, Illinois." Actually, W looks more confused than Kadeja.
174. cmboyce - 1/3/2001 11:53:30 AM
Message # 48135
Well, she's perplexed at him; he's just perplexed.
The doctoring seems to include only a) the placard on the easel, and b) Prince Charles' eyes. (Right, Wiz?)
175. Indiana Jones - 1/3/2001 12:02:02 PM
Thoughtful: One thing I forgot to mention before our previous discussion was swept away by the holidays and other posts...because of the way the NBER calculates recessions, its marking the start of the 1990 recession as July isn't particularly relevant to the point of whether the recession was caused by a war that began in the first week of August.
If you look at the column headings, you'll see that NBER measures a recession from the peak of business activity. Ergo, business activity in fact reached its highest point in July and had started to decline by the end of August. That certainly doesn't weaken the thesis that the war precipitated the recession.
176. concerned - 1/3/2001 1:25:47 PM
177. labwabbit - 1/3/2001 1:29:46 PM
con
Haha...that guy in the white tee-shirt seems prepared to go beyond glove deep.
178. Indiana Jones - 1/3/2001 1:30:45 PM
LOL!
Meanwhile, in other "recession" news
179. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:36:56 PM
.
Wednesday, January 3, 2001; 1:32 PM
Fed Cuts Interest Rate...WashPost...
The Federal Reserve, faced with a rapidly slowing economy, unexpectedly cut a key interest rate Wednesday by one-half point in an effort to avert a serious downturn. It was the first decrease in rates in two years.
The rate cut was unusual in that it occurred between meetings of the central bank's interest-rate committee. The last time the Fed changed rates between meetings was a quarter-point cut in October 1998, when the central bank was moving aggressively to counter worldwide financial turmoil caused by the Asian currency crisis.
The Federal Open Market Committee, which includes Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Fed governors and five of the 12 presidents of Federal Reserve banks, is scheduled to meet Jan. 30-31 to review interest rates.
The Fed said it was cutting its target for the federal funds rate – the interest banks charge each other on overnight loans – to 6 percent from 6.5 percent, a nine-year high.
It also cut its mostly symbolic discount rate by a quarter point to 5.75. The Fed said it stands ready to cut the discount rate by another quarter point to 5.50 percent on the request of Federal Reserve banks.
180. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:38:41 PM
.
x-post
181. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:43:45 PM
.
Shazam!
NEW YORK (AP) - Stock prices surged higher Wednesday, propelling the Dow Jones industrials more than 300 points higher and the Nasdaq composite up more than 100, after the Federal Reserve unexpectedly lowered interest rates by a half percentage point.
The rate cut, the first in two years by the Fed, was larger and sooner than expected, and gave a depressed stock market its first real good news in months.
182. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 1:44:38 PM
IJ, I have little desire to continue this discussion with you as I strongly suspect that whatever data I use, you will dismiss/ignore it. However, call me stupid (if you haven't already) 'cause here I go again.
Below I'm listing a number of economic indicators that are considered to be cyclical in nature. I'm looking on a quarterly basis, selecting the peak prior to the recession and comparing it to the data as of 90:Q2, prior to the NBER economic peak and prior to the invasion of kuwait:
Housing Starts, 88:Q4, 1.55 mil units AR; 90:Q2, 1.21 mil units AR
Car Sales, 88:Q2, 10.6 mil units AR; 90:Q2, 9.3 mil units AR
Industrial Production in Manufacturing, 89:Q1, 82.3; 90:Q2, 81.5
Employment Growth, 88:Q2, 3.5%; 90:Q2 0.6%
Consumer Sentiment, 88:Q3, 96.0; 90:Q2, 90.9
Fed Funds Rate 89:Q2, 9.7%; 90:Q2, 8.2%
The point of this being, as I've said before, there were signs that the economy was heading south before the invasion of kuwait, before the resulting run up in oil prices. Falling consumer sentiment, housing starts and car sales and the resulting impact on employment and industrial production all provided sufficient signals of a weak economy prompting the Fed to cut interest rates by 150 basis points in the year prior to the economic peak and prior to the august invasion.
One could easily argue that the Fed erred in raising rates as high as it did in 89 and failed again in not cutting them fast enough thereafter to prevent the economy from slipping into recession.
BTW, oil prices, 89:Q2, $18.9; 90:Q2, $16.1
183. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 1:52:14 PM
Thank you robertjayb, I missed the announcement. How exciting! and what a surprise!
184. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 1:59:10 PM
.
All in the family...
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -Kathleen Shanahan, who was Vice
President-elect Dick Cheney's top staffer during the presidential
campaign, will be Gov. Jeb Bush's new chief of staff, Bush said Wednesday.
Shanahan, 41, worked as a special assistant to the governor's
father, former President Bush, from 1985 to 1989, during the time
he was vice president.
185. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 2:25:23 PM
Keeping it close, huh? Nothing like being rewarded for loyalty and hard work...
186. Electric Slide - 1/3/2001 2:28:10 PM
Or, as George Bush once said: "Don't squat with your spurs on."
187. Indiana Jones - 1/3/2001 2:35:26 PM
Thoughtful: I have little desire to pursue any discussion with you (as I've stated in the past) because I consider you unreasoning, and worse, pricklish and rude. Pricklish would be okay, rude would be okay, but the two in combination make for little entertainment and less communication. You, however, initiated this by addressing me despite my past request that you not do so anymore.
Now when your own previously much-touted source demonstrably supports your position not at all, you reply with a grab bag of economic data to buttress further hand-waving arguments by you. Is it not enough to you that you have previously voided the traditional definition of what constitutes a recession in terms of time, that you will also now measure a recession not by declining GDP but by housing starts, etc.?
As for oil, prices, I marvel that someone who claims to be an economist continues to pooh-pooh the importance of energy costs in the US economy. Are you completely unfamiliar with what the oil embargo of 1973-74 did? With the Iranian Revolution?
BTW, oil prices, 89:Q2, $18.9; 90:Q2, $16.1
What the invasion did to oil
See #42-43 on the chart.
It's also not surprising that prior to the invasion oil was relatively cheap. If you recall, Saddam used the low price as an excuse for the invasion, saying that Kuwait was sabotaging Iraq by over-producing.
188. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 2:51:25 PM
Here's a taste of an interesting little article in Salon:
Jan. 3, 2001 | George W. Bush constantly assured us during the election that he was a new breed of Republican -- a "compassionate conservative." He promised to reach across party lines to work with Democrats, just as he had in Texas. There would be no manifestos and tantrums à la Newt Gingrich, no secret Reagan-like plots to prop up "freedom fighters." The Bush years, he and his handlers soothingly insinuated, would be kind of like the Clinton years, but without the sleaze --genial, charming, reassuringly centrist.
After Bush's dubious "victory," there was reason to think he would in fact move to the center. After all, he had lost the popular vote by more than 500,000, and likely lost Florida and the Electoral College too; it took the timely intervention of five conservative Supreme Court justices to install him in the White House. Immediately afterwards, he at least sounded like a chastened man; his victory speech dutifully struck the chords of reconciliation and humility. And with a large percentage of Americans unconvinced of the legitimacy of his election, it seemed quite possible that Bush would reach across the aisle.
He did -- but only to flip Democrats the bird.
And this is the rest of the story.
189. JJBiener - 1/3/2001 3:16:48 PM
Judith - Here's a taste of an interesting little article in Salon
I now understand why Salon is taking on water and sinking fast. They don't seem to understand the difference between a news article and an uninformed opinion piece.
190. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:20:39 PM
I suppose MSNBC never does anything in the opinion area? Is Salon supposed to just do hard news? What's wrong with opinion? We all have one.
191. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:22:35 PM
...and I never said it was a NEWS piece; it was an interesting article.
192. Ronski - 1/3/2001 3:28:09 PM
The silliest part of the article is the "likely lost Florida and the Electoral College too" part.
Bush won Florida and the electoral college based on the simple fact that the rules in place at the time of the election objectively disallowed spoiled ballots that may have or may not have tipped the scales in the other direction.
I didn't vote for Bush, but it is certainly getting tiresome hearing from Democrat partisans that the GOP stole the election or the Supreme Court stole it for them. The fact that you don't hear this from Democrats in the House or Senate is a credit to them.
193. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:35:21 PM
Ronski:
I don't think the election was stolen. But I'm dissatisfied with the outcome and, like 9/10s of the Republicans have done for the last 8 years, intend to gripe about the "winner" whenever I feel the urge. Since I didn't vote for Gore, I don't feel I need to justify my complaining about the Republicans acting as though we should be rejoicing in the outcome of an election we didn't win. They haven't let up about Clinton for 8 years...why do they think we would react any differently?
194. Wombat - 1/3/2001 3:37:32 PM
The Dems in the Senate and House won't have to say anything about it. If Bush doesn't do a consistantly superb job as "President," you will be hearing a great deal of comment on his electoral illegitimacy. Better steel yourself.
195. Ronski - 1/3/2001 3:44:20 PM
I don't mind the griping over Bush's policies and appointments, only this nonsense about stolen elections and the idea that somehow Bush is forbidden to appoint anyone but centrists.
I'm not happy with Ashcroft, for example. But I will give him and Bush the benefit of the doubt for the moment, since they aren't actually running anything yet. I suspect that Bush felt he could not avoid giving the religious right an important appointment, what with the number they did on the socially moderate Racicot, and Ashcroft was a suitable replacement, given that it's unlikely the Senate would reject a former colleague.
As for Ashcroft himself, while I'm sure he has some genuine core beliefs, I've heard it said he is a politician first, with all the opportunism such a description implies. We'll see. Perhaps he will change some of his spots.
196. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 3:57:50 PM
Well, if he doesn't change some of his spots, we'll all suffer from it. But we'll live, regardless.
197. EricCartman - 1/3/2001 4:02:42 PM
Naw, Bush didn't steal the election -- it was given to him by Poppy and his henchmen as a graduation present.
Hell, all I got for graduation was a '71 Dodge Coronet, and I had to pay for half of it.
Think I'm lying? Where the hell else could two -- not one, but two -- clearly conflicted Supreme Court justices who should have recused themselves have the fucking nerve to make a ruling? And then go party with the winner that same evening? Nope, nobody here but us chickens.
What's really pathetic is how easily people are accepting this chicanery. Oh well, at least with oil people running the country we can all fill our gas guzzlers more cheaply, which is all that matters.
We'll see what happens when all the votes are finally counted thoroughly and the presumptive winner turns out to be the loser. Nothing.
198. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 4:03:55 PM
.
Ronski,
Here's a Gene Lyons column for you:
Q. and A. Inside George W. Bush...
Dubya, as the Texas dauphin likes to be called, lost the popular vote by 539,897 votes. Both Kennedy and Nixon became president with smaller margins than Al Gore's. But thanks to an intellectually incoherent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush will soon occupy the White House. Meanwhile, it's also clear that separate recounts of the Florida ballots by the Miami Herald and a media consortium including the New York Times, Washington Post and others will ultimately show
that Gore also won Florida, and hence the Electoral College, and by all rights ought to be taking the oath of office come Jan. 20.
199. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 4:28:25 PM
IJ,
Thoughtful: I have little desire to pursue any discussion with you ...You, however, initiated this by addressing me despite my past request that you not do so anymore.
Huh? Are you two different people? Or did you misaddress post #48137 which begins, Thoughtful: One thing I forgot to mention ... As I told you before, if you think I'm going to sit silently by and accept everything you say as gospel like a good little woman, you've got another thing coming.
Is it not enough to you that you have previously voided the traditional definition of what constitutes a recession in terms of time, that you will also now measure a recession not by declining GDP but by housing starts, etc.?
I have not voided a "traditional definition of recession." I have said all along that the NBER looks at a wide variety of economic indicators including monthly ones like auto and housing to determine when a recession begins and ends. You however cling desperately to this notion of "2 consecutive quarters of real GDP decline." If there is someone else around here who is willing to explain that "2 consecutive quarters of real GDP decline" is only a rule of thumb, I wish he would speak up. Perhaps then IJ will accept it. He certainly seems unwilling to accept it from me or the NBER.
I will say it again...even the Fed saw sufficient weakness in the economy to ease interest rates a year before the invasion of kuwait. It was not the potential of an Iraqi invasion they were reacting to ... it was the potential of an economic slowdown. I have given you the data which demonstrate that the cyclically sensitive sectors of the economy were giving off distress signals before Kuwait was invaded & before oil prices shot up. Are you really suggesting that housing was weakening in 1988 in anticipation of a potential iraqi invasion and a subsequent run up in oil prices?
200. Thoughtful - 1/3/2001 4:28:59 PM
(cont.)
...to pooh-pooh the importance of energy costs in the US economy. Are you completely unfamiliar with what the oil embargo of 1973-74 did? With the Iranian Revolution?
Again, using your own chart, do you not see a difference between these two cases:
201. Ronski - 1/3/2001 5:49:23 PM
The idea that two justices should have recused themselves in this case is preposterous. On what grounds? The fact that one has a spouse who works somewhere in the bowels of the conservative movement? That one was appointed by the candidate's father? Ridiculous.
As for the recount, it is entirely possible that a respectable institution will devise a reasonable standard (something well short of trying to divine the intent of the voter through creases, indentations and the like) and come up with the conclusion that Gore had more votes than Bush, and equally possible that the count will not show that.
But given the standards in place at the time of the election, there is no credible evidence that anything was stolen.
In every election, there is incompetence among the people running it and a small measure of chicanery on the part of both major parties. To suggest in the face of a complete absence of evidence that there was some sort of malfeasance only on the part of the GOP is absurd.
The history books will get this one right: It was rare election in which the margin of error exceeded the margin of victory, but unlike the Tilden-Hayes election, nothing fraudulent of any great consequence occurred.
202. Raskolnikov - 1/3/2001 6:02:09 PM
Hayes-Tilden was well beyond the margin of error, as I recall. But I agree with you here.
203. Cellar Door - 1/3/2001 7:58:45 PM
204. CalGal - 1/3/2001 9:04:54 PM
Final Pre - election Polls Accurate
The final pre-election polls in the presidential race were more accurate than in any presidential elections except 1976 and 1960, a study released Wednesday found.
The year's final polls had an average error of just 1.1 percentage points on the estimates for George W. Bush and Al Gore, slightly higher for Ralph Nader.
205. concerned - 1/3/2001 9:27:06 PM
I hope Nader goes for the Federal matching funds in 2004.
206. Fielding - 1/3/2001 9:59:23 PM
Hey, Cartman! How about that Bush cabinet? Isn't it just like the Gore cabinet would have been? No difference at all! I bet you love those tree huggers he put into Interior and Energy.
207. Fielding - 1/3/2001 10:03:23 PM
Can anybody explain why Hillary is 97th in seniority? It would make more sense to me if she were tied with all of the newcomers.
208. concerned - 1/3/2001 10:07:31 PM
Maybe it's because she's insisting on being 'a little more' equal.
209. joezan - 1/3/2001 10:08:00 PM
Judith:
Since I didn't vote for Gore, I don't feel I need to justify my complaining...
This is about the 35th time you've mentioned this, and I don't blame you one bit for not wanting to be associated with the loser.
But before you left for the holidays, you said "Don't blame me - I voted Democrat".
Now, there are lots of ways around this -you might say, for instance, that the majority of candidates you voted for were demos, etc.
But your post was in response to something specifically regarding Bush.
Come on now - fess up...
210. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 10:15:53 PM
I've already stated that I did a write-in vote for Bill Bradley.
211. joezan - 1/3/2001 10:21:30 PM
...like I said - lots of ways around it.
Come on, Judith....I swear - I won't make fun of you.
You voted for Gore, didn't you?
212. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 10:27:20 PM
joezan:
I don't know what it is about you Conservatives but you have such a hard time believing anything someone other than your ilk says. I have no reason to lie to you. I supported Bradley in the Primaries and was very disappointed when he wasn't chosen to run for President. My vote in the election was for whom I wished to be President. That man was Bradley. There was a space on the ballot for a write-in vote and I wrote in Bradley.
Now, you can choose to think I'm a cowardly, lying weakling or you can be a man and take me at my word.
213. concerned - 1/3/2001 10:37:41 PM
I wish more Democrat voters had the independence to do what Judith at Home did here.
214. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 10:40:03 PM
Thanks...
215. labwabbit - 1/3/2001 10:42:28 PM
George Mitchell
is who I voted for.
No bones about it. I didn't think I had much conscience left, but it reared its dormant head for this play.
216. robertjayb - 1/3/2001 10:56:43 PM
.
Yes, Jim, it's personal...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Rep. James Traficant of Ohio broke party ranks on Wednesday and was effectively kicked out of the U.S. House of Representatives' Democratic Caucus.
On the opening day of the 107th Congress, Traficant, a Democrat, voted with the chamber's majority in giving Republican Dennis Hastert of Illinois a second, two-year term as House speaker.
Democratic leaders promptly said the party caucus would give Traficant no committee assignments in the new Congress and he would no longer be welcome to caucus meetings.
"If he wants a committee assignment, he is going to have to go the Republicans," said Laura Nichols, a spokesman for House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri.
217. concerned - 1/3/2001 11:03:11 PM
Re. 48178 -
Bet they wouldn't've done that if he was Senator Traficant.
218. JudithAtHome - 1/3/2001 11:05:52 PM
Is this the guy with the bad wig?
219. Greystoke - 1/3/2001 11:34:48 PM
Bio of James Traficant.
While sheriff Traficant was indicted and tried on charges of accepting bribes from organized crime to overlook their activities in the county. In his 1983 trial Traficant defended himself of the charges, telling the jury that he was actually running his own sting operation on the criminals at the time. He was acquitted.
In 1984 Traficant took on incumbent GOP Rep. Lyle Williams. The combative tone of that campaign has continued throughout Traficant's House career. He drew large crowds and enthusiastic support for his portrayal of corporate America, the banking industry and the federal government, particularly the IRS, as sinister enemies of ordinary Americans. He beat Williams, 53 percent to 46 percent.
Traficant is notorious for tirades from the House floor in which he denounces government waste and intrusion into the lives of its citizens. He often rails against international trade pacts such as NAFTA and GATT and against foreign aid, particularly to Israel.
220. Greystoke - 1/3/2001 11:37:07 PM
Traficant is a doofus. He would make a good Republican.
221. CalGal - 1/3/2001 11:38:47 PM
I just read a piece on that--was it in the New Yorker? I can't imagine the Republicans are all that thrilled to see him.
222. Greystoke - 1/3/2001 11:49:37 PM
More on the moron.
Following through on a months-long threat, Democratic Ohio Rep. James Traficant defected from his party and voted to re-elect Republican Dennis Hastert as House speaker.
Republicans gave a standing ovation Wednesday after Traficant cast the vote. Some Democrats stood and applauded, too, apparently glad the unpredictable congressman now is aligned with the GOP.
...
Traficant is a well-known free sprit on Capitol Hill. Sporting unruly hair and polyester suits, he often takes to the House floor for one-minute rants, which he usually ends by saying, ``Beam me up.''
During a floor speech last March, Traficant pledged to ``fight like a junkyard dog'' against a Justice Department corruption investigation. Federal authorities have not said whether Traficant is a target of the investigation in his hometown of Youngstown. The investigation has produced about 50 convictions, including a guilty plea from one of Traficant's longtime aides.
...
Despite the investigation, Traficant easily won election to a ninth term in November.
Traficant rarely attended Democratic caucus meetings over the years, and he distanced himself almost completely from his Democratic colleagues after a bitter primary battle last March. Traficant claimed Democratic Party leaders sided with a rival in that race, though party officials denied that.
Meanwhile, he was forging relationships with Republicans and even injected himself into a thorny partisan debate, crashing a meeting of Republicans last June to deliver his opinion that if GOP members killed a minimum wage bill they would be more likely to lose their majority in the upcoming election.
223. jexster - 1/3/2001 11:53:38 PM
Reporting from Ground Zero, Enemy Territory, Tom DeLay's hometown
"She is a member of a labor union at one point."--Announcing his nomination of Linda Chavez as secretary of labor, Austin, Texas, Jan. 2, 2000
And the view from here is the same for no matter where you find yourself, there you are and he's
Still A MORON!
224. jexster - 1/3/2001 11:55:43 PM
Trafficante isn't a Moron....
Just Mental
225. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:21:20 AM
Ronski Message # 48163:
The idea that two justices should have recused themselves in this case is preposterous. On what grounds? The fact that one has a spouse who works somewhere in the bowels of the conservative movement? That one was appointed by the candidate's father? Ridiculous.
It's not preposterous at all. Scalia's son works for the firm that represented Bush. Thomas' wife works for an organization that was vetting Bush cabinet prospects at that very moment (and undoubtedly still is). Sounds like conflicts of interest to me. And yes, I'd say the same damned thing were it Souter's son working for Gore's firm or whatever.
Anecdotal case in point: Last summer, a friend of mine got sued in small claims court for $3000 in damages. As it happens, the local judge is a friend of his. So, just to err on the side of caution, the judge recused himself from hearing the case. Keep in mind, this was a dispute over $3K, in a podunk county in Northern CA. Lot smaller than, say, a presidential election.
Now tell me again that it's cool that Scalia rules on a case in which one of his sons is closely affiliated with one of the petitioners. Bullshit.
As for Thomas' wife working "somewhere in the bowels of the conservative movement", I believe that technically, the Heritage Foundation is actually either the alimentary canal or the sphincter muscle of the conservative bowel movement. But I may be wrong -- past a certain point, it's all shit to me. Still, I don't just ignore the fact that the guy's wife was involved in scouting for Bush cabinet posts. If you do, okey fine.
226. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:24:00 AM
As for the recount, it is entirely possible that a respectable institution will devise a reasonable standard (something well short of trying to divine the intent of the voter through creases, indentations and the like) and come up with the conclusion that Gore had more votes than Bush, and equally possible that the count will not show that.
True. Maybe some sort of "respectable institution" should have devised a "reasonable standard" some time ago. Just a thought.
Then again, even the GOP couldn't decide on which standard they wanted -- just one that favored them. They swore by the machine counts -- except in Nassau County. Hand counts were no good -- except in New Mexico and Texas. Dimpled chads no good -- again except in Texas.
The point is, there's an awful lot of high-handedness and sanctimony about the purity of all things electoral, and the fact is that nobody's hands are totally clean.
But given the standards in place at the time of the election, there is no credible evidence that anything was stolen.
No? Machine recounts were overturned in Nassau, hand recounts were stopped elsewhere. I mean, shit, if I didn't know better, I'd say that someone didn't want the full story to come out, and they used the legal muscle at their disposal. That doesn't make it right, not by a long shot.
227. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:25:36 AM
In every election, there is incompetence among the people running it and a small measure of chicanery on the part of both major parties. To suggest in the face of a complete absence of evidence that there was some sort of malfeasance only on the part of the GOP is absurd.
Fine. Substitute "attrition and opportunity" for "malfeasance" then. Add a little bias and judicial fiat. Simmer until tepid. Serves almost half the population.
The history books will get this one right: It was rare election in which the margin of error exceeded the margin of victory, but unlike the Tilden-Hayes election, nothing fraudulent of any great consequence occurred.
If you think the loser bulling his way to victory with muscle and gall (and better lawyers) is "no great consequence", then I guess you're right.
228. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 1:27:09 AM
Fielding Message # 48168:
Hey, Cartman! How about that Bush cabinet? Isn't it just like the Gore cabinet would have been? No difference at all! I bet you love those tree huggers he put into Interior and Energy.
Oh, come on, Fielding. Like Al, they're fighting for us. Or something.
Seriously, conserve your energy. Once again, Nader was a symptom, not the problem. Ask yourself how many people defected to Bush, as opposed to Nader. Ask yourself why that is. Then ask yourself which is the worse of the two, and you will be on the right track. For a change.
Good luck, Grasshopper.
229. joezan - 1/4/2001 7:15:39 AM
Now, you can choose to think I'm a cowardly, lying weakling or you can be a man and take me at my word.
Lighten up, Judith. I know you said you wrote someone in (although I'd thought it was Nader).
I'm just teasing you because you've been, by virtue of your Bush attacks, the biggest Gore supporter here...besides jexster.
230. jexster - 1/4/2001 8:34:28 AM
Join People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL and others to STOP JOHN ASHCROFT!
Send the Moron a message.
Human Rights Campaign (1999) Rating: 0%
Ending Workplace Discrimination: Ashcroft is not a cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and voted against the measure on the Senate floor in 1996.
Combating Hate Crimes: Ashcroft does not support Hate Crimes Prevention Act, never cosponsored the measure, and voted against it on the Senate floor in June, 2000.
Fighting HIV/AIDS: Ashcroft has not cosponsored the Ryan White CARE Act despite the bill having 51 cosponsors.
Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose: Ashcroft has scored 0% from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood in 1999.
While 65 senators have adopted a non-discrimination policy for their office indicating that sexual orientation is not a factor in employment decisions, Senator Ashcroft has not.
He supported in 1999 a conference report that would prohibit organizations in San Francisco and other cities from receiving federal funds if they conduct needle exchange programs, and prohibit The City from implementing its domestic partner program for City employees.
Contact Your Senator Today!
Senators' Websites Here
231. jexster - 1/4/2001 8:35:58 AM
Why thank you JoeZ!
I cannot abide that Mental Defective bastard-president.
{in case anyone missed it}
232. jexster - 1/4/2001 8:47:37 AM
Another Bush Wingnut Worthy of Obloquy
"When one of George W. Bush's "Victory 2000" buses pulled into Tucson five days before Election Day, more than 100 demonstrators picketed the campaign stop. They weren't protesting Bush. They were after Linda Chavez, the firebrand opponent of affirmative action, who was appearing on his behalf."
Chavez, A Bush Bitch
233. jexster - 1/4/2001 9:05:29 AM
Linda Chavez's 1987-88 stint heading an organization that promoted English as the official language was dropped from her biography released by President-elect[sic] Bush.
234. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 9:22:24 AM
joezan:
I'm just teasing you because you've been, by virtue of your Bush attacks, the biggest Gore supporter here...besides jexster.
I guess if I dislike Brussels Sprouts, I'm automatically supporting cabbage, right?
235. iiibbb - 1/4/2001 10:01:07 AM
Message # 226
"Then again, even the GOP couldn't decide on which standard they wanted -- just one that favored them. They swore by the machine counts -- except in Nassau County. Hand counts were no good -- except in New Mexico and Texas. Dimpled chads no good -- again except in Texas"
Did anyone see that article the LA times did breaking down each county in the US and their method of counting? The vast preponderance of counties in Texas use op-scans or paper ballots. In Florida about half use op-scans and the other half punch cards. In both states there was a sprinkling of other methods.
So it seems reasonable to me to promote handcounting of op-scans or paper ballots because I can easily visualize how to discern "true intent". But it still seems to me there are a lot of problems hand-counting punch cards. I don't think a dimpled chad should count anywhere Fl or otherwise. If Texas, or some other state, has a law/policy that says count dimples I say get rid of that policy or law rather than lower the whole standard.
236. greystoke - 1/4/2001 11:45:09 AM
"the Heritage Foundation is actually either the alimentary canal or the sphincter muscle of the conservative bowel movement. "
That is a wonderfully fitting and evocative metaphor you came up with there, Cartman.
Did you have to pay Ronski to set you up with the "deep in the bowels" line?
237. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:49:17 AM
Does anyone doubt that if statistical sampling favored the Republicans and hurt the Dems, each would be arguing the opposite side? No. Nuff said, really.
I doubt your assertion, quite strongly. Statistical sampling, wrongly applied, can allow abuse that may favor either party, depending on who is setting the parameters. Republicans don't want to open that unconstitutional can of worms for the obvious reason of its illegality as well as the abuses that sampling techniques open the door to.
238. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:52:34 AM
Gore was just weak at covering his math work; I don't think he is any more calculating than Powell or other political sorts.
Not more calculating? Then perhaps he is just stupid mean, as evidenced by his knife work on Bill Bradley and his constant low road campaigning and lies such as implying Republicans were racists and that Bush was a 'pirate'. Bush always maintained a more elevated tone than Pinocchio Bore during the campaign.
239. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:59:04 AM
No? Machine recounts were overturned in Nassau, hand recounts were stopped elsewhere. I mean, shit, if I didn't know better, I'd say that someone didn't want the full story to come out, and they used the legal muscle at their disposal.
Puhleeze! Why couldn't they have gotten it right at the first recount, for chrissakes. Are the Demorats really that incompetent that we have to give them five or six strikes before they're called out? Talk about using the spoiled self-centered brat argument for extra chances - that exactly fits the excerpt above.....
240. Ronski - 1/4/2001 12:01:49 PM
greystoke,
Let me answer your question.
I required no remuneration as I enjoy playing the straight man from time to time, so to speak. (It goes back to my old theater training.)
241. rubberducky - 1/4/2001 12:11:47 PM
it's fun to play 'What If'... 
242. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 12:12:24 PM
concerned:
Bush always maintained a more elevated tone than Pinocchio Bore during the campaign.
I think Bush maintained a more bored tone during the campaign. Neither one was elevated. And face it, any tone that Bush maintained was set there by Rove so it's just amusing to claim Bush had much to do with it, elevated or no.
243. greystoke - 1/4/2001 12:14:05 PM
Gore just won't let it go.
A blaze on a motor boat owned by President-elect George W. Bush and his choice for commerce secretary resulted from arson, fire investigators say.
The state fire marshal's office said Wednesday that last month's blaze at Yacht Harbor Marina, previously considered an accident, was set on board the 22-foot HarrisKayot deck boat.
...
The 300-horsepower boat, which can accommodate up to 14 people, sells for $30,000 to $40,000, according to dealers.
"The president-elect and Mr. Evans are anxious to learn of the findings of the investigation," said Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett.
Bartlett said that Evans, who had registered the boat, and Bush, a water enthusiast, shared an insurance policy on the craft.
"Both families used the boat," said Bartlett.
Hanna said the boat's burnt remains are in the custody of State Farm Insurance.
"It was charred, ruined and destroyed," he said.
244. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 12:16:05 PM
I hope Bush gets better treatment from State Farm than most of their customers do...
245. greystoke - 1/4/2001 12:16:43 PM
Ronski,
I'm glad to hear that it was spontaneous.
I'm still chuckling about it.
246. greystoke - 1/4/2001 12:18:51 PM
rubberducky
I hope someone has e-mailed that one to Scalia himself.
247. concerned - 1/4/2001 12:59:23 PM
Where Democrat Partisans can feel at home
248. Cellar Door - 1/4/2001 1:23:24 PM
Stanley Crouch suddenly remembers that he's black!
249. concerned - 1/4/2001 1:28:20 PM
Cllrdr -
Tell you what, the Democrats should lose Gephardt - who gave speeches to racist organizations and Robert Byrd - former KKK member. Then maybe Bush should consider 'cutting loose' Ashcroft?
Sounds like a plan to me. Fair's fair.
250. Electric Slide - 1/4/2001 3:59:46 PM
I just checked a mailbox on my son's computer and found one from Katherine Harris that was sent to me in December. Classy lady.
I had used his computer when I wrote her an e-mail in November.
Dear J... T........:
Thank you for your encouragement and support. I am deeply humbled by the compassionate communications we have received.
Your kind words and generous advice have been an inspiration to the employees of the Florida Department of State and to me. We have worked diligently to execute our responsibilities for the citizens of our state with independence, deliberation and integrity.
It is my sincerest hope that this great nation will unite under the rule of law. Thank you again for your support and may God bless America.
Your truly,
Katherine Harris
Secretary of State
The Capitol
Tallahasse, Florida 32399-0250
251. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 4:02:55 PM
Oh please, I just ate my lunch.
252. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 4:03:35 PM
Maybe she'll send you some Cuban cigars.
253. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:30:51 PM
Greystoke Message # 236:
Thanks. I guess I owe Ronski a solid; that was such a choice set-up, I had to triple-check it because it just seemed too damned easy.
I would have added some gratuitous enema imagery as well, but it is part of my resolve in the [cheesy dramatic pause] New Millennium to be a kinder, gentler, cleaner Cartman.
(And if you believe that, I have some lovely oceanfront property in New Mexico you might be interested in.)
Message # 243:
So W and his Commerce appointee co-own a yacht? Isn't that just super-special? The family that water-skis together, something something something.
Hanna said whoever set the watercraft ablaze knew that it belonged to the president-elect.
Well yeah, the name of the boat --Poppy's L'il Moron -- was probably a dead giveaway.
In honor of Parsdent Gump, I'll be changing the name on my yacht from "Seafood" to "He Fucking Won?!?"
254. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:31:49 PM
Concerned Message # 239:
Puhleeze! Why couldn't they have gotten it right at the first recount, for chrissakes.
I actually agree with you there. Recall though, the first recount was mandatory, and Florida is such a clusterfuck they don't have any real statewide standards for handling chads and such.
But you just keep on keepin' on there, Champ. Keep polishing them knobs and you might eventually get to sit at the big boys' table in Freeperland.
In the real world, however, when GOP party members whine and moan constantly about hand counts and chads in one state, while endorsing those things in other states, that is what rational people recognize as situational ethics. No doubt gleaned from those evil, evil Demorats.
You should probably pull your kids out of public school too -- no doubt some atheist Demorat union teacher is turning Concerned, Jr. into a flaming homo, even as we speak.
255. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 4:38:31 PM
Eric:
Hanna said whoever set the watercraft ablaze knew that it belonged to the president-elect.
Well yeah, the name of the boat --Poppy's L'il Moron -- was probably a dead giveaway.
I laughed so hard at this I now have a migraine.
256. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:44:33 PM
I aim to please, Juditha.
257. EricCartman - 1/4/2001 4:46:40 PM
'Course, for all I know, the boat may share the same inspired moniker as Gump's yappy ranch mutt -- Spot. Without Laura's intervention, the twins might have shared in that glory as well.
258. joezan - 1/4/2001 6:55:16 PM
Cartman:
If a boat valued at between $30,000 - $40,000 is a yacht, then I'm living in a pretty spiffy neighborhood.
259. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 7:14:24 PM
Well, as Hemingway said, the rich are different from you and me...maybe the boat was only "valued" at that amount. That doesn't mean it cost that amount or would even bring that little in a sale.
260. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 7:15:52 PM
Besides, I'm amazed it wasn't a bass boat...which are pretty pricey to those who are serious recreators, as I'm sure GW is.
261. joezan - 1/4/2001 7:24:26 PM
Judith:
It was a friggin' deck boat - 22 ft.
262. joezan - 1/4/2001 7:46:26 PM
WoooooOOOwwwwWWWeeeeeee!
Check out Dubya's yacht! I can just imagine babes in bikinis lounging around all over this monster, can't you? 
263. joezan - 1/4/2001 8:08:30 PM
Oh, wait...
I'm sorry.
It was the yot in Kayot that fooled you.
Common mistake, I'm sure.
264. Fielding - 1/4/2001 9:56:44 PM
EC:
Saying that Gore alienated voters doesn't take Nader and his Sancho's off the hook for giving us Ashcroft. You can talk about Gore's shitty campaign until you are blue in the face, but the fact will remain that if not for Nader, Gore would have won Florida and the election.
265. JJBiener - 1/4/2001 10:27:35 PM
Fielding - the fact will remain that if not for Nader, Gore would have won Florida and the election.
And if not for Perot, Bush would have won over Clinton. You play what-ifs forever.
266. Fielding - 1/4/2001 10:47:59 PM
Biener:
You said this a month ago. You were wrong then. Why repeat it?
The polling data does not show all of the Perot supporters favoring Bush over Clinton. The polls show over 95% of Nader supporters favoring Gore over Bush.
In any case, even if you were right (which you never are), the argument with EC only relates to Nader, so stop obfuscating.
267. JudithAtHome - 1/4/2001 11:03:12 PM
Joezan:
I wasn't claiming the doofus had a big boat; as a former boat owner myself, I know it's not the size of the boat that makes the man. :-)
268. JJBiener - 1/4/2001 11:18:07 PM
Fielding - You said this a month ago.
You must be thinking of someone else.
The polling data does not show all of the Perot supporters favoring Bush over Clinton.
No, the polls showed them supporting Bush over Clinton by 2 to 1. More than enough to overcome Clinton's 5.6 point lead. Of course you could resort to Leinsdorf's analysis to show Clinton would still win, but then that would completely discredit your position.
269. jexster - 1/4/2001 11:22:14 PM
"The person who runs FEMA is someone who must have the trust of the president. Because the person who runs FEMA is the first voice, often times, of someone who's life has been turned upside down hears from."—Austin, Texas, Jan. 4, 2000
270. robertjayb - 1/4/2001 11:23:10 PM
.
Linda Chavez seems an apt candidate for borking.
Chavez's Writings Arming Critics...
-Chavez argued against the ``glass ceiling'' blocking women from
advancing at work, saying women make different job choices from
men, often putting their families first.
-Wrote that ``discriminating against employees who won't work
overtime or who will put in fewer hours per week in a salaried
position isn't irrational, it may be good business.''
-Ridiculed the Americans With Disabilities Act as ``special
treatment in the name of accommodating the disabled.''
-Called raising the minimum wage ``bad policy'' and suggested
that ``the folks at the Clinton Labor Department'' who disagree
think that wage policy should be based on Marxism.
-Suggested the increase in sexual harassment lawsuits is making
the United States ``a nation of crybabies.'' She added: ``With men
so often the targets of such witch hunts, it's no surprise that a
few strike back.'' (Associated Press)
271. JJBiener - 1/4/2001 11:32:01 PM
RJB - What exactly is your problem with those statements?
272. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:55:17 PM
273. concerned - 1/4/2001 11:58:29 PM
And please, Lefties, don't conflate the DoJ and Commerce on me.
274. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 12:07:38 AM
In 16 days George Walker Bush will restore honor to the White House, by making the Presidency of the United States an honorary postion.
275. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 12:08:57 AM
And now the death watch can begin; let's see who flys when the next world leader dies.
276. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 12:36:33 AM
Joezan Message # 258:
If a boat valued at between $30,000 - $40,000 is a yacht, then I'm living in a pretty spiffy neighborhood.
Okay, my bad. Doesn't matter to me either way; it wasn't a classist swipe, so much as a brief riff on the chumminess of all the players. Lord knows when I get elected, I want to be able to drag all my fishin' buddies with me to DC.
Perhaps W also has a time-share with the Rumsfelds in Boca. Who's to say? Nonetheless, I shall retreat forthwith and say 40 Hail Lauras and 10 Our Spots as penance for my snarkiness.
So let it be mumbled; so let it be dumb.
277. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 12:39:56 AM
Fielding Message # 264:
You can talk about Gore's shitty campaign until you are blue in the face, but the fact will remain that if not for Nader, Gore would have won Florida and the election.
Yeah. So? If not for Bush, Gore would have won Florida and the election. If not for a partisan court making weird decisions, Gore would have won. If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. What's your fucking point?
Look, Fielding, you usually seem to be a fairly intelligent guy, so maybe this is just a huge brain fart on your part, but what exactly makes you single out Nader for all this?
Is it Nader's fault that eleven states defected to Bush? Just carrying AR and TN would have made FL's outcome irrelevant. Is it Nader's fault that so many people voted for a $100 million jackass? Is it Nader's fault that said jackass has to throw the Falwell Reich wing a bone every time the fat fuck clears his throat?
No, no, and no. The margin in FL was what, 150? About 100 really, if we count the 52 that got tossed in Nassau County. You gonna sit there and tell me 100 people in FL didn't vote Libertarian, or Peace & Freedom, or Socialist or whatever? Fuck, I bet more than 100 people wrote in "Seymour Cox" or "Harry Butts". But nooooo -- it's all Big Bad Ralph's fault.
278. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 12:41:12 AM
This is so fucking dumb, I'm amazed you even have the balls to keep running this rag up the flagpole. Fine then -- it's all Ralph Nader's fault, that Gore lost eleven states, that he fumbled a cakewalk to a moron who can't even say "subliminal", that senile codgers in Boca don't pay attention to what the fuck they're doing, that ChoicePoint "mistakenly" categorized 8,000 registered voters as felons, thereby disenfranchising them.
Yep. All Ralph's fault. I understand he's also the culprit responsible for the heartbreak of psoriasis, as well as the pain and embarrassing swelling of hemorrhoid flare-ups. Now the truth can finally be told.
In all seriousness, Fielding, I'll tell you something straight up -- it's this sort of mindless, babbling, selective myopia, crying about Nader costing Gore the election (as if it were his by divine right) that is your (meaning Dems in general) real problem. Once again, your biggest problem is not the 90,000 in FL who defected to Nader, but the 11 states that defected to Bush.
279. Stumbo - 1/5/2001 1:02:59 AM
Fielding:
An answer to your why-is-Hillary-ranked-97th question appeared in Slate's "Explainer" column, the other day.
280. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 1:05:09 AM
Lest I come off as being, well, a bit testy on the subject of Nader, let me clear a little something up here.
Nader, bless his pointy little head, was not a very good candidate. A couple of parts of this were inherent --for one, he has all the charm and personality of a shit sandwich, and for another, his very platform obviated his ability to generate the funds required to run a truly competitive campaign. And God knows, to have any hope at all of Getting Your Message Across to people who are simply too gosh-darned busy to actually inform themselves, charisma and money are the left and right hands of any successful pol.
Now, we all knew this going in. But here's the dirty little secret about the Nader voters -- everyone mistakenly believes we're hidebound cynics. We're not. Hell, if we were cynics, we would've voted for Gush or Bore, both of whom ran the most mindlessly cynical and platitudinous campaigns. Nonsense catchphrases and buzzwords and alliterative doodads, designed to catch the slowest common denominator like some cheap semantic flypaper.
One guy says, "Look ev-ery-body! I am kissing my wife very forcefully! I may even be using some tongue! You can bet I won't be getting blowjobs from husky interns!". The other guy campaigns on the strategy that if he sticks to the script and doesn't sound too stupid, people will vote for him and his oil cronies on the basis that he didn't seem quite as stupid as the know-it-alls in the media kept saying.
Talk about your lowered expectations. Really, why even bother going through the motions?
281. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 1:06:04 AM
No, we voted for Nader because for all his faults, he means what he says. He wants to push the balance of power back towards the citizens a bit. And he means it. You can say otherwise, but if you've ever had a loved one whose life was saved in a car accident by a seat belt, you oughta send the guy a fucking thank-you card.
Anyway, we're tired of people like Gush and Bore. Most of us wouldn't have voted for either of them anyway. And we just thought that for once, we'd pretend that our vote was a mode of expressing our political opinion. We just didn't think about the notion that Al Gore was entitled to our votes.
Do you see? My impatience with the Nader haters is not that they don't like who I like, it's that they're so fucking willing to put up with bullshit, and pretend that they're really working for change on an incremental basis. Well, great -- but it's like standing in front of a funhouse mirror with your pants down, and telling yourself that your dick really is two feet long.
Shame on us Naderites. Back in line, bad little sheep.
282. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 1:11:00 AM
Cartman - I see you're in rare form tonight.
283. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 1:14:21 AM
Biener:
Yeah. I ate my Wheaties today, and have been working my guitar chops back to snuff lately, which always gets me in an aggressive mood.
284. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 1:18:12 AM
Cartman - I have been learning how to use my new computer/recording equipment, so I haven't been practicing as much as I should. The band has two shows in January so I won't get too rusty.
285. Stumbo - 1/5/2001 1:25:50 AM
EC:
"... if you've ever had a loved one whose life was saved in a car accident by a seat belt, you oughta send [Nader] a fucking thank-you card."
Regardless of the worthiness of that claim (as in, surely a very cheap device that greatly increases one's life-and-limb safety would've become popular in any case, esp. in a highly-competitive market) -- this isn't much of a reason to vote for someone for president.
And when he says "towards the citizens," he really means "towards the State." With him, preferably, as Head of State.
No, thanks.
286. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 2:07:50 AM
Biener:
I know what you mean, and it's been a test of wills for me anymore to practice on a regular basis. Mainly because of time constraints. Still, even the most difficult stuff comes back very quickly with regular workouts, much to my surprise.
I used to be very heavily into practicing, sometimes running scales and the like for 10-12 hours a day, but of course real life tends to take a lot of that time away. Ten hours a week is a pretty full week these days.
287. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 2:13:52 AM
Stumbo:
Regardless of the worthiness of that claim (as in, surely a very cheap device that greatly increases one's life-and-limb safety would've become popular in any case, esp. in a highly-competitive market) -- this isn't much of a reason to vote for someone for president.
You're incorrectly dismissing the advent of seat belts. They had been around for years -- recall that Preston Tucker put them in the few dozen cars he managed to crank out in the '40s -- but automakers deliberately refused to put them in their cars. This is not even in dispute -- the Big Three felt that seat belts implied that the cars were unsafe.
And when he says "towards the citizens," he really means "towards the State." With him, preferably, as Head of State.
Nonsense. One could just as glibly posit that the Bush clan acts as if they feel that they are to the manor born -- bred to lead us lesser men, as it were. Is that a true fact? I don't know, and neither do you.
Nader, while an idealist, is undoubtedly an autocrat as well. Anyone who thinks he has a better way of doing things is, to some extent. That does not make him a despot. If anything -- and I can say this having listened to him first-hand and met him -- he's more your basic garden-variety grass-roots populist. He is genuinely trying to get individuals motivated enough to do something, anything, for their community, state, whatever.
288. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 2:14:56 AM
Writing letters, organizing, just getting involved at some level. Instead of wearing in that ass-groove in the couch watching When Regis Philbin Attacks, one could be making an effort to improve his lot in life, and possibly that of his neighbors, as an ancillary benefit. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, I realize that Gump also "trusts people". (Except, of course, when it comes to Poppy's many lucrative gov't and business connections. Then it's okey-doke to take the helping hand; no need for the pretense of bootstrapping. The proles, however, are duly encouraged to just keep on keepin' on.)
Nader's desired use of state power is generally in the area of regulation. Hidebound libertarians are certainly welcome to lament the advent of such anti-competitive measures as the minimum wage and the 40-hour work week, but a brief perusal of, say, Lincoln Steffens or Upton Sinclair between re-readings of Atlas Shrugged may help set the record straight.
289. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 2:27:06 AM
While we're on the subject of state regulation vs. the magic of the free market, I'd like to reiterate for all you non-Californios what a smash-up job our friendly deregulated cocksuckers at PG&E are doing.
Nader, of course, is the only figure of any consequence even bothering to advocate for ratepayers, who are expected to bail PG&E out of its $5 billion-and-climbing shortfall. Our weasel-ass governor broke out the kneepads long ago, hoping to placate his corporate benefactors.
Anyway, this morning PG&E finally made good on its threat of rolling blackouts, as my power was out for 3 hours this morning. Perfectly clear, calm weather, no one had hit a power pole or anything.
Now, I have an average-sized home, maybe 1500 sq. ft. or so, which I heat with a wood stove. My wife and I each take 1 shower a day, wash the cars at the car wash, water the lawn sporadically during the summer, turn lights and such off when not in use, and have replaced most of the appliances with energy saver-rated units.
My average bill runs about $140 per month. I am not making this up.
So you can imagine how my faith in the magic of the free market gets regularly tested. I voted against deregulation because I knew it was going to be a snafu, and I knew those vultures would come up with some bullshit excuse to fuck me even harder every month. Sure enough, here they come. Like I'm not paying too fucking much already.
Frankly, I hope PG&E has to file bankruptcy, and the state picks it up for pennies on the dollar. The two most efficient power companies in CA, LA's ConEd and Sacto's SMUD, are gov't operated.
290. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 5:25:10 AM
Too bad California didn't look to Nebraska's experience regarding power distribution and public ownership. We have no natural advantages in the power business compared to other states save for a slight transportation savings of low sulfur coal from Wyoming and traditionally have had very low electrical costs and good service, largely thanks to statewide public power companies. This despite two nuclear power plants with the headaches associated with them for a small population base. Private power rates in neighboring states have traditionally been higher.
291. jexster - 1/5/2001 7:35:37 AM
Nader means what he says?
Bullshit.
The man is a hopeless egoist. He gets an erection from pissing people off. The more attention he gets from being an asshole, the harder he gets. It doesn't matter what he believes just so it pisses people off, gets him attention and gets him hard.
That's Nader in a nutshell.
Now the fruit of Nader is the bastard president elect. The guy who just had a closed door economic summit with corporate America; the guy who appointed Chavez, Norton, Ashcroft and the atavistic affirmative action foreign policy team to teach him the difference between Greeks and Grecians....
Nader means what he says?
Back on the turnip truck Eric
292. jexster - 1/5/2001 8:06:26 AM
width=350>
Don't Worry Naderites, Help Is On the Way!!!!
293. jexster - 1/5/2001 8:15:38 AM
Jonesy..your state's experience is not unique to Nebraska....The Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power is providing excellent service at reasonable rates...
Its ironic, thoug, that CA lefties are now holding LADPW forth as a model for the future after having excoriated the Agency Mullholland Built as Killer of Mono Lake, Diverter of Rivers, politically-unaccountable despoilers of the environment etc etc for the past 50 years
But that's another tale entirely...or is it?
294. glendajean - 1/5/2001 9:42:52 AM
Slate's Explainer on why Hillary Clinton is ranked 97th in the Senate.
(rankings of new members are determined in order first by former House members, then former governors, then, for Democrats, state population, vaulting NY's junior Senator over the Widow Carnahan and Minnesota Mark Dayton. At this point, non former House members or governors Republicans draw lots).
295. Fielding - 1/5/2001 11:03:04 AM
Thank you, glendajean. :)
296. Fielding - 1/5/2001 11:08:39 AM
EC:
I didn't say that it is "all" Nader's fault. I am merely pointing out that while Bush voters and Gore voters were voting in their self interest, Nader voters were voting against their self interest. It is all well and good to sacrifice one's self interest for a principal; I'm just asking you to be a man and admit what the cost was.
Nader was always only interested in it for his own vanity and ego, and now you are paying the price in Ashcroft and Norton. Was it worth it?
297. Fielding - 1/5/2001 11:10:20 AM
EC:
Nader kept saying that Gore and Bush were Tweedledee and Tweedledum. After looking at Bush's cabinet, can he still make that claim with a straight face?
298. Wombat - 1/5/2001 11:23:39 AM
Claiming that Bush and Gore are two sides of the same coin strikes me as incredibly cynical.
299. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 12:43:30 PM
I am scooping Rosetta and saving everyone the trouble of going to that slime pit, The Drudge Report:
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: INDEPENDENT COUNSEL SETS DATE FOR CLINTON INDICTMENT DECISION
President Clinton's final days in office promise to be his most anxious days as Independent Counsel Robert Ray orders his divided staff to settle the question whether Clinton should be indicted in events surrounding the Lewinsky grand jury investigation.
First to report the affair with the intern. First to announce the investigation. First to report the "garment with dried semen". First to report the cigar.
Now the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal that Independent Counsel Robert Ray has determined: Issues surrounding a Clinton indictment must be resolved no later than February 15.
According to sources directly involved in the decision process, a timetable has been set and Ray is preparing to publicly announce whether he will prosecute Clinton within weeks, if not days, of the president leaving office.
Senior staff at the Office of the Independent Counsel have drawn up extensive arguments for and against a Clinton indictment, it has been learned.
Ray impaneled a new grand jury last July to help decide whether the president should be indicted on charges he committed perjury or obstructed justice.
"If they had asked if he committed perjury, I would say yes," the forewoman of the original Lewinsky grand jury told stunned reporters after being dismissed in 1999. Freda Alexander revealed that she would have voted to indict Clinton for perjury if prosecutors had asked her to.
In the past, Ray has suggested that he would bring charges against Clinton only if " there's a substantial federal interest in bringing a case."
Developing Hard...
I've no doubt Drudge has something developing hard......
300. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 12:52:28 PM
And this from that paragon of style (snort!) Peggy Noonan:
And so it begins. And appropriately enough with what appears to be another of Mrs. Clinton's transformations. She appears to be in the middle of another metamorphosis. The last was of her outward appearance--there is almost no recognizing the Hillary of 1997 in the Hillary of the campaign trail three years later.
What is so wrong about a woman changing her hairdo and overall appearance over a 4 year period? Where is it written that a woman has to look the same year after year? It might not hurt Ms Noonan to spiff up her dated look a bit. We can't all be Barbara Bush....
301. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 12:57:48 PM
Nader's followers have fallen for much more bullshit than followers of either major political party.
But my primary resentment around Nader is that he accomplished nothing except the election of Bush over Gore, despite his followers leftie leanings.
Establishment of Greens as a major party? No.
Forcing the presidential campaign to discuss his pet issues (Perot's excuse)? No.
Throwing the election to a President who appoints a follower of James Watt as head of Interior? Yessiree, Bob, he sure accomplished that.
Call me crazy, but someone who purports to care about the environment and liberal causes embarks on a selfish course of action which leads to things be worse off for his alleged constituency, knowing in advance that there was only a remote chance of any social benefit coming from his candidacy, I'll be first in line to take him to task for it.
302. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 12:58:52 PM
Fielding - Nader was always only interested in it for his own vanity and ego, and now you are paying the price in Ashcroft and Norton. Was it worth it?
It was worth it for me. I'm thrilled.
303. Wombat - 1/5/2001 1:04:45 PM
Naderite reasoning (it's got to get worse before it gets better) smacks dangerously of European left-wing terrorist thinking: If our actions provoke a government crackdown or military coup, the masses will rally to our side against the reactionaries..., etc. It is equally fallacious, and ignores all the gains that have been made in cleaning up the environment over the last two decades, some of which may now be jeopardized as a result of the election.
304. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 1:07:29 PM
JJ:
It was worth it for me. I'm thrilled.
I hope you can still say that when we are all choking to death and can't see across the street...
305. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:09:20 PM
Judith:
Noonan was not talking about Hillary's hairdos. She was talking about Hillary's rather obvious cosmetic surgery (eye perks, fat taken from cheeks and under neck) which the Liberal Media considers verboten to discuss.
Of course, it's open season on Linda Tripp. But when the Queen gets a little plastic make-over-- shhhhhh.
306. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:10:43 PM
Tipper also had a bit of work. But hush-hush on that, too.
I don't know why both women didn't get more liposuction done. Hillary's truck-sized dumper and fat piano legs surely need some attention.
307. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 1:15:52 PM
What does interest me is that Cartman seems to think that Nader's relative political honesty (I think his ideas are bullshit, but that he comes by them honestly - sort of like Reagan and supply side) is a prima facia reason to vote for him over Bush and Gore. He doesn't seem to think that many of us simply don't care all that much, preferring slightly dishonest political centrists to honest wingnut cranks.
308. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:16:58 PM
On Cartman's blatherings:
A "Conflict of interest" is present when a judge, or a close relation, has a direct finanical or similar interest in the outcome of the case. Scalia's son had no interest in the outcome of Bush v. Gore, because Scalia's son wasn't a partner in the firm, and furthermore, even if he had been a partner, he still wouldn't have a direct interest in the outcome, because he isn't paid on contingency. He gets paid, win or lose.
Ditto Thomas' wife. That's even sillier.
Ethics experts were quizzed about this, and every one I read about said: No conflict.
Cartman wants to transform the fairly strict "conflict of interest" guidelines into a much looser set of rules-- when it serves his interests.
He wants to make it a "conflict of interest" when a judge has, arguably, a mere "Rooting Interest" in one side or another. Not an actual interest, but just a fuzzy "Jeeze, I'd sort of like to see a lawyer who works for the same firm as my son (although in a different practice area entirely) win this case." That's about as indirect and speculative and fuzzy an "interest" as you can get.
There's a good reason conflict of interest guidelines are fairly bright-line and limited: Because the legal, political, advocacy, and judicial communities of any city will tend to be pretty incestuous. You can't have judges recusing themselves every time a sister-in-law is a partner in a firm handling a case.
309. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 1:23:02 PM
Instead, I think Naderites represent one of the curious things I dislike about the left - the preference for futile and meaningless symbolic gestures over real accomplishments. Eric - have you read about Clinton sequestering 1/3 of national forests from most commercial activity? That is a significant environmental accomplishment, and one that Bush might try to overturn.
But if that happens, you can console yourself with the knowledge that at least you didn't demean yourself to vote for a man who would tactically decide to kiss his wife in a way to attract votes.
310. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:24:35 PM
Objections to Nader's campaign based on the fact that all he did was elect Bush are part and parcel of the "instant gratification" ethos. Every new political party must start somewhere. The Green Party has started somewhere, with a tremendous impact. The Green Party under Nader's direction changed an election. The Democrats must now either incorporate some of the Green agenda in a manner palatable to the voting population in 2004, or respond with anger and resentment, hereby punishing Nader, and perhaps suffer the same consequences.
The Green Party under Nader was making a statement for political entree into the policy agenda of a major party. The Democrats ignore and deride that bid at their own peril. If they incorporate more liberal positions, they may learn to sell those positions, and the defeat of Mr. Gore will have been a necessary casualty in a broader effort for the future.
Had Nader not exercised his muscle, the Democrats would have had no incentive to re-think corporatist, conservative Clintonism.
It as if some people object because Nader did not win.
311. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:24:44 PM
And it should be noted that Breyer and Gore are friends, and that Gore was Breyer's biggest advocate during the vetting for Breyer's slot on the Court. Gore did much to get his pal the job.
Is that a conflict of interest?
According to Cartman's fuzzy "rooting interest" rules, it would seem to be. But oddly enough he doesn't mention it.
Of course, it isn't a conflict at all. DA's, defense cousel, judges, etc., are often friends. They travel in the same circles. Judges will previously have served a colleagues, as lawyers, with a good many lawyers who come before them. And there will be the odd son, daughter, aunt, cousin, poker buddy, etc., in the mix.
Judges don't recuse themselves for shits and giggles, though.
Were Scalia's son actually arguing the case, that would be a conflict. We can guess that fillial love might overcome strict impartiality in such a case.
But the mere fact that a son works for the same ENORMOUS DC firm as an appellant's counsel? Puh-fucking-lease. Scalia's going to lose his impartiality because Olson and his son work at the same firm?
Hey, I work for a huge insurance company. I can assure you that my brother, were he a judge, wouldn't favor my company over a claimholder merely because I work for this big company. Why the fuck would he?
Now, if I owned a 10% stake, that would be different.
The Ludicrous Left never stops whining.
312. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 1:25:50 PM
Well, Ace, I think GW ought to have his smirk straightened out and also, while he's at at it, get someone to teach him how to walk so that his arms don't look so simian. But that is almost as shallow as worrying about Hillarys ass or Tippers jowls.
313. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:28:36 PM
An apt example of a follish charge of conflict was the Bush motion to have Judge Nikki Clark recuse herself because she was not chosen for a higher judicial office by Jeb Bush. Judge Clark rightly declined to recuse herself.
314. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:29:46 PM
Re: "Why the fuck would he?"
Why the fuck would my brother even care that I worked for a company which was a named defendant?
How, precisely, does a loss by the defendant law firm hurt me personally? Answer: It doesn't.
Neither does my firm winning HELP me personally (assuming I was not actually involved in working on the particular case).
And speaking of rooting interests-- The Florida Supreme Court obviously had a rather big rooting interest in seeing a liberal win the presidency. Shall we say too that they were tainted by a conflict of interest?
It does my heart good, though, to see three people who claim not to be liberal Democrats and claim not to have much affection for Gore -- Eric Communist, Judith, and Cellar -- whining the loudest about Bush winning.
I'm ever so glad y'all didn't actually care if Gore won or not. Heavens! You're having kittens now and you didn't care. Imagine if you actually had cared!
315. Wombat - 1/5/2001 1:31:05 PM
What part of the Green Party agenda could the Democratic Party adopt that it doesn't already support or that wouldn't be akin to political suicide?
316. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 1:33:02 PM
Oh get off it, Ace...Mr. I'm so worried that it may not go my way, I'm so so so worried, oh look! he won...see, I told you so!!!
317. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:33:04 PM
"An apt example of a follish charge of conflict was the Bush motion to have Judge Nikki Clark recuse herself because she was not chosen for a higher judicial office by Jeb Bush. Judge Clark rightly declined to recuse herself."
Indeed, she was right to refuse to recuse herself. That's not a real "conflict of interest." Especialy when you consider that the previous Governor had also passed her over for appointment to the appeals court.
On the other hand, Nikki Clark's sister worked for the Elder Bush's administration, is a Republican, and speaks lovingly of Bush the Elder. Shall we claim that Nikki Clark had a conflict in favor of BUSH merely because her sister was once employed by the defendant's dad?
How fucking far do we want to go with this? How fucking stupid do we want to get?
318. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:33:40 PM
Another example of a non-conflict conflict would be the Florida Supreme Court justices who contributed to Gore's campaign.
319. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 1:35:56 PM
How fucking stupid do we want to get?
I'm sure you'll let us know when we reach our limit.
320. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:36:44 PM
Tell it to Molly Ivins.
321. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 1:39:58 PM
FU:
1) I think the Democrats reversing Clintonism is patently a bad thing, so Naderites lose points from me there.
2) It is hardly clear that Nader's role will cause the Democrats to shift anyway. It is true that *sometimes* major parties shift to accomodate the demands of third parties (the Populists and the Progressives spring to mind), but that is not always the case. Sometimes, they just succeed in marginalizing themselves by losing any political influence (think of the Dixiecrats, the Buchananites, and the Know-Nothings). Nader's support was very weak (much weaker than any other 20th century third party movement that had a significant impact)I don't see a political shift happening.
3) It isn't as if the major parties were ignoring green issues, and this was thus the only way of gaining attention. As such, the Naderites shot their cause in the foot by putting a far less green candidate in the White House. As an environmentalist, that pisses me off.
322. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 1:40:03 PM
And if I remember correctly, wasn't Breyer a former clerk for Lawrence Tribe, who argued for Gore in the first SC hearing?
If that's not a conflict-- and I don't hear Eric Communist claiming it is-- how can it be that Scalia's son, who didn't argue the case, didn't work on the briefs, didn't do diddly squat on the case at all (his specialty is Labor law, not constitutional law), presents a conflict merely by being employed by the same super-huge firm as Ted Olson?
How on earth could the latter be a conflict while the former isn't?
323. CalGal - 1/5/2001 1:42:37 PM
The Democrats ignore and deride that bid at their own peril.
Why?
324. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:44:48 PM
Nader was getting little or no respect for his agenda before his candidacy. The Democrats have learned a hard lesson for their lack of attention - the presidency. It may be necessary that they learn two hard lessons.
The point is that the Democrats seek the blind allegiance of liberals like Nader, yet the only thing they offer the Green Party is that they are not the bogeyman.
That may work with some of the Democratic constituency, but the Green wing is politically committed, tough, young, and hard to soft-soap.
As for how to incorporate Green issues to gain their support, I'd suggest the Democrats start by hiring a liaison much as the Bush campaign hired Ralph Reed.
Instead, the Democrats are licking wounds and vowing further contention.
325. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:46:56 PM
Cal
For the reasons I have explained. To spit in the eye of an upstart constituency that has traditionally supported you but recently cost you the election may feel good, but it invites another energized candidacy - and similar results.
326. Wombat - 1/5/2001 1:48:22 PM
Young, tough, and hard to soft soap? Callow, stubborn, and immune to rational discussion, is more like it.
327. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 1:52:09 PM
And I think FU's comparison of the Greens to the Religious Right is quite apt, and my only point of agreement with him.
330. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 1:56:15 PM
FU: You don't think shifting toward Nader would have serious consequences? Gore was perceived as much more liberal than Bush was considered conservative by the electorate. I think that affected more voters than Nader did.
Think about it, does it logically make sense to you that you can capture a larger percent of the vote by moving closer to a political extreme?
331. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 1:56:40 PM
Raskolnikov
I do not think that the Democrats can suffer another 96,000 votes in Florida. Rather than attacking Nader, and thereby making him a martyr to his constituency, they should either try to cut some deals on things that he wants or support an insurgent Green to hijack the party (much as Buchanan hijacked any potential Reform threat to the GOP).
332. CalGal - 1/5/2001 1:58:59 PM
Frank,
There are far worse things than the liberals being ignored. They are the equivalent of the RR, which means it's pretty much their job to bitch and moan about how they get no respect.
333. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 2:01:28 PM
Raskolnikov
There are risks. But the damage done by Nader is known, and it was lethal. Accordingly, logic dictates that you do what is necessary to avoid that same, known, lethal damage. If Nader is an egoist and intent on forming a third option come hell or high water, than you have tried. But if he is calculating concessions on some issues of importance to his constituency, these should be explored.
No matter, what you do not do, be Nader an egoist or a horsetrader, is repeatedly show how angry you are and declare that he will never get a hearing from Deomcrats on the Hill due to his treachery in 2000. There is no conceivable upside to this political fit of pique.
Nader's support is even more important given Bush's strength - masking conservatism as conviviality.
334. CalGal - 1/5/2001 2:01:54 PM
Besides, the liberals will come back next election. The only reason they had the luxury of supporting Nader is because they'd been spoiled for 8 years.
335. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 2:02:37 PM
Judith - I hope you can still say that when we are all choking to death and can't see across the street...
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
336. CalGal - 1/5/2001 2:04:33 PM
And (continuing my series of random thoughts--it's difficult to post while interviewing on the phone), if the liberals all take their marbles and go home, it may fuss the Dems temporarily, but they'll be better for it in the long run.
337. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:05:09 PM
FU: I prefer option C - ignore him. Attacking him gives him too much attention, and caving to his more radical agenda loses centrist votes.
This is not to say that all of Nader's agenda is ignored. Environmentalism, in general, is a centrist issue. National parks, clean air, and clean water, are popular with suburban types that make up most of the political center (I love to remind people that the national park system and the EPA were both created by Republican administrations). I think Gore erred in largely ignoring the environment in his campaign.
But hell, as it is Gore's corporation bashing is largely seen as costing him his reputation as a centrist. If he actually went closer to Nader in this regard, he wouldn't have come close.
338. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 2:05:42 PM
JJ:
It amazes me that with all the things posted here you could argue with or comment on, you choose to respond in such a clever way to my remarks. I'm thrilled with the attention. (s)
339. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:11:19 PM
FU:"There are risks. But the damage done by Nader is known, and it was
lethal. Accordingly, logic dictates that you do what is necessary to
avoid that same, known, lethal damage."
And without exposing yourself to much worse potential damage.
"If Nader is an egoist and intent on forming a third option come hell or high water, than you have tried. But if he is calculating concessions on some issues of importance to his constituency, these should be explored."
Nah, you learn from Clinton. Use leftist opposition to triangulate, come across as a centrist, and grab the middle ground. Had Gore done this, he would be picking his cabinet right now.
"No matter, what you do not do, be Nader an egoist or a horsetrader,
is repeatedly show how angry you are and declare that he will never
get a hearing from Deomcrats on the Hill due to his treachery in 2000. There is no conceivable upside to this political fit of pique."
Primarily, it is to convince Naderites that they gained nothing except a Watt protege in charge of managining public lands. And that if they keep it up, they will gain more of the same.
340. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 2:12:01 PM
Rask - I think Naderites represent one of the curious things I dislike about the left - the preference for futile and meaningless symbolic gestures over real accomplishments.
That's what I like best about them. They are far less troublesome that way.
have you read about Clinton sequestering 1/3 of national forests from most commercial activity? That is a significant environmental accomplishment, and one that Bush might try to overturn.
Clinton is desperately seeking a legacy. He is hoping to be remembered as some kind of environmental hero. I hope Bush does overturn it along with Clinton's last couple of land grabs which made the US dependent on his pal Riady for low-sulphur coal.
341. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:14:23 PM
"land grabs"? These are Federal lands. I thought as a conservative you respected property rights.
342. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:17:06 PM
JJ: I see it more as classic Clinton: being more than willing to do the right thing when there is no political cost. Almost all of these federal lands are in states which consistently vote Republican. Hence, you can do what you want to Federal lands and local opposition doesn't cost you meaningful votes. Clinton doesn't dare do similar things in environmental issues that strongly affect the industrial heartland or Florida.
343. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 2:18:23 PM
Wombat - What part of the Green Party agenda could the Democratic Party adopt that it doesn't already support or that wouldn't be akin to political suicide?
The trick for the Democrats would be to actually do something about what they supposedly support instead of just paying lip service to it during elections and taking huge contributions from the industries they rail against in between. Naderites became Naderites because Democrats have shown such hypocrisy on the issues they feel are important.
344. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 2:18:41 PM
Wombat's double post and apology (328 & 329 were deleted)
and now, just so that this isn't just a housekeeping message:
The Kennebunkport Hillbilly (sung to the tune of The Beverly Hillbillies Theme Song)
Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy name Bush.
His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush.
He drank like a fish while he drove all about.
But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out.
DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up.
Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale.
He can't spell his name but they never let him fail.
He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk.
And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke.
Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.
The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam.
Kin folks say, "George, stay at home with Mom."
Let the common people get maimed and scarred.
We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard."
Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.
Twenty years later George gets a little bored.
He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord.
He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be."
So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP.
Gun owners, that is. Falwell. Jesse Helms.
Come November 7, the election ran late.
Kin folks said "Jeb, give the boy your state!"
"Don't let those colored folks get into the polls."
So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes.
Chads, that is. Duval County. Miami-Dade.
Before the votes were counted five Supremes stepped in.
Told all the voters "Hey, we want George to win."
"Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation.
And that's how George finally got his coronation.
Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority.
Y'all come vote now. Ya hear?
345. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:21:19 PM
This proves my point: when a conservative is offering arguments for why the Dems should move to the left, you *know* he is licking his chops at the prospects of resulting GOP electoral prospects.
346. concerned - 1/5/2001 2:21:22 PM
But if that happens, you can console yourself with the knowledge that at least you didn't demean yourself to vote for a man who would tactically decide to kiss his wife in a way to attract votes.
That's one of the less important things I'm 'consoling' myself with.
347. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 2:21:50 PM
Raskolnikov
You offer the Naderites nothing more than a stern lesson of "I told you so" when they knew and did not care.
This only invites another rebuttal "I told you so" in 2004.
Your "I told you so" is toothless rhetoric. You can take nothing from the Naderites that they have not already lost, or that they have never possessed.
Their "I told you so" is millions of votes.
348. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 2:23:41 PM
Thanks, Ducks...
I try to send my liberal husband something chuckle-making every day...he's surrounded by Republicans! Your little ditty is on its way...
349. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:25:11 PM
"You offer the Naderites nothing more than a stern lesson of "I told
you so" when they knew and did not care."
I don't believe you. You think Greens don't care if a Watt protege is running Interior? Maybe you don't, but I work with a lot of Greens, and they are outraged. They are in public denial that voting for Nader had anything to do with it, but deep down in their naive little hearts, my bet is that they will think twice next time, particularly if their noses are rubbed in it a little more.
350. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 2:25:34 PM
Raskolnikov
I think conservatives would be thrilled to see the Democrats remain as angry as they are at Nader. I think your strategy of "ignoring" Nader would make Jim Nicholson very happy.
351. CalGal - 1/5/2001 2:26:30 PM
Frank,
But who gives a fuck? The Dems will screw themselves even further if they move left--this is so obvious that it means you could only have one motive for suggesting it. You've offered no rebuttals other than the Dems can't afford to lose the Naderites. Yes, they can, if the alternative is losing even more badly. Consider: with all of Nader's votes, Gore won more of the popular vote and only lost the electoral due to a technicality.
The Dems can cheerfully tell the Naderites to pout away.
352. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 2:28:18 PM
Raskolnikov
Your political advice appears based on presumptions as to how future events may affect a constituency deep in their hearts, hearts you deride as naive.
Political advice based on shame and remorse does not sway. Shoving people's noses in their own mistakes as the solution to their disaffect, while macho and very "West Wing", is absurdist as a political strategy.
353. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:28:36 PM
"I think conservatives would be thrilled to see the Democrats remain as angry as they are at Nader. I think your strategy of "ignoring" Nader would make Jim Nicholson very happy."
I meant ignore Nader personally. I do think that the Dems need to change their tactics to deal with him. I prefer triangulation, with more attention to centrist Environmental issues.
354. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:32:53 PM
"Your political advice appears based on presumptions as to how future
events may affect a constituency deep in their hearts, hearts you
deride as naive."
Yep.
"Political advice based on shame and remorse does not sway. Shoving
people's noses in their own mistakes as the solution to their disaffect, while macho and very "West Wing", is absurdist as a political strategy."
I disagree. I think it would be a mistake to be taking this tone 3 and a half years from now, as tactics like this backfire in the short term. But I don't think they do in the long term. 3 years is an eternity in political memory. By that time, you will have forgotten you pissed you were by the finger wagging, and when the Democratic candidate says that there is a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans on environmental issues, you (or at least many of your brethren) will believe him.
355. CalGal - 1/5/2001 2:39:08 PM
I'm not sure if Gore did wrong by ignoring environmentalism. Any sign that he was catering to the Green goofballs would have been negatively perceived--and everyone knew Gore's interest in the environment anyway. Other Dems are likely to play it up.
356. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:40:00 PM
As a reminder, recall what Clinton did with Jesse Jackson in 1992. Jackson led a much more powerful (and less radical) wing of the left than the Naderites. Clinton deliberately contrasted himself with Jackson, and showed that he was not beholden to the left wing of the party. Now, I recognize that he did this *after* he had the nomination locked up, but *that* is the way you deal with splinter groups, particularly when they only represent a few percent of the vote. (I think the GOP could even do this with the religious right, if they chose an election where the opposition was a real liberal).
357. concerned - 1/5/2001 2:44:12 PM
Another example of a non-conflict conflict would be the Florida Supreme Court justices who contributed to Gore's campaign.
Anybody would have to admit that the above is more of a conflict than anything that any USSC justice has been accused of. Therefore, to avoid hypocrisy, those who accept the above should not cavil at the USSC justices' non-recusals.
358. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 2:44:29 PM
"I'm not sure if Gore did wrong by ignoring environmentalism. Any sign
that he was catering to the Green goofballs would have been
negatively perceived--and everyone knew Gore's interest in the
environment anyway."
He should have contrasted himself with both Nader *and* Bush. An attack on Bush's environmental record (steal a page from Bush Sr and speak in front of some industrial cesspool in Houston) while simultaneously criticizing leftist policies that unnecessarily threaten economic growth and prosperity.
359. janjon - 1/5/2001 2:49:28 PM
Gore didn't ignore environmentalism. He just didn't seize it the way the selfish and myopic Greens "say" they wanted.
Right. No way he could have. They really didn't want to be blessed by the Dems. this year.
Their agenda was quite simple this year - do everything within their power to have Gore lose. This so-called strategy is predicated on their hopes/assumptions that Bush will turn out to be soooo bad on the environment (and, God knows, his choice for Sec. of Interior must give them hope. As for Christie, well, the OMB will keep her under a short leash.) that both the Dems. and the country will not only see it in their best interests but will actively want to incorporate the Greens' positions (and a few of the leading Greens too, while they are at it.)in 2004.
Right. Like Hell.
No matter what outrageous stuff W's handlers try to pull off on environmental topics and no matter what positions the Dems. eventually take in 2004 on environmental issues, the Greens will be (and should be) left out in the cold. Both publically (although that will be discreetly handled with appropriate lip service to honoring all that wonderful idealism displayed by all those young and fresh-scrubbed souls who worked so hard for (what they saw as) their convictions) and, most certainly, privately within the inner sanctums of the party.
The Greens are history in terms of any serious role in national politics.
360. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 2:51:50 PM
Rask I see it more as classic Clinton: being more than willing to do the right thing when there is no political cost.
Absolutely. The Art of the Possible describes Clinton perfectly.
361. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 2:55:45 PM
CalGal - Consider: with all of Nader's votes, Gore won more of the popular vote and only lost the electoral due to a technicality.
A technicality? Bush got more votes in Florida. That's hardly a technicality.
362. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:00:48 PM
JJ--Whatever. If you count it as a decisive win, more fool you. If you count it as a bare eking out coupled with a desperate refusal for recounts demonstrating a clear fear that he might not survive one, it seems pretty clear that Gore didn't get his ass kicked, which was the point.
363. janjon - 1/5/2001 3:01:20 PM
Add the word "counted" between the words "votes" and "in" in the second sentence in 361 and it is then accurate. A winner, if you will.
364. Fielding - 1/5/2001 3:04:58 PM
Raskol:
"Call me crazy, but someone who purports to care about the environment and liberal causes embarks on a selfish course of action which leads to things be worse off for his alleged constituency, knowing in advance that there was only a remote chance of any social benefit coming from his candidacy, I'll be first in line to take him to task for it."
Second in line. :)
365. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:07:08 PM
No cutting!
366. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 3:09:52 PM
janjon - Add the word "counted" between the words "votes" and "in" in the second sentence in 361 and it is then accurate.
It is accurate as it stands. Gore's only chance was to post huge gains from the recounts in Broward, Dade and Palm Beach counties. Those votes failed to materialize. Recounts in the rest of the counties, even the punch card counties, would have favored Bush. I think Bush should have pushed for a full recount with consistent standards and then the Democrats would not be able to whine about his victory.
367. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:10:40 PM
Y'all can sit there in the wussy "take him to task" queue. I'm over at the head of "kick his skinny little supercilious ass" line, and we always go first.
368. Wombat - 1/5/2001 3:11:11 PM
It seemed that the Bush campaign lacked your confidence, JJ.
369. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 3:11:50 PM
CalGal - it seems pretty clear that Gore didn't get his ass kicked, which was the point.
If that was your point, that is what you should have said.
370. robertjayb - 1/5/2001 3:12:24 PM
.
Bushisms:
"I mean, these good folks are revolutionizing how businesses conduct their business. And, like them, I am very optimistic about our position in the world and about its influence on the United States. We're concerned about the short-term economic news, but long term I'm optimistic. And so, I hope investors, you know--secondly, I hope investors hold investments for periods of time--that I've always found the best investments are those that you salt away based on economics."--Austin, Texas, Jan. 4, 2001
371. Fielding - 1/5/2001 3:12:25 PM
Biener:
Nader was always only interested in it for his own vanity and ego, and now you are paying the price in Ashcroft and Norton. Was it worth it?
"It was worth it for me. I'm thrilled."
I don't know which of my points this proves better: That Nader helped Bush, or that Nader supporters are idiots.
372. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:13:54 PM
JJ--I did. That's what "technicality" means. I'm not going to revisit it over and over again. It's clear that Bush's win will probably not stand up to scrutiny, and the "technicality" is that it didn't have to tolerate it.
373. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 3:14:57 PM
Wombat - It seemed that the Bush campaign lacked your confidence, JJ.
Perhaps. Or it could be that when you are playing a high-stakes game, you don't any unnecessary risks however slight. Submitting to a manual recount was an unnecessary risk.
374. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 3:16:07 PM
Gore got his ass kicked.
It's hard to defeat an incumbent. Especially an incumbent presiding over terrific growth and generations-low unemployment figures.
But Gore did it.
Imagine Gore running without the incredible advantage of incumbency during a time of prosperity. You think he'd win? Ha, ha!
We'll see in 2004. Assume the country is not in recession, or at least slips into recession soon but is growing and stable by the time of the 2004 election, such that it is now Bush who is the incumbent presiding over a growing economy.
Now: Imagine the rematch, Bush v. Gore.
Can any of you claim with a straight face that Gore would win? That he'd even come close?
Will he be the "Candidate of Ideas"? If so, how come he didn't come up with a single daring, original idea for 2000? Bush came up with several. You might not like SS privatization, but it was a ballsy, daring proposal. You might not like vouchers, but that too was a ballsy call.
See, Bush actually had "The Vision Thing." Certainly he did not propose a transformation of American society, but he proposed much more fresh & original & daring policy than did Clinton or Bush the First.
And what did Gore propose? A bit of paleoliberal tax-code tinkering to distribute "tax refunds" to people who don't pay taxes and "Civil unions." And a bit of very scaredy-cat de minimis gun control. Wow. His ideas galvanized the country like no candidate since Walter Mondale.
Whatta fucking putz. How much of a douchebag do you have to be to lose when you're the incumbent VP of an economically successful administration? Even the charisma and vision challenged Bush the Elder won the presidency handily.
375. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:20:34 PM
It's hard to defeat an incumbent.
He wasn't an incumbent. He was a sitting vice president. Only two sitting vice presidents have won the presidency in the past 150 years. When Bush was running, it was often counted as one of the strongest historical precedents against his chances.
I don't know why people keep forgetting that.
376. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 3:21:48 PM
CalGal - It's clear that Bush's win will probably not stand up to scrutiny
The numbers don't support this. The numbers and Gore's own strategy show that the only chance Gore had was for him to make large gains in Broward, Dade and Palm Beach. When that didn't happen he was out of luck.
377. Wombat - 1/5/2001 3:23:34 PM
I wouldn't assume Gore will be running in 04.
378. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:23:41 PM
"He wasn't an incumbent. He was a sitting vice president. Only two
sitting vice presidents have won the presidency in the past 150 years."
One. Bush. You have to go back another 16 years for Van Buren.
379. concerned - 1/5/2001 3:25:18 PM
Re. 361 -
JJ -
To CG, anything can be considered to be a technicality. The law of gravity - a technicality. Determinism - a technicality. Quantum mechanics - a technicality. See how easy it is to generalize in CG's world?
380. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 3:25:44 PM
Gore got his ass kicked.
i see the definition of 'ass kicking' gets less and less as i get older.
i had no idea that losing a state by ~100 votes and the EC by a 3 votes constitutes getting one's 'ass kicked'
381. concerned - 1/5/2001 3:27:32 PM
To whom it may concern:
The world doesn't accept dimpled/pregnant chads. Don't be fooled into believing otherwise. Oops. There go nearly 600 Broward County votes.
382. Wombat - 1/5/2001 3:27:57 PM
Hey, but Bush won the vote in more counties than Gore, and more states. If that doesn't constitute an ass whuppin', I don't know what does.
383. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:28:19 PM
I thought Van Buren was in 36? Was he in the 20s?
384. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:31:12 PM
JJ,
Actually, Gore's strategy was probably incorrect, and it would have been easy enough to order a statewide recount.
Nonetheless, Bush still won by a technicality.
385. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 3:31:42 PM
Letters, I get letters....
Fielding Message # 296:
I didn't say that it is "all" Nader's fault.
Well, that's all I hear anybody bitching about these days. Nader is responsible for Ashcroft. Nader is responsible for Rumsfeld. Nader is responsible for your wife not fucking you more than once a month.
Again, Nader is a factor. But the refusal to explore the reasons why 11 states defected to Bush is telling. Y'all would rather piss and moan about What Might Have Been had Big Bad Ralph not brainwashed 90,000 Floridians, but no one wants to figure out how Forrest Gump pulled ELEVEN FUCKING STATES away from the Democrats.
Touching, but I still think the focus is askew.
I am merely pointing out that while Bush voters and Gore voters were voting in their self interest, Nader voters were voting against their self interest.
No, they voted against your self-interest. As did Bush voters. Nader voters voted for something they believed in. Maybe they should have fucking stayed home and let the big boys run things, I don't know. But if you're going to shit on one group for doing what they thought was right, at least have the sack to go after 'em all.
I mean, where's the venom for the traitors who deserted you for Gump? Huh? Hmmm?
It is all well and good to sacrifice one's self interest for a principal; I'm just asking you to be a man and admit what the cost was.
Yep. My fault that Barnum was right. My fault that people are more interested in dissecting what color power ties each pol wears than what they actually stand for. My fault that we have devolved into a culture of lowered expectations and marketing flummery. Okely dokely. I'll be a man and admit it then.
386. janjon - 1/5/2001 3:31:44 PM
by its nature, the Vice Presidency tends to make its occupants look small, since they spend so much of their time only reflecting the views of the President.
W and Cheney may indeed demonstrate that this need not be the case, but I somehow doubt it. At least publically. For a couple of reasons: 1. W has demonstrated enough ego (all this emphasis on "loyalty" which is another way of saying don't try to cast a shadow on ME) to indicate that on a superficial level he wants the primo attention. 2. And, that notwithstanding, his handlers and even he surely must realize that it is important politically for him to at least look like he's in charge AND involved.
It will indeed be interesting to see how this MBA mentality (CEOs delegate) plays out. I somehow don't think W is smart enough to have figured out that he's been sold a bill of goods on this one (easy enough to do since it fits his temperament) by a lot of people who want the POWER for themselves.
387. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 3:32:06 PM
Nader was always only interested in it for his own vanity and ego, and now you are paying the price in Ashcroft and Norton. Was it worth it?
Jesus Christ, this is rich. Yes, Nader is the only guy in politics awash in vanity and ego. Everyone else is there to serve us chilluns. Yes indeedy.
Nader kept saying that Gore and Bush were Tweedledee and Tweedledum. After looking at Bush's cabinet, can he still make that claim with a straight face?
Hey, when you're right, you're right. Nader and his flock should have just stayed the fuck home and taken whatever bones the Democrats threw them. Lord knows the proles should just be thankful for whatever shit their betters deign to give them.
And yes, evidently there was some misunderestimating as to what sort of appointments Gump would make. But the Democrats also misunderestimated how many votes might defect to Nader. As Rask pointed out, they could have at least made an attempt to triangulate Nader, to bring him in. Instead, they decided to treat him like a jerk, until the last fucking minute when their pants were down.
All in all, a pathetic campaign from the get-go. How do you blow 11 states? How do you take debating tips from Saturday Night Live? How do you lose to a guy who can't even speak coherently?
Well, you got four long years to think on that one, buddy. But first, you have to get past the denial. Yes, a few people defected to Ralph. Many more defected to Gump. Why is that?
388. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 3:32:49 PM
AssOfSpazz Message # 308 et al:
Short answer: Blow me.
Long answer: Blow me long time.
Longer answer: Between all the cozy professional and personal relationships of the players involved, it sure as hell smells like conflict of interest to me. Of course it's fine by you, because your moron won.
Now, if you want to sit there and tell me with a straight face that had all this been reversed, you and concerned would not raise a stink over every possible relationship -- well, I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.
389. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:34:04 PM
"Can any of you claim with a straight face that Gore would win? That
he'd even come close? "
Depends. There are more economic factors than just the lack of a recession. Look at Bush Sr, when the economy was growing and stable as well, just growing slowly with a stable high unemployment rate.
For what its worth, in US presidential election history, the record of incumbents when running for re-election is 20 wins and 10 losses.
390. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:35:12 PM
Rask,
Van Buren's term began in 1837. Is my math off?
391. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 3:36:04 PM
RD,
Gore got his ass kicked. A team playing on home court, with a streak going, and very friendly referees (the Media), which (due to its record) is expected to win by 21 points but instead loses by a field goal did, in fact, get its fucking bitch-ass kicked, and kicked hard.
If Dole had eked out a slender victory over Clinton in 1996, Clinton would have had *his* ass kicked. And George Bush the First, of course, did get his ass kicked, even though he had lots of external problems (the vagaries of the business cycle, Ross Perot).
Gore lost a game in which he had a 35 point lead going into the fourth quarter. He got his ass kicked. He got his clock cleaned and his balls put into a sling. He got demolished by a man who has the thinnest public-service resume of any serious Presidential candidate, and who's pro-life (an electoral loser), and who proposed a big tax cut the public basically didn't want.
And still he fucking lost.
Because he's a douchebag. And a corrupt douchebag at that. Buddhist Bagman Comrade Gore.
392. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:36:09 PM
"I thought Van Buren was in 36? Was he in the 20s?"
No, 36 is right, but that was over 164 years ago (not 166 - I made an error).
393. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 3:37:23 PM
"well, just growing slowly with a stable high unemployment rate."
Wrong. GWB left office with a stronger rate of growth than we've enjoyed for the past year.
Higher unemployment rate, yes. But that is a lagging indicator.
394. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:38:25 PM
Oh, lord. I was counting from Bush's term! I usually say "No standing veep had won the presidency in 150 before Bush did it" and forgot to add the 12 years.
395. EricCartman - 1/5/2001 3:38:57 PM
Ace:
Gore lost a game in which he had a 35 point lead going into the fourth quarter. He got his ass kicked. He got his clock cleaned and his balls put into a sling. He got demolished by a man who has the thinnest public-service resume of any serious Presidential candidate, and who's pro-life (an electoral loser), and who proposed a big tax cut the public basically didn't want.
Exactly.
So you're saying that Gore is Warren Moon, and Gump is Frank Reich? Interesting....who would be Bruce Smith then? Poppy? Bar?
396. CalGal - 1/5/2001 3:39:41 PM
Actually, pro-life candidates have won more often than pro-choice candidates since it first became an issue in 1980.
397. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 3:40:00 PM
"Between all the cozy professional and personal relationships of the players involved, it sure as hell smells like conflict of interest to me."
It sounds that way to you because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Go look it up, idiot. Find "Legal Canon of Ethics" on-line. Go search for the dozens of articles on the silly conflict of interest claims, and read all the legal ethicists who said, flatly, there was no "conflict of interest" as that term has ever before been defined.
398. concerned - 1/5/2001 3:40:18 PM
Again, the SCOFLA justices who contributed to Pinocchio Bore's campaign are much more justifiably guilty of conflicts of interests.
But, I guess that smell is just fine to lefty noses. Sort of like the Porta-San maintenance people who are particular about the kind of lunchmeat on their sandwiches.
399. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 3:41:15 PM
gore may well indeed be a douchebag, Ace. certainly a man who needs to look at reevaluating his personal anti-perspiration hygiene choice.
nevertheless, he lost an election he shouldn't have had any problem winning but still won half a million more popular votes than the ultimate 'winner'
loser? yes. recipient of an 'ass kicking'? nope.
400. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:41:42 PM
Eric:"No, they voted against your self-interest. As did Bush voters. Nader voters voted for something they believed in. Maybe they should have fucking stayed home and let the big boys run things, I don't know. But if you're going to shit on one group for doing what they thought was right, at least have the sack to go after 'em all. "
No, the point is that it was against the self-interest of the *Naderites*, based on their self-described political goals. By backing Nader, they are much worse off than they would have been by backing Gore.
"As Rask pointed out, they could have at least made an attempt to triangulate Nader, to bring him in."
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "triangulate". "Triangulate", as defined by the Clintonistas, means to position yourself between someone on the left and someone on the right in order to grab the political center. So, triangulating Nader would not be to "bring him in", but to use his presence on the fringe to better portray yourself as a moderate. That is, I think Gore should have treated Nader *even more* like shit.
401. Fielding - 1/5/2001 3:43:34 PM
EC:
The Dems did not want you and your fellow Nader sanchos to stay home. They wanted you and your fellow sanchos to choose between A Gore AG or Ashcroft, between a Gore Interior pick or Norton, between a Gore Supreme Court nominee or Garza. You guys made the WRONG choice. Now we have Ashcroft, Norton and Garza. And I ask, are you happy with the results of your choice?
402. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 3:44:45 PM
Cartman:
When all informed parties unanimously agree that there was no conflict, and only uninformed, ignorant partisan asswipes yourself whine about a "conflict," perhaps -- just perhaps -- you're wrong and the experts are correct.
Just maybe, Cartman.
403. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 3:45:09 PM
Bush has already fielded Supreme Court nominees?
404. janjon - 1/5/2001 3:46:56 PM
I agree with Rask and the others that Gore should have triangulated Nader more. I know from personal experience having talked ad nauseum in the Fall with both Green "leaders" and, alas far too many, some of the bushy-tailed young idealists who fell for the Nader crap, hook line and sinker, that there was NO WAY they were going to fold their tents and vote for Gore. Gore surely knew this too. So, instead of continuing to court them, he indeed should have painted them as what they really were being - out on the fringe (and loving every self-important moment of it). This could have corralled a few more votes (say 600 or so clean ones in Florida) from souls who had bought into the idea that Gore was a bit too liberal for their taste.
405. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:49:52 PM
"Wrong. GWB left office with a stronger rate of growth than we've
enjoyed for the past year."
Why do you just make shit up like this? Annual growth in 1992 was 3.1%. Annual growth in the past year, as measured through September, was 4.2%
"Higher unemployment rate, yes. But that is a lagging indicator."
It had an abnormally long lag in 1992. Not that I blame this on Bush, mind you, but I do think it had a lot to do with his loss.
But anyway, my point still stands - even with stable economic growth (and you seem to think growth was higher than it was, so you don't really disagree with this point) it is quite possible to lose an election.
406. Fielding - 1/5/2001 3:50:13 PM
Ducks:
"Bush has already fielded Supreme Court nominees?"
No. I think Garza is a forgone conclusion, but any of the guys he is supposedly considering will suffice for Nader-bashing.
407. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:52:21 PM
janjon: More than 600. I like to point out that there are a lot more votes in the political center than there are on the political fringes. Moving to the center will almost always gain you more votes than moving to the left. It is the nature of a bell-shaped distribution.
408. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 3:53:29 PM
And the Nader voters probably wouldn't have stayed home. Based on exit polls, many more of them would have voted for Gore than would have stayed home, had Nader not been on the ticket.
409. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 3:54:54 PM
Re: Message # 406, Fielding.
No. I think Garza is a forgone conclusion, but any of the guys he is supposedly considering will suffice for Nader-bashing.
very good. do carry on.
410. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 3:55:08 PM
Rask - No, the point is that it was against the self-interest of the *Naderites*, based on their self-described political goals.
I don't think this is true in anything but the very short term. The hard left has been marginalized by the Clinton Administration for the last 8 years. They saw themselves being equally marginalized in a Gore administration. They want their seat at the table like they had with the Democrats in the 80's. The only way they could do that was to let the Democrats know how it feels when they shop elsewhere.
411. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:05:00 PM
JJ: Even in the long term, it is tilting at windmills, akin to the behavior of the Dixiecrats. They just aren't a powerful enough bloc to force the Dems to shift in their direction. They don't have the numbers, the organizational structure, or the money of the religious right, for instance. That being the case, by far their best bet is to take whatever success they can get.
Unless of course, they are more interested in making public, self-righteous, symbolic, and ineffectual (but "principled") stands than they are in actually having a positive impact. With leftists, that is always a concern.
412. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:10:08 PM
Raskolnikov
"They just aren't a powerful enough bloc to force the Dems to shift in their direction."
In their first, fledgling demonstration of power, they changed the outcome of an election.
413. jexster - 1/5/2001 4:11:35 PM
Heh-heh-heh
"AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - For now, President-elect Bush can do little but watch as President Clinton (news - web sites) orders last-minute changes big and small - from protecting millions of federal acres to changing the presidential license plates to promote statehood for Washington, D.C.
``He has been a busy beaver,'' Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday, promising a review of ``each and every one'' of Clinton's orders once Bush takes office. ``We are taking note of them all.''
But while the incoming administration clearly has an eye on undoing some of what Clinton has done, turning back the clock is not always easy - either politically or procedurally. Some executive orders can be canceled simply by issuing later ones, but new federal rules are hard to undo."
414. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:11:37 PM
In their first, fledgling demonstration of power, they have solidified the conservative wing of the Supreme Court for perhaps decades.
415. jexster - 1/5/2001 4:12:56 PM
Niner you climb obstacles like old people f**k.
416. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:14:53 PM
francis - you underestimate the Senatorial approval process, as it will now unfold.
417. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 4:15:10 PM
Rask,
You are comparing the growth rates for the year as a whole. I said Bush left office with a stronger growth rate than we have now-- not that the growth for his last entire year was stronger.
If I remember right, Bush's last quarters were something like 4.1% growth, and Clinton's last quarter was 2.6% growth or thereabouts, with the last quarter looking like it will be a bit less than that.
418. CalGal - 1/5/2001 4:15:40 PM
In their first, fledgling demonstration of power, they changed the outcome of an election.
With the smallest percentage of a vote ever received by a third party candidate. It was the external factors that caused their influence, not their popularity.
419. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:16:41 PM
In a very close election, and you have yet to make any sort of argument showing that they wouldn't lose more votes moving toward Nader than they would gain. The political distribution contradicts you on this.
No, my point on power had to do more with logistics. Look at the religious right. They provide a lot of the manpower for the GOP, and a lot of money. Yes, the GOP could gain a lot of centrist votes if they cast them off (including mine a good share of the time), but they would lose the logistical support which allows them to reach centrists and win elections.
But the Greens are poor, unorganized, and do a shitty job of passing themselves off as centrists when stumping for votes (the "legalize hemp" t-shirts give them away), and there ain't that many of them anyway.
420. CalGal - 1/5/2001 4:17:51 PM
Besides, Frank, it ain't like they caused the Dems to shift. They just played spoiler. And I'd like to think that the Dems aren't criminally stupid enough to shift. But you never know.
If they do shift, however, all that suggests is that the Republicans will move left, too, to pick up the disaffected Dems in the center.
421. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:20:31 PM
Niner pointed out several times that John Hagelin swung the election to Bush as well as Nader.
The difference is that the Natural Law freaks didn't have anything obvious to lose by Bush winning the Presidency. The Greens did -that is where the frustration of Democrats comes from.
422. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 4:21:36 PM
"But anyway, my point still stands - even with stable economic growth (and you seem to think growth was higher than it was, so you don't really disagree with this point) it is quite possible to lose an election."
Yes, but you miss the whole point.
I was merely correcting your factual misstatement. I didn't mean to undermine my own statement.
Bush had stronger growth in his last couple of quarters than Clinton has now. But perception is everything.
No one believed Bush when he declared the recession over. The unemployment rate was still high, and people were still hurting. At least some people were.
It was believed then, as it is believed now by many partisan liberals, that the Bush recession lasted for years and did not dissipate until the Genius Godling Clinton took office. Of course the recession only lasted for two quarters, and the economy was growing at a nice pace even as Clinton criticized Bush on the economy.
As it stands now, it looks like we are moving towards a recession or at least a near-recession. We may be looking at a year of very small growth.
But none of that will come to pass until Bush is inaugurated.
To the public, it seems like the economy is still okay. Surely the economy seemed to be in great shape as of November 7th.
it wasn't. But the public didn't really appreciate that. And the recession was over, and solid growth underway, in November of 1992. But the country didn't appreciate that, either.
The public believed Gore was presiding over a still-surging economy on November 7th. They were wrong. But Gore still had the advantage of the public's belief in "the greatest prosperity in history."
423. Wombat - 1/5/2001 4:21:49 PM
Urquhart:
And this is something that you are pleased with?
424. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:22:03 PM
"You are comparing the growth rates for the year as a whole. I said
Bush left office with a stronger growth rate than we have now-- not
that the growth for his last entire year was stronger. "
Well, you mentioned annual growth in your post, not quarterly. I do believe you are right that 1992 ended strong, but of course people didn't know that in November. Just like they didn't know the current slowdown was occuring during this past election day.
425. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:22:18 PM
Wombat
Yes.
426. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:22:46 PM
A team playing on home court, with a streak going, and very friendly referees (the Media), which (due to its record) is expected to win by 21 points but instead loses by a field goal did, in fact, get its fucking bitch-ass kicked, and kicked hard.
Ace forgets the referees are the guys with the stripes on their uniforms, and Rhenquist dresses the part. They huddled, argued and called Gore's touchdown pass out of bounds, five of the crew unplugged the instant replay monitor, and said review was impossible because it might cast doubt on the correctness of the original call.
This is called a great win by the underdog who says bad and good calls are part of the game, and a royal screwing by the favorites. An ass kicking is when the blown call doesn't even affect the spread.
427. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:23:18 PM
Ace: Okay, I agree with that.
428. Wombat - 1/5/2001 4:24:21 PM
Urquhart:
Why are you pleased with the result?
429. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:24:57 PM
Wombat: I think Francis is the latest incarnation of Niner/Jack Vincennes, that he has been pretending to be a Naderite for the fun of it, and that his comment about the conservative court was his way of "announcing his presence with authority".
430. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:25:25 PM
Wombat
Because I am more consonant with conservative political positions and conservative legal doctrine.
431. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:26:49 PM
Raskolnikov
At no point have I pretended to be a Naderite. I have offered sound advice as to how the Democratic Party should deal with Nader, and I have offered my opinion that if they deal with Nader in the manner you suggest, I would be pleased.
432. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 4:26:56 PM
"Ace forgets the referees are the guys with the stripes on their uniforms, and Rhenquist dresses the part."
The Boys in the Booth had to review the call, because the hopelessly biased refs on the field (the Fla Supreme Court) had made a fucking has out of every call in overtime.
433. Wombat - 1/5/2001 4:27:15 PM
Ah, so.
434. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:27:40 PM
I apologize for an error in the earlier analogy- something closer would be that the rationale is that "because reviewing the tape might cast doubts on the point spread in the next round of the playoffs."
435. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:28:15 PM
This Francis could only be Jackie in new outerclothes.
436. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:29:21 PM
Ace- the whole point was that there was no review of the call on the field-the vote count in Florida, and the boys in the booth refused to look at the tape.
437. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:29:28 PM
"At no point have I pretended to be a Naderite."
True, you just defended Nader's actions, allowed us to jump to conclusions, and refrained from correcting any errors we made in doing so.
"I have offered sound advice as to how the Democratic Party should deal with Nader, and I have offered my opinion that if they deal with Nader in the manner you suggest, I would be pleased."
You don't think triangulation would work?
438. CalGal - 1/5/2001 4:31:12 PM
I have offered sound advice as to how the Democratic Party should deal with Nader, and I have offered my opinion that if they deal with Nader in the manner you suggest, I would be pleased.
Quite the contrary. If the Dems were so dim as to follow your advice, you'd be pleased. And if they are that dim, so be it.
But if the Dems see a real advantage in catering to Naderites, be very, very scared. It would suggest that the country is moving left. Since that's extremely unlikely, they're far better off ignoring Nader and focusing on the environment as is their habit anyway.
439. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:32:21 PM
Francis: Let me flip this around. If Gore had managed to win Florida by the same margin Bush did, would you now be arguing that the GOP needs to follow the strategy you advise for the Dems in dealing with Buchanan? Buchanan would have had just as much a claim to costing Bush the election in such circumstances.
440. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:33:00 PM
Raskolnikov
I have not defended Nader's actions, as I believe they do not require a defense. I have explained what I believe to be his rationale. You, in your milieu of noses rubbed in it, and punishment, and just desserts, have read my advice as a defense.
As for triangulation, it has become a catch-word of the day and means less and less upon each careless use. I'd be interested in hearing specifics on your plan to "triangulate" Nader.
441. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:33:27 PM
OK people: please note that two out of the three voices advocating that Democrats should embrace Nader (JJ and St. Francis of A-Sissy, here), are Republicans.
442. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:33:42 PM
It may be extremely unlikely that the country is moving left, but it also is even more extremely unlikely that the country is or will want to be treated as if it has or is moving to the right.
Therein lies one of many Achilles heels for W's handlers. Ain't gonna be too long before they all begin believing their own shit.
443. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:36:15 PM
apropros of not much, can anyone explain why this is suddenly a new thread?
444. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:38:30 PM
"As for triangulation, it has become a catch-word of the day and
means less and less upon each careless use. I'd be interested in
hearing specifics on your plan to "triangulate" Nader."
I have given them a few times. Attack Bush's environmental record as bad for business. Attack Nader's ideas as horrible for economic growth. Tout yourself as the advocate of a middle ground that favors a clean environment without consigning billions of people to poverty.
Use Nader's ideas on health care reform to contrast Gore's plan, proving that it isn't socialized medicine.
Basically, "Sister Souljah" his ass.
445. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:39:55 PM
That is, you don't need to attack Nader personally and risk offending his voters, or those who sympathize with them. But find a marginalized proxy that no one has ever heard of, and pick a fight with him.
446. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:41:15 PM
W's biggest problem is that the election came at a time where the body politic is near the center and drifting to and fro without any appreciable trend to either return to Reaganite/Neo-Reaganite conservatism, or to truly swing left towards progressivism or classical liberalism. The dynamic is driven increasingly by ad hoc coalitions of single issue groups on the fringes while the majority dithers in the center.
447. rubberducky - 1/5/2001 4:43:30 PM
Re: Message # 443, janjon.
apropros of not much, can anyone explain why this is suddenly a new thread?
just an effort to make the thread more reader friendly, basically.
hopefully, more people will contribute if there is less of a back log to wade through.
it was my suggestion, so feel free to blame or praise me as you see fit.
448. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:43:43 PM
Additionally, I think a lot of Naderites honestly believed that "Tweedlee and Tweedledum" bullshit, but after 4 years of Bush, with his Interior secretary, AG, and likely Supreme Court nominees, are much less likely to believe it next time.
(And I do apologize for "St Francis A-Sissy", but it was too good to pass up)
449. Indiana Jones - 1/5/2001 4:44:01 PM
I can't believe you folks didn't recognize Furquhart the first time he posted.
The kung-fu grip is a dead giveaway.
450. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:45:54 PM
I was pretty sure it was him in the Movies thread, but his defense of Nader's thinking threw me off temporarily, and I wondered if Angel-Five had taken a new pseud. But writing styles didn't match.
451. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:46:27 PM
Am I wrong in thinking that FU was the name of that oh-so-cleverly evil Prime Minister in some Masterpiece Theater series of several years ago?
Jackie always did strike me as a guy with a big wannabe complex.
452. Francis Urquhart - 1/5/2001 4:46:51 PM
"If Gore had managed to win Florida by the same margin Bush did, would you now be arguing that the GOP needs to follow the strategy you advise for the Dems in dealing with Buchanan? Buchanan would have had just as much a claim to costing Bush the election in such circumstances."
No. Nader was a larger factor than Buchanan (or Hagelin). Worse, he contaminates young Democratic voters and committed Democratic voters. Accordingly, his influence is more pernicious.
Moreover, I have only suggested modest entreaties to Nader and horsetrading, if he is so inclined, as well as a cessation of personal venom and punishment. This seems reasonable and practicable.
453. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 4:52:04 PM
jonesatlaw:
I bet you dollars to donuts GW couldn't explain what you meant by this paragraph:
W's biggest problem is that the election came at a time where the body politic is near the center and drifting to and fro without any appreciable trend to either return to Reaganite/Neo-Reaganite conservatism, or to truly swing left towards progressivism or classical liberalism. The dynamic is driven increasingly by ad hoc coalitions of single issue groups on the fringes while the majority dithers in the center.
454. CalGal - 1/5/2001 4:52:36 PM
Worse, he contaminates young Democratic voters and committed Democratic voters.
Hahahahaha! Contaminates young Dem voters. Right. So the Dems need to move left to keep a bunch of whiny green punks happy?
455. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:52:40 PM
Neither W nor his father has a grip on the "vision thing" save for a missionary zeal for writing thank you notes and fundraising.
I'd be hard pressed to settle on a overarching vision for the current administration either. This is as much a reason for the wishy washy election results as anything. I am not saying that there was no difference between parties or candidates, just that they were not on public display. They played out largely in the form of who's writing whose checks, and the winks and nods that accompany them.
456. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:52:51 PM
Not a doubt in my mind that the first Sup. Ct. nominee will be a Hispanic. That will put the Dems. into a big box.
457. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 4:53:43 PM
Rask - I think you misunderstand me. If I were advising the Democrats on how to win elections, I would not advise them to embrace Nader. As a Republican I hope they do embrace Nader and shift to the left because that will establish them as the minority party. I see this as a big problem for the Democrats. They need to be able to hold the center and recapture the left in order to become the majority. Without someone with Clinton's charisma, I don't think they can do it.
A case in point, the next Democratic nominee for President will have to convince the left of his strong commitment to the environment while not scaring business and workers with that commitment. Many Naderites believed that even though Gore talked the environment talk, he wouldn't walk the environmental walk. They saw him beholden to business interests who contributed to his campaign. The next candidate will have to walk a fine line between these two sides.
458. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 4:54:32 PM
I knew who FU was from the get-go because Jack spoke so glowingly of him prior to taking on his initials...which I'm sure make Jack chuckle each time we address him thus.
459. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 4:55:09 PM
jonesatlaw:
I bet you dollars to donuts GW couldn't explain what you meant by this paragraph:
I'm just hoping that the folks around here can.
460. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 4:56:30 PM
"Francis Urquhart"?
This is Niner's big change?
Please.
Gaywad name for a gaywad poster.
461. janjon - 1/5/2001 4:58:14 PM
jones. Call it vision or lack thereof, the inherent problems with formulating policy that has a bite after an election of this type, whatever. It portends a first class disaster when you have a President who really does want to stay above the Fray and just be content with setting out broad principles and then delegating. (Oh sure, he talks about holding people accountable. Right.)
This particular MBA model may work for some corporations. But not the really successful ones (in other words, W ain't no Jack Welch).
And, gee golly gosh whiz, the U.S. government ain't a corporation.
462. CalGal - 1/5/2001 4:58:14 PM
Well, the names have been getting lighter and lighter, loafer wise.
463. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 4:58:33 PM
Ace:
There are levels to FU that you might not be able to appreciate...
465. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 4:59:52 PM
"No. Nader was a larger factor than Buchanan (or Hagelin)."
Well, your earlier argument was simply that Nader was powerful enough to throw the election. Evidently we then both agree now that this isn't sufficient enough, and you were engaging in sophistry.
"Worse, he contaminates young Democratic voters and committed Democratic voters. Accordingly, his influence is more pernicious."
This is a better argument, but I think it will be inconsequential after 4 years of Bush. Democrats were spoiled after 8 years of Clinton, particularly younger ones who never really experienced what environmental exploitation *really* looked like. The post-election controversy helped as well, as the all the post-election hand-wringing was over the vote count, and damned little of it was over how the Democrats could better deal with Nader. My prediction is that Nader is a non-factor 4 years from now, no matter what the Democrats do.
"Moreover, I have only suggested modest entreaties to Nader and
horsetrading, if he is so inclined, as well as a cessation of personal venom and punishment. This seems reasonable and practicable."
Horsetrading: no fucking way. Any concession to Nader is a move away from the center, and will only encourage him. Look at how unsuccessful this was for the Democrats wrt Jesse Jackson. They didn't regain the White House until they publicly spurned him. Cessation of personal venom and punishment: I actually agree. I think he will be a non-factor anyway, but I am in favor of hedging my bets. No sense pissing him off more than you have to.
But I don't think a few months of recriminations now are a problem, as part of preliminary planning for 2004. Emotional resentments fade over time, but practical lessons stay longer. As such, I think it is worth making it quite clear to Greens that their actions had a decisive impact in putting Bush in the White House.
466. concerned - 1/5/2001 4:59:54 PM
With his name changes, will he next go to FU2 when challenged?
467. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 5:00:29 PM
Francis Urquart Conservative Keeping Others From Faltering.
468. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:01:09 PM
janjon:
Maybe W can do for the country what he did with his baseball team...trade off the best guys, get the public to pay for his house, and then sell out for big bucks when he gets bored.
469. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:01:23 PM
I thought "FU" was short for Felix Unger.
470. robertjayb - 1/5/2001 5:01:36 PM
.
Mary, Mary, quite contrary, gets a new job...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mary Matalin, named as an adviser to the Bush White House on Friday, is a sharp-tongued Republican ideologue known for her outspoken support of candidates on television and campaigns and her marriage to Democratic partisan James Carville.
Vice President-elect Dick Cheney said Matalin will be assistant to President-elect George W. Bush after he takes office on Jan. 20, and counselor to Cheney in such areas as communications, political strategy and coordination.
Matalin has a history of backing Bushes -- she was deputy campaign manager for political operations in then-President George Bush's unsuccessful 1992 re-election bid against Bill Clinton -- and a taste for political battle.
471. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:01:44 PM
And with a name like Francis Urquhart, I really suspect that his action figure's Kung Fu grip has a limp wrist. Maybe Cellar was right all along?
472. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:04:17 PM
JJ: I agree with that. However, I think it is a fairly easy walk. It isn't businesses you really have to worry about. Business owners vote the Elephant ticket anyway. Instead, you have to pay attention to employees, who like clean air, clean water, and national parks, but also want jobs.
473. AceofSpades - 1/5/2001 5:05:24 PM
"Well, the names have been getting lighter and lighter, loafer wise."
I thought I was the only one who noticed.
What will the next name be? Little Lord Fondleboy?
474. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:06:12 PM
Judith. God Bless America. Ain't it great how a guy who was a total failure for the first 20 years of his adult life can just turn it around? (sshhh - lets not talk about how Pete Uberroth was brought into the picture by Poppy to insure that the group that had been convinced to bring W into the picture for that name value got the team.)
475. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 5:07:34 PM
Francis Urquart Notorious NAMBLA Youth!
476. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:07:37 PM
I did a search on "Francis Urquhart", and I found this review of a British Movie starring Ian Richardson.
"Perhaps the most challenging experience for the viewer, is a pensive self examination of why the filmmakers succeed in generating your almost axiomatic sympathy for the reptilian scoundrel that is Urquhart. A kind of wicked grin tends to materialize on the lips of first time viewers of the film, as Urquhart advances ingeniously from victory to victory through subversion, deceit, the tacit betrayal and eventually murder. An evidence that the vindictive darkness of the pure Machiavellian Urquhart, inhabits many of us."
[shudder]
477. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:09:13 PM
THAT'S the Francis we know and love!!
478. jonesatlaw - 1/5/2001 5:10:53 PM
Rask- did it mention his height, or lack thereof?
479. CalGal - 1/5/2001 5:10:55 PM
Next up: Mr. Ripley.
480. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:11:37 PM
Great. Now Mary Matalin can do to the country what she's been doing to Carville.
481. concerned - 1/5/2001 5:12:08 PM
Borrowing the first name of the NAACP president, how about this gut-twisting appellation:
Kweisi Urquhart
482. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:13:36 PM
Fielding:
Great. Now Mary Matalin can do to the country what she's been doing to Carville.
What's that? Giving him ugly kids?
483. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:14:27 PM
If I recall correctly, FU deposes of one of his enemies (female) by throwing her off the roof of a building tall enough for the purpose.
And, that was one of his less despicable acts.
The role models some people pick. (Jackie's fantasy life must be something....)
484. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:15:34 PM
jones: later on in the review...
"this viewer was very surprised that a diminutive latino with a lousy jump shot could convey such Thatcher-esque menace"
485. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:16:12 PM
Actually, that was not one of his enemies but his lover.
486. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:16:21 PM
487. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:16:29 PM I am disappointed that Jack didn't take my suggestion of "Kinsey Milhone". It would have been more macho. 488. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:17:22 PM That is funny, Rask. 489. Indiana Jones - 1/5/2001 5:18:06 PM I tried to create a new log in as James Traficant the other night but never received my password. 490. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:18:14 PM Thank you Jack, for allowing us mono-noms to amuse ourselves at your expense. It is awfully big of you. 491. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:18:25 PM 492. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:19:15 PM Jan: Even funnier if you know that I really *did* suggest he use Kinsey Milhone as his name. 493. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:19:17 PM That is funny, Rask. 494. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:19:31 PM 495. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:20:11 PM 496. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:21:52 PM The first of the 497. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:21:56 PM Jackie's always seemed the Pink Panther type to me. If you make the PP a bit more fey, that is. 498. Fielding - 1/5/2001 5:21:58 PM 499. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:22:44 PM The first of the Francis Urquhart novels. 500. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:23:13 PM Sorry, Jan. Bad link on my part. 501. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 5:23:45 PM Rask - Business owners vote the Elephant ticket anyway. 502. Indiana Jones - 1/5/2001 5:24:24 PM From Rask's link... 503. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 5:24:37 PM 504. CalGal - 1/5/2001 5:24:54 PM hahahahahahahahah! 505. CalGal - 1/5/2001 5:25:26 PM That was to Indy's post. Lord, that's funny. 506. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:25:36 PM JJ: In which case, a radical environmental platform would do wonders for fundraising? 507. janjon - 1/5/2001 5:26:07 PM It is becoming clear that Jackie did thorough research into the complexities of the character before picking FU as his newest alter ego. 508. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 5:42:09 PM Rask - In which case, a radical environmental platform would do wonders for fundraising? 509. Raskolnikov - 1/5/2001 5:54:20 PM JJ: 510. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 6:05:50 PM Rask - Business money tends to go to the GOP anyway. 511. concerned - 1/5/2001 6:19:11 PM Re. 510 - 512. concerned - 1/5/2001 6:21:02 PM Personally, I think truly principled people are the exception. In that regard Bore can't even run with the herd. 513. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 6:27:17 PM 514. JJBiener - 1/5/2001 6:41:27 PM Tommy - You once thought Bore was a man of principle? When was that? 515. concerned - 1/5/2001 6:53:24 PM JJ - 516. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/5/2001 7:59:07 PM 517. concerned - 1/5/2001 9:53:53 PM 518. concerned - 1/5/2001 9:57:12 PM What Bush should not consider doing is interfering with the Robert Ray IC investigation or possible prosecution itself. That's Demorat bullshit. 519. JudithAtHome - 1/5/2001 10:01:26 PM 520. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:19:21 AM Ace Message # 397: 521. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:21:11 AM Rask Message # 400: 522. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:25:53 AM Fielding Message # 401: 523. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:27:52 AM The sad part is, I think the Democrats know the truth. They have to. They know that the real reason they lost is because they couldn't make the sale in those eleven states that defected to the GOP. Did those people leave because they think the Dems are too liberal? Possibly; stranger things have happened. People are stupid sometimes, and far more willing to react than to think. 524. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:28:53 AM Ace Message # 402: 525. joezan - 1/6/2001 2:47:05 AM 526. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 3:06:44 AM Joezan: 527. alistairconnor - 1/6/2001 4:21:46 AM Eric : I think you'll come round to sane environmental positions too, one day. 528. alistairconnor - 1/6/2001 4:24:11 AM Message # 508 JJ, I'd just like to say that I agree with your post. 529. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 9:41:20 AM How right-wing is John Ashcroft? Out of sight. Tony Lewis in today's NYT 530. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 10:02:04 AM Frank Rich's op-ed is even better. "Give Me That Old-Time Partisanship" 531. Cellar Door - 1/6/2001 10:20:33 AM "People are stupid sometimes, and far more willing to react than to think." 532. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 10:21:19 AM More Frank Rich 533. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 10:35:08 AM Rich, concluded 534. Cellar Door - 1/6/2001 11:35:44 AM The Official George W. Bush Inaugural Song! 535. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:06:47 PM "I mean, these good folks are revolutionizing how businesses conduct their business. And, like them, I am very optimistic about our position in the world and about its influence on the United States. We're concerned about the short-term economic news, but long term I'm optimistic. And so, I hope investors, you know--secondly, I hope investors hold investments for periods of time--that I've always found the best investments are those that you salt away based on economics."--Austin, Texas, Jan. 4, 2001 536. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:13:23 PM Elvis is leaving the building. After an eight-year virtuoso performance, a concert of aching lows and remarkable (alternative: "striking") highs, he is singing his final encore, taking his last bows. For 96 months (alt: "nearly 3,000 days"), he has been the indispensable man (alt: "alpha and the omega"/"sun and moon"/"rock and roll"/"wise King Henry and roguish Falstaff") of American politics. 537. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:16:18 PM The Only Presidential Assessment You Will Ever Need: Bill Clinton, the Alpha and the Omega 538. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:19:49 PM 539. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:20:18 PM Courtesy THE WIZ! 540. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:24:56 PM 541. Electric Slide - 1/6/2001 12:31:49 PM For the sake of cable news channels everywhere, please indict Bill Clinton for perjury. 542. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:39:07 PM from a recent e-mail... 543. jexster - 1/6/2001 12:49:49 PM Mandate or no, George W. Bush is forging ahead with Cabinet appointments, policy forums and talk of a "first 100 days." Bush and his team have assembled a Cabinet faster than any administration since Richard Nixon's, and before Bush takes the oath of office on January 20 they'll have laid the groundwork for passage of an agenda that closely resembles the worst-case scenario painted by Bush critics during the 2000 campaign. 544. Electric Slide - 1/6/2001 1:26:46 PM YooHooo! Isn't life sweet. I love Karl Rove and he's going to keep the Republicans in power in Washington for another generation. 545. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 1:34:45 PM 546. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 1:38:43 PM 547. Electric Slide - 1/6/2001 2:18:29 PM CLINTON TRIES TO ERASE THE PAST 548. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:45:06 PM Connor Message # 527: 549. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 2:51:13 PM Jexster Message # 535: 550. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 3:01:09 PM 551. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 3:54:35 PM Juditha: 552. EricCartman - 1/6/2001 3:58:59 PM You know, the more I watch Bush and the guys around him, and how things are starting to come down, I'm more convinced than ever that I was right about him, and them. This whole "dumb guy" thing, the lifeless oratory, the fractured syntax, the folksy "major-league asshole"-isms -- stupider like a fox. 553. Indiana Jones - 1/6/2001 4:12:52 PM Have you noticed how many of the good ole boys around Bush are fat? 554. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 4:40:13 PM 555. Indiana Jones - 1/6/2001 5:22:26 PM Judith: How can you tell that Tony Snow has dry skin? 556. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 5:29:43 PM 557. Electric Slide - 1/6/2001 5:30:59 PM Tipper is furious at Hillary. Expect dirt on the Clintons from her friends after January 20th. 558. JudithAtHome - 1/6/2001 5:32:12 PM 559. Indiana Jones - 1/6/2001 5:42:01 PM Judith: But the other senators haven't stood with Gore at the Democratic Convention twice with arms raised in victory. And the other senators didn't have Gore "open a political vein" by supporting her husband during his time of need. And the other senators (with the exception of Schumer) weren't from a state that voted for Gore by a margin greater than her own (as I recall). 560. Indiana Jones - 1/6/2001 5:47:13 PM On another subject, I see where OPEC is apparently going to cut production to keep up the price of oil. Given that Greenspan has just reduced interest rates by 1/2 point, it will be interesting to see which way the economy goes with these conflicting moves. 561. joezan - 1/6/2001 8:45:28 PM 562. JJBiener - 1/6/2001 9:04:30 PM After reading the attacks on Ashcroft over the past few days, I realized that the Democratic Party has a new patron saint: Joseph McCarthy. You guys must be so proud. 563. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:09:44 PM Ashcroft is beyond the pale of rational tolerant and civilized society, the American counterpart of the fundamentalists in Afghanistan. JJ I'm surprised you would extend yourself to defend such a backward (or barely?) thinking, intolerant, phony. I don't know many people like him, and I almost forget they exist in real life outside the ones like Falwell and Bob Barr who inhabit the talk shows. So I'm indebted to Tony Lewis and Frank Rich to remind me how bad he really is. The one consolation is that nearly all of them have gravitated to the GOP. 564. JJBiener - 1/6/2001 11:24:49 PM wonkers - I have been looking for you. Send me an email at jjbiener@yahoo.com. 565. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:27:40 PM He's a barbarian. He doesn't even believe in dancing or sex standing up because it might lead to dancing. 566. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:31:20 PM JJ, it's his position on the issues of abortion, civil rights, race relations, corporate welfare, etc., that bothers us. Call it politics if you will, but that's just a way of hiding the ugly truth of his ugly beliefs. Or, if it's just "politics" that makes it even worse as in the case of Bush pere and his dirty racial ad attacking Dukakis. 567. JJBiener - 1/6/2001 11:32:54 PM McCarthyism is alive and well and living in the heart of the Democratic Party. 568. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:39:08 PM JJ, I know you from the Fray and the Mote well enough to know that you aren't a racist, fundamentalist, homophobic, mysogynist. You are carrying loyalty to the GOP too far. 569. JJBiener - 1/6/2001 11:39:12 PM Wonkers - it's his position on the issues of abortion, civil rights, race relations, corporate welfare, etc., that bothers us. 570. JJBiener - 1/6/2001 11:42:18 PM Wonkers - You are carrying loyalty to the GOP too far 571. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:42:43 PM You are right I don't know what the senator from Claritin and Anheuser Bush's deep down beliefs are or if he has any. I am judging him by his words and his actions and the positions he has taken on quite specific issues. 572. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:46:28 PM JJ, Did you read Lewis's and Rich's op-ed pieces in today's NYT? How about dealing with the specifics. If they are innacurate or erroneous please let us know how so? Did he get an honorary degree from Bob Jones "University?" Does he oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest? Does he oppose handgun control? Did he take $50,000 from Schering-Plough after sponsoring a bill to extend the patent on Claritin? etc, etc. Is he opposed to dancing? 573. cmboyce - 1/6/2001 11:47:58 PM The "Democratic heart" has merged itself and is now simply a ventricle of the Republicrat heart. This organ's pathological history encompasses one quite serious attack and numerous minor episodes of McCarthyism, to be sure, but I don't see that the remarks I've seen on Ashcroft qualify as symptoms thereof. He has not been accused of treason; he has not been threatened in his livelihood (rather the opposite); remarks have been made about his politics, and they seem to me unexceptionable. 574. cmboyce - 1/6/2001 11:49:06 PM My 573 was in response to JJ's McCarthyism is alive and well and living in the heart of the Democratic Party. 575. wonkers2 - 1/6/2001 11:55:19 PM cm, Very good. Ashcroft's nomination shows that McCarthyism still lives in the GOP. Ashcroft is a millenial fundamentalist protestant near-clone of McCarthy without the bad manners. 576. cmboyce - 1/6/2001 11:59:35 PM Well, I can't say I've seen any resemblence, actually. He reminds me more of the Christian right. I think the bigots and rightwingers of our political world learned that the techniques of McCarthy—and that's all M'ism refers to; there isn't any belief-system there, whether anti-dancing or anything else—were and are counterproductive. 577. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:08:05 AM Wonkers - Did he get an honorary degree from Bob Jones "University?" 578. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 12:09:11 AM Well, I guess what I meant is that Ashcroft probably would have been a McCarthy supporter had he been McCarthy's contemporary, not that he is using McCarthy's tactics today, although his attacks on Judge White seem to have bordered on McCarthyism, substituting soft on crime and capital punishment for communist or fellow traveler. 579. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:11:14 AM CMBoyce - My 573 was in response to JJ's McCarthyism is alive and well and living in the heart of the Democratic Party. 580. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:15:29 AM You seem not to have read very far, JJ. Either that or, like those who call Republicans "Fascists" you have only a vague, arguably sentimental notion of what McCarthy actually was. 581. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 12:15:44 AM cm, You go way to far in characterizing the Democratic Party as a ventricle of the GOP. You are talking like a Naderite. 582. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:25:57 AM And notice that I certainly don't think he resembles Uncle Joe. I think he's a moral troglodyte, based on what I read are his opinions and positions. It is morally trogloditic to want to deny abortion to a rape or incest victim (the latter a subset of the other, actually); it is trogloditic to invent the evidence one presents to keep a black of a court. It is morally trogloditic to insist on the unacceptability of other people's sexual natures because you subscribe to a doctrine that disaspproves of them, and especially if one also take a job which in principle protects the citizenry against bias. It is merely a misdemeanor (and foolish) to oppose the regulation of dangerous appliances. 583. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 12:25:58 AM No doubt Ashcroft changes his socks and underwear daily, and if you lent Ashcroft $1000 he would no doubt repay it on time with interest. And he probably isn't screwing his secretary. If that's what you mean by honorable I concede the point. But his positions on several issues are anathema to the majority of Americans. And those positions aren't even good politics for the GOP, and apparently they weren't even good politics for Ashcroft himself. 584. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:30:03 AM wonkers, not of the GOP, of the Republicrats. And Nader is right about a good deal; he just has no political sense whatsoever, and so he shot himself in the foot, or maybe the heart. 585. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:30:56 AM cmboyce - You seem not to have read very far, JJ. 586. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 12:33:07 AM Sebastopol is nice. The bottom up approach makes more sense to me than Nader's contribution to the election of Bush. I hope he did shoot himself in the heart! 587. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:35:28 AM CMBoyce - I think he's a moral troglodyte, based on what I read are his opinions and positions. 588. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:46:23 AM CMBoyce - I think he's a moral troglodyte, based on what I read are his opinions and positions. 589. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:48:35 AM JJ, do you suppose that "saving America from the Communist Menace" is not intended for political gain. The reason people did, and/or do, regard Communism as a menace is that they fear that if it gets the political gain, their political culture will be changed in a way they won't like. Shit, that's what all politics is, getting society done the way you want it done. 590. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:51:03 AM JJ, I'm not intolerant of Ashcroft and his trogloditic ilk. I just don't think the sonofabitch should be enforcing the law. He can conduct his moral life as he wants to, otherwise. 591. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/7/2001 12:54:57 AM 592. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 12:56:00 AM CMBoyce - I bet you think your shit doesn't stink either. Don't look in the mirror too long. You might not like what you see. 593. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 12:57:20 AM Hey, there's some salient political commentary, JJ. 594. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 1:05:48 AM cmboyce - It wasn't a political commentary. It was a commentary on your inability to see in yourself the very things you accuse other of. You are appalled by Ashcroft's supposed intolerance, and yet you are completely blind to your own. I thought it worthy of comment. 595. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 1:07:36 AM See Message # 590, JJ. Supposing that you can, through the vapor you seem to have wrapped about yourself. 596. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 1:13:16 AM CMBoyce - I read #590, and #592 still stands. 597. arkymalarky - 1/7/2001 1:23:43 AM It is perfectly legitimate to have concerns about someone's fitness as AG based on the individual's political history. That's not intolerance, it's exercising a basic civic interest. 598. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 1:32:06 AM Arky - It is perfectly legitimate to have concerns about someone's fitness as AG based on the individual's political history. 599. concerned - 1/7/2001 3:44:02 AM How much will NMD really cost, and how well will it really work? You don't need to know. 600. concerned - 1/7/2001 3:48:55 AM To the Mote Lefty droolers: Now, even Pinocchio Bore has officially conceded as President of the Senate that Bush bested him in the electoral college tally. 601. concerned - 1/7/2001 4:47:32 AM Personally, I think John Ashcroft's position on abortion is peripheral to any effect he will have as AG. A 'litmus test', inappropriately applied, IOW. 602. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2001 6:03:30 AM Hmmm . . . according to his defenders, John Ashcroft is threatened with rejection to a federal post for which he is well qualified by partisans who are misrepresenting his record for their political purposes. 603. jexster - 1/7/2001 8:56:01 AM rReligious Rights' Push For Crypto Racist, Homophobe Ashcroft - The New York Times 604. jexster - 1/7/2001 8:59:05 AM We needn't be concerned with bastard-elect's plans for missile defense or the wildlife refuge if Congressional democrats and sane republicans do their duty.... 605. jexster - 1/7/2001 9:03:57 AM The Florida EC votes should have been tossed as the product of the corrupt electoral and judicial system that produced them. 606. jexster - 1/7/2001 9:05:33 AM 607. jexster - 1/7/2001 9:14:27 AM The Moron's Bipartisan BushShit 608. jexster - 1/7/2001 9:16:54 AM "The New Republic has obtained a copy of President Bush's inaugural address, and it reveals the new president's determination to end Washington's adversarial culture and restore comity between Democrats and Republicans. "A new breeze is blowing, and the old bipartisanship must be made new again," Bush declares. "The American people await action. They didn't send us here to bicker." 609. Greystoke - 1/7/2001 10:24:21 AM Gale Norton, the polluters' best friend. 610. Greystoke - 1/7/2001 10:25:30 AM The federal government was forced to spend $150 million in an emergency cleanup of Summitville, and Norton's inaction opened her to criticism that she was a hypocrite because she just had won election with numerous television ads calling her Colorado's "tough law" candidate. 611. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 10:51:49 AM 612. Greystoke - 1/7/2001 10:56:40 AM The Gale Norton article gives us a little snapshot of the future. A future where George Bush spearheads an effort to give large chunks of federal regulatory authority to the states. And then the states sit on their hands and allow business a free reign. 613. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 11:00:05 AM 614. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 11:02:27 AM 615. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 11:03:09 AM Ashcroft from today's NYT: 616. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2001 11:10:11 AM There he goes again: Senator Kyl (R - Arizona) bullshitting on Meet the Press, claiming that the Supreme Court has held that a union member has a right to individually approve or disapprove in advance use of a portion of his or her dues for political purposes. Wrong. 617. Wombat - 1/7/2001 11:17:32 AM What Ashcoft did to Judge White was very much McCarthy-style smear politics. In order to find a stick to beat the late Mel Carnahan, Ashcroft smeared Judge White, claiming--on the basis of no evidence whatsoever--that Judge White was a friend to criminals and opposed the death penalty. 618. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 11:19:43 AM Or "The more you stir a turd, the more it stinks." From Morris Palmer Tilley's "A Dictionary of the Proverbs in England from the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries." 619. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 11:25:28 AM "I would have grave concerns about Gale Norton's aggressiveness in enforcing environmental compliance and protecting citizens from environmental damage..." 620. Wombat - 1/7/2001 11:26:52 AM Jeez, is Ashcroft a loon or what? Mighty prideful of him to "anoint" himself. 621. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 11:30:17 AM 622. cmboyce - 1/7/2001 11:38:37 AM Hmm. Governor Ashcroft appears to have taken it upon himself to improve upon the Bible. I'm surprised his constituents tolerated that. 623. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 11:43:25 AM 624. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 11:47:23 AM I strongly disagree with Ashcroft's position on all the above issues as do most educated, rational and tolerant Americans. 625. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 11:51:22 AM 626. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2001 11:54:16 AM "[The President] can choose his cabinet as he sees fit, provided that cabinet is qualified apart from their political views." 627. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 11:56:38 AM 628. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:03:24 PM I don't agree with that statement. Nor, apparently, did the Republican Senators who refused to confirm Bill Lann Lee as an Assistant Attorney General. 629. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:08:54 PM Well, technically, that should read "enough ELECTORS" as far as the Presidency part goes. 630. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 12:09:46 PM 631. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 12:13:12 PM 632. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 12:14:35 PM 633. Toenails - 1/7/2001 12:15:54 PM 634. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:24:41 PM Linda Chavez, the Labor Secretary-elect, had a Guatamalan woman, an illegal alien, living with her for over a year but she didn't pay her a salary or anything... 635. Greystoke - 1/7/2001 12:27:33 PM Toenails 636. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2001 12:28:42 PM "Ohio: Are you saying the Senate should be able to reject a nominee to 637. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:30:00 PM Unless, of course, you mean that those 500,000 voters were not educated and rational. 638. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:31:45 PM Ohio: Fair enough. 639. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 12:36:47 PM 640. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:43:21 PM Ohio: I have to go, so my answer was going to be short, but then I thought I'd point out that the two extremes are: 641. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:47:34 PM To begin with, I don't think that is what he implied 642. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 12:50:07 PM And it also implies that more than 50 percent of educated, rational, and tolerant Americans agree with wonkers. So if you disagree, then there is a greater than 50 percent chance you are again either uneducated, irrational, or intolerant. 643. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 12:52:09 PM 644. Stumbo - 1/7/2001 1:07:33 PM IJ: 645. Stumbo - 1/7/2001 1:10:43 PM Ohio, #636: 646. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2001 1:35:55 PM I don't know what these "Dem. charges" are you refer to, but I don't think Lee's race was a factor. Rather, what offended Lee's critics was his view on race: that minority races are discriminated against and that there should be, and is, a legal remedy for that discrimination. 647. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 2:12:31 PM The majority of Americans, especially those who are educated, rational and tolerant, support the right to choose, handgun control, separation of church and state and minority rights. They are not homophobic and therefore tend to frown on hanging gays from fenceposts. University professors and other well educated Americans tend not to buy into the social conservative agenda of the Christian right. Many Republicans also shrink from the Ashcrofts of the Party and their positions many of which hearken back to the Salem witch trials. When I see Ashcroft I am reminded of the minister who succumbed to Sadie Thompson. 648. Cellar Door - 1/7/2001 2:41:04 PM The most important analysis of the "election" to date. 649. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 2:59:26 PM 650. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 3:00:27 PM 651. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 3:00:54 PM Well? 652. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 3:01:37 PM 653. JudithAtHome - 1/7/2001 3:02:06 PM 654. EricCartman - 1/7/2001 4:02:42 PM Concerned Message # 599: 655. Indiana Jones - 1/7/2001 5:08:43 PM Stumbo: 656. JJBiener - 1/7/2001 6:26:36 PM Wonkers - The majority of Americans, especially those who are educated, rational and tolerant, support the right to choose, handgun control. . . 657. robertjayb - 1/7/2001 6:32:01 PM . 658. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 6:37:05 PM JJ, You may be correct about Brittany. But, alas, she's a bit young for ole wonkers. 659. wonkers2 - 1/7/2001 6:43:02 PM Linda Chaves is nearly as bad as Ashcroft. I recently saw a column remarking on the availability for cabinet jobs diverse candidates in all shades of the political spectrum, making it possible for candidates like Bush to have a conservative but diverse candidate. Chavez is a good example. Of course Bush senior picked Thomas, the ultimate Uncle Tom for the "black seat" on the Supreme Court. But the voters seem to be onto the game. 660. concerned - 1/8/2001 7:13:43 AM Could Lefties be so stupid and dishonest as to condemn Linda Chavez for assisting a battered Guatemalan woman? Guess so. 661. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 10:20:01 AM 662. cmboyce - 1/8/2001 10:23:02 AM #659: " But the voters seem to be onto the game." 663. CalGal - 1/8/2001 10:35:11 AM I actually don't dislike Chavez at all, but I agree with BobbyJ. She's probably gonna be Zoe'ed and Kimba'ed. 664. Wombat - 1/8/2001 10:36:38 AM A reading of the Op-Ed piece cited indicates that WSJ was against what happened to Zoe Baird as well. According to the writer, Baird was torpedoed by the "left" as well, who were concerned about some of corporate ties. So, the "left" was consistent in its actions, according to the article. 665. jexster - 1/8/2001 10:49:42 AM I forget the author, but a few days back, one of our more astute Motiers, posted a message, a litany of BushSh**t, Howdy Doody slogans without detail... 666. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 10:54:29 AM 667. Cellar Door - 1/8/2001 10:57:29 AM So Linda Chavez has an illegal alien lesbian lover. So what? Who cares? 668. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 11:05:13 AM 669. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:12:09 AM Linda Chavez is Mr. Bush's selection to head the Labor Department. The secretary of labor is supposed to serve the interests of working men and women. If Ms. Chavez's career to date is any guide, America's working men and women should run for cover. We have been enjoying the greatest period of prosperity in the nation's history, but Ms. Chavez has steadfastly opposed even a modest hike in the minimum wage. A few years ago she derided a proposed minimum wage increase as Marxist, saying, "The folks at the Clinton Labor Department seem to think wage policy should follow Karl Marx's dictum, `From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."' 670. RustlerPike - 1/8/2001 11:13:43 AM 671. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:14:03 AM Wingnuts Predominate in the Bastard Cabinet 672. CalGal - 1/8/2001 11:18:16 AM Jexter has just posted all the reasons I'm so fond of Chavez. In fact, union members are not representative of the working public, while there may be a glass ceiling, there's far more evidence that women just make idiotic career decisions, and far too many harassment suits (but not all) are brought by whiners. 673. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:20:21 AM Chavez's compassionate conservatism resonates with similar themes the crypto-racist and homophobe Ashcroft sounded in The Southern Patriot and by my dear Southern grandpa. 674. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 11:21:08 AM 675. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:22:03 AM Yea the minimum wage is Marxist. Linda Chavez thinks she can become white by out-limbaughing Rush. Her views are rank, her intellect shallow. 676. CalGal - 1/8/2001 11:22:46 AM 677. CalGal - 1/8/2001 11:24:53 AM Chavez isn't shallow. I don't always agree with her, but she's quite bright. I think it's great to have a ruthless chick in charge of Labor, and I'd like to see her confirmed. But the Republican explanation of the Guatemalan situation (she was just helping out a friend in need. Oh, the generosity.) is astonishingly lame. 678. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:25:09 AM toys 679. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 11:31:29 AM 680. jexster - 1/8/2001 11:40:25 AM 681. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 11:54:33 AM I guess Chavez is now learning that no good deed goes unpunished. How dare she think that she could personally make a difference in lives of the less fortunate? Doesn't she know that only the government has the grace and wisdom to save people from their lot in life. 682. Electric Slide - 1/8/2001 11:57:10 AM Clinton's Legacy... 683. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 11:57:12 AM Once upon a time there was a GOP tradition of appointing a Secretary of Labor who was acceptable to labor. Eisenhower appointed Durkin, a former union president, as I recall. Nixon appointed George Shultz an arbitrator and professor from University of Chicago and a supporter of the collective bargaining process and John Dunlop, a noted labor economist from Harvard and a mediator who had credibility with the AFL-CIO. Only with Reagan did this wise tradition fall by the wayside. If Bush knew his history and truly wanted consensus he would have followed the tradition of giving labor a sympathetic or at least a neutral voice in his cabinet. Instead he appointed a strident opponent of unionism, OSHA, the minimum wage, etc, etc. which was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, Chavez was probably recommended by Cheney and Falwell. 684. Wombat - 1/8/2001 11:58:59 AM Only if she is an illegal immigrant, JJ, and if your party is always hoohawing about how the US is being flooded by them, and not enough is being done to keep them out, and how the other party is registering them to vote. Then you would be hoist on your own petard, and deservedly so. 685. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 11:59:03 AM Of course unions are not as important a factor in the American economy as they once were when it was helpful in times of crisis to have a cabinet member trusted by labor. 686. Electric Slide - 1/8/2001 11:59:09 AM Once upon a time, the unions didn't work 24/7, year in and year out, to destroy Republicans--even ones who try to help the working man. 687. Jonesatlaw - 1/8/2001 12:03:57 PM Rosie- The Teamsters endorsed RR and have been fairly friendly to the GOP. Are they not a union? 688. concerned - 1/8/2001 12:06:05 PM Re. 666 - 689. Wombat - 1/8/2001 12:06:18 PM Once upon a time, administrations stood aside or provided support to industries that fought unionization. The Democrats got out of that habit in the 1930s, and for several decades, so did the Republicans. 690. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 12:06:34 PM Wonkers - If Bush knew his history and truly wanted consensus he would have followed the tradition of giving labor a sympathetic or at least a neutral voice in his cabinet. 691. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 12:06:46 PM Linda Chavez isn't one of the few Republicans who try to help the working man. And, except for Jimmy Hoffa and one or two others most unions have traditionally been solidly in the Democrat camp. However, Rockefeller-style Republicans like Arlen Specter have enjoyed a fair amount of union support. But starting with Reagan the GOP pretty much gave up on labor union and black support in its decision to go for the redneck, bible belt, NRA vote. 692. concerned - 1/8/2001 12:07:42 PM Btw, in 1993, few Republicans attempted to put any obstacles in the way of the WH Rapist's cabinet appointees due to partisan bias, and certainly not as attempted 'revenge'. 693. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 12:08:32 PM JJ, Yeah, I guess that is an example of his "reformer with results" slogan. The question is what results?? 694. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:11:23 PM While Chavez's views are more distasteful, her competence less, Ashcroft remains the greater danger... 695. Wombat - 1/8/2001 12:13:01 PM By the way, Clinton won a decisive victory (in the now-sacred electoral college) in the 1992 elections, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by more comfortable margins than the Republicans do now. 696. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:13:19 PM Ya gotta luv Concerned....still trying to whack at Clinton 697. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:14:03 PM Clinton didn't steal an election either. 698. janjon - 1/8/2001 12:15:15 PM I for one want them ALL confirmed. And, let them go forth on their missions with vim, vigor and conviction. 699. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 12:15:23 PM Wonder why Chavez didn't list her stint at English First on her resume. Isn't she proud of her efforts to make English the official language of the USofA and all its subdivisions? 700. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:15:36 PM I say any motive which leads to resistance to the Moronic bastard president is an honorable, righteous, and just motive. 701. janjon - 1/8/2001 12:17:31 PM jexster - oh, the resistance will come. In due course and in spades. 702. janjon - 1/8/2001 12:19:42 PM In addition to all of the prescient stuff quoted above, Frank Rich had another gem over the weekend. 703. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 12:20:03 PM She has so many dubious entries on her resume she couldn't decide which ones to include. By the way, Norman Podhoretz was singing her praise on C-Span yesterday which gave him two hours of free time to push his books. C-Span didn't waste any time to ingratiate itself with the Bush administration. Podhoretz also praised Rumsfeld because of his support for missile defenses, but he apparently couldn't bring himself to praise Ashcroft. 704. concerned - 1/8/2001 12:20:04 PM Re. 697 - 705. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 12:23:48 PM But Bush Bush Bush Scalia and Thomas were more effective. 706. CalGal - 1/8/2001 12:28:17 PM Ashcroft isn't incompetent--my lord, he was a respected governor and senator. His politics are ick, but he is apparently quite popular. Of the two, I think Chavez could be the sacrificial lamb, should one be needed. 707. janjon - 1/8/2001 12:30:48 PM There is a theory afoot (cynical as it may be) that Chavez was intended to be the sacrificial lamb/victim from the outset. 708. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:31:30 PM A tired old bunch of sods from the 70's. A cabinet designed by and for Nanny Warbucks, bastard Chief Executive of the US 709. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 12:31:39 PM Jex - Clinton didn't steal an election either. 710. janjon - 1/8/2001 12:31:58 PM My objections to Ashcroft have nothing to do with whether he is competent or not. 711. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:33:07 PM Gimmme That Ole Time Partisanship! 712. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:34:53 PM I define steal as 1. losing the popular vote 2. losing the electoral vote 3. having 5 members of the Supreme Court corruptly decide to hand you an election 713. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:38:44 PM Jex, 715. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:46:34 PM 716. concerned - 1/8/2001 12:46:39 PM Re. 712 - 717. concerned - 1/8/2001 12:48:37 PM Re. 715 - 718. jexster - 1/8/2001 12:55:01 PM ust how bad an Attorney General would John Ashcroft be? And is his nomination worth fighting? To answer the first question, talk to those who have experienced Ashcroft up close and personal. Like Harriet Woods, Missouri's lieutenant governor during the first of Ashcroft's two terms as that state's chief executive: She calls him "a disaster for minorities and for women." Or like retired Missouri Supreme Court Judge Charles Blackmar. Blackmar--a Republican appointee--accused Senator Ashcroft of "tampering with the judiciary" by blocking the federal court nomination of the amply qualified Missouri judge Ronnie White. Ashcroft opposed Judge White, an African-American, on the ostensible grounds that he voted against too many death sentences, leading Blackmar to this pungent assessment of the philosophy guiding Bush's chief law officer in the the crucial job of appointing federal judges: "The senator seems to take the attitude that any deviation is suspect, liberal, activist." 719. cmboyce - 1/8/2001 1:02:33 PM A propos of nothing but having found this quotation, I post it to refresh our recollections of first Bush administration, that we may hope the second will be better. It is from a diary kept by Adrienne Rich. 720. CalGal - 1/8/2001 1:07:35 PM CM, 721. Wombat - 1/8/2001 1:12:35 PM Bush senior's subsequent experience belies Ms. Rich's nonsense. 722. cmboyce - 1/8/2001 1:23:46 PM Wombat: Huh? By "subsequent experience", do you mean "winning" the war, which in this case would seem to mean getting most of the troops back home after winning the first encounter? How's that belie Rich's sentiments (which seem unexceptionable to me)? 723. concerned - 1/8/2001 1:23:51 PM Ashcroft opposes one AA judge out of more than a dozen and that makes him 'dangerous'? Why are Lefties suddenly requiring that Ashcroft has a problem because he wasn't a damned rubber stamp? This defines 'intellectual dishonesty' on the part of the Left. 724. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 1:25:43 PM 725. janjon - 1/8/2001 1:29:06 PM Judith - in general, let's giv'em enough rope.....BUT, Ashcroft does go too far. 726. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 2:05:08 PM Judith - I'd like to see Bush actually DO anything...everything you've seen thus far is Karl Rove and Dick Cheneys ideas of guts. 727. robertjayb - 1/8/2001 2:07:48 PM . 728. Wombat - 1/8/2001 2:21:27 PM CM: 729. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 2:31:11 PM 730. concerned - 1/8/2001 2:34:43 PM So JAH doesn't think GWB does 'anything'. 731. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 2:36:15 PM 732. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 2:43:34 PM Judith - Oh come on, concerned, what I believe is no more ludicrous than what you do.... 733. labwabbit - 1/8/2001 2:45:04 PM Oh come on, concerned, what I believe is no more ludicrous than what you do.... 734. seadate - 1/8/2001 2:49:02 PM "Oh come on, concerned, what I believe is no more ludicrous than what you do...." 735. Wombat - 1/8/2001 2:53:27 PM Joke: 736. concerned - 1/8/2001 2:58:48 PM Wombats - 737. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 3:03:21 PM Wombat - How would you break Concerned's or Rosie's nose? 738. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:04:36 PM You know you're in the very pit of hell when, cruising down Farm to Market Road 1092, you spy a billboard 739. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:05:16 PM 740. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:06:30 PM Message # 730 741. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:09:13 PM 742. RustlerPike - 1/8/2001 3:11:25 PM 743. Wombat - 1/8/2001 3:12:12 PM We'll let you have your drunkard coke fiend instead, Insouciant. 744. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:14:26 PM Time: Ashcroft Will Ignite Most Furious Confirmation Fight Since Bork & Thomas 745. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:15:50 PM RP....go to and ask the Wiz himself! 746. concerned - 1/8/2001 3:16:36 PM Re. 743 - 747. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:18:18 PM 748. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 3:19:07 PM I don't see how Democrats can complain about Bush's supposed drug use when Clinton's entire cabinet showed up stoned to his first State of the Union. The coke parties Clinton threw in the AR Governor's mansion (courtesy of First Brother Roger) set the standard. 749. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:20:02 PM The drinking stuff - all a Lefty smear. 750. Wombat - 1/8/2001 3:22:19 PM Why, GW admitted he had a drinking problem, didn't he? As for his other peccadilloes, there may be as much evidence on them as there is on those you claim for Clinton. 751. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:22:47 PM 752. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:24:47 PM "Bastard President" is fine by me because it is true....I will never use a title usurped nor will I even quote without [sic] 753. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:45:19 PM Look Biener, A Horsie! 754. janjon - 1/8/2001 3:49:22 PM Jex. Give it a rest. You should know by now that it is impossible to let facts get in the way of Biener's convictions. Besides - that is a quote from Time, and everyone knows how that is just part of the liberal-biased media. 755. JJBiener - 1/8/2001 3:51:37 PM Jex - Gee, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial staff is repeating the standard Democratic mantra on Ashcroft. What a surprise. The PD is just slightly to the left of Maxine Waters. Their desire to spike Ashcroft's nomination is probably second only to your own. 756. jexster - 1/8/2001 3:57:07 PM and so is Time magazine...boy the tentacles of the vast liberal media conspiracy must give you real nightmare Biener.. 757. janjon - 1/8/2001 3:59:16 PM Jex. I understand the sentiment. But how many times can one try to punch a hole in dense water? 758. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:01:11 PM 759. janjon - 1/8/2001 4:04:48 PM judith. This is a new tangent seeping out of concern's so-called mind. What it tells me is that, understandably, he's going to be verrry defensive about W as time goes on. 760. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:06:12 PM 761. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 4:07:05 PM Too bad. He's damned near apoplectic now, so I expect him to blow a gasket in short order. 762. janjon - 1/8/2001 4:08:36 PM Well, yes. The next four years indeed would be funny, if it weren't for the fact that W's handlers' acts will have consequences. 763. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 4:09:11 PM It doesn't have quite the same ring to call Bush the "white house druggist" or the "white house sot". George 'Duh'bya -- the "president". 764. janjon - 1/8/2001 4:10:10 PM President Bush. It was an oxymoron the first time around and it will be a oxymoron this time too. 765. PsychProf - 1/8/2001 4:15:12 PM 766. Wombat - 1/8/2001 4:17:42 PM Proof that the theory of evolution is correct! Which one is evolving? 767. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 4:21:51 PM Curious, George. 768. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 4:22:16 PM Does that make Dick Cheney the "man with the yellow hat"? 769. Wombat - 1/8/2001 4:23:18 PM Bubba 770. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:25:00 PM 771. janjon - 1/8/2001 4:25:01 PM Both of the By Georges above are quite funny. 772. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:25:35 PM 773. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:26:24 PM 774. bubbaette - 1/8/2001 4:33:56 PM curiouser and curiouser in a "through the looking glass" sense. 775. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:34:40 PM 776. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:36:28 PM 777. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:41:01 PM 778. robertjayb - 1/8/2001 4:44:53 PM . 779. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:47:12 PM 780. robertjayb - 1/8/2001 4:52:04 PM . 781. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 4:53:15 PM 782. janjon - 1/8/2001 4:55:13 PM The ruling class should be entitled to a few perks, eh? Like el cheapo household help. 783. Fielding - 1/8/2001 4:57:52 PM concerned: 784. jexster - 1/8/2001 5:23:16 PM LAT: Racist Record Dogs Ashcroft 785. janjon - 1/8/2001 5:28:54 PM Boy, the troubles in Paradise in Waiting certainly seem to be piling up. Not only do we learn about Rumsfeld's YESSIR BOSS responses to the ludicrous comments Nixon was making to him about negroes (it was in 1971 remember), you also have the spectacle of Chavez practicing compassionate conservatism in what I guess can charitably be called a unique manner with that poor illegal alien she took under her wing. But, much more currently, we now see that Colin Powell (yes, the saintly Colin) will have a few things to explain. Turns out he accepted a $100,000 fee for a talk at Tufts five days before the election. This of course was at a time when he had acknowledged more or less publically that he would accept a position in a W cabinet. The fee was paid by a Lebanese billionaire. Now, I have little doubt that you can rather easily weave a justification here that will make it rather clear that this does not constitute any violation of any laaw. (W had not yet been given the Presidency, etc.) BUT, talk about poor judgment. And, it is not as if Colin needed that last $100,000 fee. He's been raking in that or close to it for years. And, boy, has he been loquacious. 786. jexster - 1/8/2001 5:30:15 PM "I do remain confident in Linda. She'll make a fine labor secretary. From what I've read in the press accounts, she's perfectly qualified."--Austin, Texas, Jan. 8, 2001 787. janjon - 1/8/2001 5:31:35 PM Did he actually say "From what I've read in the press accounts"? That IS moronic. Naive, too. 788. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 5:32:25 PM 789. janjon - 1/8/2001 5:33:45 PM If there is ANYTHING that you would expect a President-Select to be knowledgeable about at this point, it would be the qualifications of his cabinet nominees. I mean, really. 790. CalGal - 1/8/2001 5:34:00 PM Actually, I don't have much trouble with Chavez's actions as described thus far. It does seem as if she genuinely does help out people and that this wasn't just used as cover. There are other occurrences of her helping out immigrants. 791. Fielding - 1/8/2001 5:37:11 PM 792. glendajean - 1/8/2001 5:39:35 PM I agree. I knew folk in DC who often helped immigrants, providing shelter, food and assistance. If this is a one or two month example of such, then Chavez should be commended. 793. glendajean - 1/8/2001 5:41:44 PM My agreement was to Cal's post, but I ditto to Fieldings. 794. concerned - 1/8/2001 5:41:49 PM Re. 783 - 795. glendajean - 1/8/2001 5:46:28 PM The woman nominated to Interior Secretary was Colorado AG who defended Amendment 2, the chilling state law that would have overturned municipal equal protection laws (it was designed to remove gay people from housing and job anti-discrimination ordinances). As an official, she had to defend the law. Supposedly is a "libertarian" who didn't care one way or the other, but just did her job. OTH, she paid Paul Cameron $15,000 to serve as a witness (but ended up not using him). 796. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 5:47:14 PM 797. janjon - 1/8/2001 5:47:26 PM I actually agree on all fours with Fielding, except that how does one distinguish between the Chavez (assuming the worst interpretation of what she did, namely that she was paying this woman for household help, without withholdings, etc., while knowing she was an illegal alien) and Whitman examples and those of only eight years ago with Clinton's first two AG nominees? 798. concerned - 1/8/2001 5:50:55 PM Re. 796 - 799. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 5:52:35 PM 800. concerned - 1/8/2001 5:53:19 PM Speaking of "AA", perhaps the NAACP should rehabilitate its own name. 801. CalGal - 1/8/2001 5:54:30 PM Ashcroft is the most ethically secure of the bunch, by far. It would be unlikely for him to be rejected purely for his views, and he appears to be Mr. Clean thus far from that pov. He's going to face the most opposition, but I'm not sure that it'll kill him. 802. concerned - 1/8/2001 5:54:42 PM Re. 799 - 803. JudithAtHome - 1/8/2001 5:59:07 PM 804. concerned - 1/8/2001 6:00:08 PM Oops. JAH meant her *other* suggestion. Sorry about scanning too fast. Guess I could get into the habit.... 805. Fielding - 1/8/2001 6:04:45 PM 806. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 6:07:34 PM Ashcroft already said what his reasoning was--that Judge White was soft on crime and even "pro criminal." According to Ashcroft the judge's record "showed a tremendous bent toward criminal activity." Further, he said that Judge White was the most anti-death penalty judge on the state Supreme Court. These were complete lies told in hope of helping him beat Carnahan. The Senate Republicans distributed a memo that described White as "notorious among law enforcement officers in his home state of Missouri for his decisions favoring murderers, rapists, drug dealers and other heinous criminals. More lies, much worse than any told by Bill Clinton, all from a most "honorable" former U.S. Senator who apparently overestimated the redneck vote in Missouri. Moreover, they were much more serious and unforgiveable lies than any told by Bill Clinton. Apparently concerned is only concerned about Dem lies. 807. Fielding - 1/8/2001 6:10:37 PM 808. CalGal - 1/8/2001 6:11:07 PM I disagree about both Baird and Wood--in fact, one of the things that really amused me was how badly Washington, with its reliance on illegal nannies, didn't realize how thoroughly that would piss off the general populace. It was a big fucking deal, and any excuses about how hard it is to be a working mother would be slammed back with a baseball bat. Also, it was flagrantly against the law, not just an iffy situation. In fact, if Chavez weren't Hispanic herself with "issues" with the Hispanic community, I'm not sure that her situation would be nearly as problematic. 809. jexster - 1/8/2001 6:11:55 PM While Israelis would surely disagree that Powell's Payola is remotely equivalent to Hillary's, the issue pales in comparison to his utter lack of ability in the policy arena, a deficit only made worse by Condo Rice. 810. concerned - 1/8/2001 6:16:34 PM Re. 807 - 811. concerned - 1/8/2001 6:39:12 PM Whether Ashcroft was 'fair' regarding Ron White is another matter. On the face of it, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he may have, in his public statements, deliberately exaggerated White's leniency towards offenders when deciding, as only one member of the committee, not to cast his vote to confirm this lone instance of an AA Clowntoon judge appointment as compared to the 26 he approved of, but, even if so, similar isolated possible discrepancies in judgment by Democrat Senators seem quite forgiveable (and even praiseworthy) to most of those with a liberal bent, and certainly wouldn't justify the charges of racism and calls for Borking that Ashcroft is enduring. 812. wonkers2 - 1/8/2001 8:20:01 PM Ashcroft was not merely voting as one member of the committee. The practice is to give deference to the views of the senator from the state from which the prospective appointee comes and from the circuit where he is to serve. That's why the 4th circuit has, until recently, never had a black federal judge, namely because black nominees from South? Carolina have been vetoed by Strom Thurmond and/or Jessee Helms, just as Ashcroft offed Judge White by lying about his record, not necessarily just because Ashcrtoft personally prejudiced against blacks but because he thought it would help him get re-elected. 813. concerned - 1/8/2001 9:28:27 PM Well, somehow, I suspect there may be more of relevance to the situation, but Ashcroft may not be that big a loss, if he's as culpable as you imply in the Ron White case. 814. Jonesatlaw - 1/8/2001 10:15:08 PM Ashcroft implied that White was soft on crime by opposing the death penalty in a recent case. He did so knowing that White had often voted for the death penalty in other cases. It's one thing to have a philosophical or political objection to a nominee, its quite another to fabricate a characteristic of the nominee and oppose him/her on that basis. 815. bbb - 1/8/2001 11:52:24 PM Is Salon TT very slow tonight? 816. CalGal - 1/8/2001 11:53:38 PM I think it's dead, isn't it? Has been for a few hours. Generally, you should ask off-topic questions in Try the Mote, Cafe, or the Inferno. 817. bbb - 1/8/2001 11:55:56 PM CalGirl, 818. CalGal - 1/8/2001 11:56:28 PM Answer in Try the Mote. 819. Cellar Door - 1/8/2001 11:56:50 PM Having trouble connecting to "Salon." 820. CalGal - 1/9/2001 12:00:02 AM Actually, I believe the general objection to Spud's "links to racist connections" has always been the emphasis on connections, rather than racist. Although I do hope Spud stops by. 821. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 12:18:04 AM The manifest evidence of Ashcroft's racism is simply overwhelming.Yet no one in the cowering press wants to deal with it, save for a small handful of columnists. With everyone else the watchcry is "Now we don't want to call Mr. Ashcroft a racist" and "Well I know him nad he's an honorable man." 822. CalGal - 1/9/2001 12:36:05 AM Well, sure. It's a meaningful insult, the way you apply it. 823. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 12:36:38 AM Cellar - You have become unglued. Take your valium and go to bed. 824. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 12:42:05 AM I don't take Valium. And I'm glued quite well. 825. Jonesatlaw - 1/9/2001 12:44:47 AM Cellar- the legal press made quite a stink of it in the professional papers. 826. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 1:19:25 AM Cellar - Fess up. You're really Roy Cohn in disguise, aren't you? 827. concerned - 1/9/2001 1:54:39 AM re. 821- 828. concerned - 1/9/2001 1:57:10 AM Re. 819 - 829. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 7:55:19 AM Cellar, you go to far. Ashcroft is not a fucking racist. He doesn't believe in fucking. 830. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 9:23:44 AM The charge that Ashcroft is a racist is easy to make with vague generalities. The facts, as set forth by Kris W. Kobach, a professor of Constitutional Law and Legislation at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, demonstrate just the opposite. 831. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 9:23:57 AM All this, even though Edwards was a Democrat who had been a campaign manager in a prominent Democratic political campaign. Edwards recalls, "It was a fair interview. He did not have a litmus test. He did not ask me if I was pro-life or pro-death penalty." 832. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 9:28:01 AM I concede, however, that it is more glamorous to level charges of racism. 833. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 9:34:39 AM 834. jonesatlaw - 1/9/2001 9:40:08 AM FU- So Ashcroft torpedoed White's nomination by lying about his record for personal reasons? Oh so much better! Gives me all the confidence I need in the guy's character. Maybe Linda Trip can be his chief aide. She's not a racist either. 835. glendajean - 1/9/2001 9:49:36 AM The Salon article that was linked here yesterday said that Ashcroft played up the pro-criminal stuff on White because of anti-abortion politics, something that it isn't cool to bring up. 836. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 9:50:10 AM jones 837. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 9:52:41 AM glenda 838. glendajean - 1/9/2001 9:53:31 AM Here's the Salon article, John Ashcroft's Big Mistake. 839. glendajean - 1/9/2001 9:55:45 AM Isn't he also one of three Senators who killed James Hormel's nomination as US Ambassador to Luxembourg based on Hormel being gay? 840. glendajean - 1/9/2001 9:56:05 AM toys? 841. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 9:59:59 AM 842. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:03:09 AM Juditha, glenda 843. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:04:08 AM Ashcroft opposed Hormel's nomination because of Hormel being gay, but I am not sure he was one of the three who blocked it. Inohofe from Oklahoma was the main one (he's the one who campaigned on God, Guns and Gays). 844. Wombat - 1/9/2001 10:05:25 AM Sinister Prime Minister: 845. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:07:22 AM The religious right didn't like the Montana Governor's support of hate crimes legislation including sexual orientation. 846. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:07:59 AM Wombat 847. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 10:11:28 AM 848. CalGal - 1/9/2001 10:13:21 AM The charge that Ashcroft is a racist really isn't sticking anywhere that I can see. When Salon says he's not a racist, it's pretty clear it's not going anywhere. 849. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:13:40 AM No "spin" was put on it. It was his quote. 850. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:15:35 AM I wonder if we are entering a period when it is hard to pick attorneys general. Clinton went through three nominees. Ashcroft looks like he is going to have a bumpy ride. 851. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:16:49 AM Ashcroft may very well not be to the ideological, religious, or philosophical liking of many Democrats or Republicans. Many had similar reservations about Mr. Lieberman. Interestingly, very few of those who are so vocal about Mr. Ashcroft's ability to enforce laws with which he may have personal, religious or philosophical disagreement expressed similar concerns about Mr. Lieberman. 852. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:18:48 AM Lieberman doesn't hoe a strict orthodox line as a Senator. For example, he is one of three lead co-sponsors of ENDA. 853. Wombat - 1/9/2001 10:20:53 AM Sinister: 854. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 10:22:02 AM 855. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:22:37 AM "According to Lefty myths, Caucasians are the only people with a racist gene...." 856. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:23:43 AM Probably stayed in the Sam Houston bedroom. 857. Wombat - 1/9/2001 10:25:34 AM Urquhart: 858. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:26:15 AM The charge that Ashcroft isn't a racist is easy to make with vague generalities. 859. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:26:44 AM glenda 860. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:28:07 AM "All this, even though Edwards was a Democrat who had been a campaign manager in a prominent Democratic political campaign." 861. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:29:18 AM "He wouldn't appoint anybody just because they were a minority. But he clearly wanted to consider minority candidates who were qualified." 862. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:32:40 AM "I concede, however, that it is more glamorous to level charges of racism." 863. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:33:25 AM Cellar 864. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:34:20 AM Francis -- Lieberman is able to support policies that conflict with his religion (abortion, gay rights are two examples). 865. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:36:11 AM "I have made no public pronouncement on Ashcroft's nomination." 866. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:36:26 AM glenda 867. glendajean - 1/9/2001 10:36:46 AM Francis -- I agree about the Bill Lann Lee situation (not even brought up for a vote because of ideology). 868. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:37:50 AM "When Salon says he's not a racist, it's pretty clear it's not going anywhere." 869. Francis Urquhart - 1/9/2001 10:39:07 AM Cellar 870. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:39:08 AM "Interestingly, very few of those who are so vocal about Mr. Ashcroft's ability to enforce laws with which he may have personal, religious or philosophical disagreement expressed similar concerns about Mr. Lieberman." 871. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:42:36 AM "Unless something concrete comes out on Ashcroft (footage of him speaking at a KKK rally, for example),his hearings will consist of some pointed questions about his various activities, which he will attempt to explain, followed by his assurances that he will administer justice fairly, and most likely a vote in favor of his confirmation." 872. CalGal - 1/9/2001 10:43:03 AM Cellar, 873. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:44:26 AM "Your desire to defeat Ashcroft is so great that you must smear the intellect of every African-American jurist whom he supported. You have rhetorically destroyed the village in order to save it." 874. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:46:29 AM "I have a vivid imagination," 875. bbb - 1/9/2001 10:50:17 AM CalGal, 876. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:51:07 AM Neither could I. Are they dead? 877. bbb - 1/9/2001 10:51:58 AM 878. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 10:54:19 AM 879. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 10:55:33 AM 880. bbb - 1/9/2001 10:56:37 AM Does Salon have a new internet address? 881. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 10:56:39 AM i can't connect to salon.com or tabletalk either but this thread isn't the thread to discuss TT 882. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 10:58:11 AM Great article in Boston Globe on Salon. 883. bbb - 1/9/2001 10:59:50 AM Al Gore shares the same fate as Salon.com? 884. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 11:02:28 AM 885. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:04:14 AM Where will those die-hard TT liberals go after the crash of both Al Gore and Salon.com? 886. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:04:19 AM If Salon goes under, we have to be very careful who we allow on mote. 887. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:07:07 AM 888. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:10:52 AM Court Limits Clean Water Act 889. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:11:54 AM 891. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:14:25 AM 892. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:16:02 AM Protester Hits Blair With Tomato 893. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:17:21 AM TT posters are only of entertainment value,like Bill Clinton. 894. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:21:41 AM http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/09/plant.shooting.ap/index.html 895. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:22:16 AM Eat shit and die, CD. And stop using my so-called last name. 896. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:22:31 AM 898. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:31:43 AM Hit bbb with a strike, duck. And remember, three and your out and you'll have to start posting at C-SPAN's forum. 899. Wombat - 1/9/2001 11:33:23 AM Southern Partisan--perhaps wisely--does not appear to have a working web site, so I must quote J. Micah Marshall in a past edition of Slate. Spin away! 900. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 11:35:30 AM cellar 901. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:45:15 AM "please" 902. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 11:47:48 AM 903. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 11:48:55 AM "Eat shit and die, CD. And stop using my so-called last name." 904. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:49:02 AM 905. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:49:18 AM Well, start. CD is threatening to bring some dangerous homosexuals over here from TT. 906. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:50:11 AM W.W. Dimmitt of TT on CNN boards 907. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 11:50:54 AM That's right, Rosie. e're going to turn The Mote into a Virtual Gay Bar! 908. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 11:53:20 AM 909. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 11:54:11 AM On topic. 910. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:54:29 AM 911. greystoke - 1/9/2001 11:55:33 AM Illegal votes in Broward County. 912. bbb - 1/9/2001 11:56:49 AM Is Al Gore down in Florida doing the hand recounts? 913. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 11:58:07 AM 914. bbb - 1/9/2001 12:03:08 PM Cheney who? Is he the CEO of Halliburton? 915. bbb - 1/9/2001 12:07:21 PM Elaine Chao would be a good backup plan for Chevez's potential trouble as the Secretary of Labor. 916. bbb - 1/9/2001 12:10:10 PM Elaine Chao would be a good backup plan for Chevez's potential trouble 917. bbb - 1/9/2001 12:17:35 PM 918. CalGal - 1/9/2001 12:21:14 PM bbb, 919. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 12:23:28 PM Here's something sure to annoy the neo-connies (especially connie) who post in here. 920. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 12:25:09 PM "I wonder if you liberals have yet awakened to the problems that the Democrats created by giving the black racist Donna Brazille carte blanche to use any tactics to mobilize the African-American vote and by turning Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and NAACP's Mfume loose to savage Republicans both before and after the election." 921. Electric Slide - 1/9/2001 12:25:59 PM Question of the day. If the Democrats in the Senate vote against hispanic Linda Chavez, does that make them all racists? 922. robertjayb - 1/9/2001 4:37:45 PM . 923. rubberducky - 1/9/2001 4:39:41 PM Rosetta Slide: 924. Fielding - 1/9/2001 4:47:37 PM 925. Fielding - 1/9/2001 4:48:49 PM 926. CalGal - 1/9/2001 4:50:15 PM I'm bummed, since I liked Chavez. I also thought she should have fought. But you know, I think that's the Republican way--running off in the misguided belief that it's noble. 927. Fielding - 1/9/2001 4:52:42 PM 928. glendajean - 1/9/2001 4:53:19 PM The W. Post story said that Bush people told her it was all over. She wanted to fight, but they said no. There was the problem of her talking about Zoe Baird and illegal aliens in 1993 -- "That's the worst part," she said. And then, there is a conflict between her and the woman about whether or not she knew the woman was illegal. 929. CalGal - 1/9/2001 4:55:54 PM Fielding, 930. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 4:56:23 PM Is lesbian sex illegal where Linda Chavez lives? 931. glendajean - 1/9/2001 4:59:55 PM I've never heard that Chavez is a lesbian. But certainly the Clinton Administration has set a precedent for closeted lesbian cabinet secretaries. 932. mgleason - 1/9/2001 4:59:57 PM It looks as though Chavez was prepared to fight, what with trotting out beneficiaries of her bounty at her news conference. 933. Fielding - 1/9/2001 5:00:33 PM 934. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:03:22 PM GJ, 935. glendajean - 1/9/2001 5:05:18 PM I never assume Reno is, but when I think about it, it is hard to deny. 936. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:06:36 PM Oh! I forgot about her. I couldn't get past Mikulski, who isn't in the cabinet and kept on thinking "now surely I would have heard any rumors about Alexis Herman". 937. robertjayb - 1/9/2001 5:06:43 PM . 938. Fielding - 1/9/2001 5:10:29 PM 939. mgleason - 1/9/2001 5:12:42 PM My favorite part of the Chavez announcement was her pious lament about the 'politics of personal destruction.' 940. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:14:46 PM Fielding, 941. janjon - 1/9/2001 5:25:37 PM Chavez is a classic example of what goes around comes around. Two aspects she wouldn't have been able to overcome - her clear awareness that she had a "problem" (by, among other things, alerting her former neighbor that she would be contacted by the FBI and that she, Chavez, did not intend to talk about the Guatamalan woman). More devastating, however, was her record of having been sooo critical of Baird/Woods. 942. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 5:26:15 PM Linda, like Thomas and others jumped on the opportunity to prostitute themselves for the GOP. She got just what she deserved. 943. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:28:26 PM To be fair, Baird and Woods really did hire someone illegally to save money. Chavez seems just to have been one of those folks who talk a tough line for others but figure that they themselves know better about who to help and why. Very much like the Republican attitude towards gays, in fact. 944. janjon - 1/9/2001 5:33:52 PM I doubt very much that either Baird or Woods did what they did to save the few pennies (figuratively speaking) involved. It is the hassle - all those forms, all those withholdings. (And, some help won't work if you do all the withholdings.) 945. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:37:58 PM No, in Baird's case, she hired illegal immigrants, did she not? I can't remember what the Woods scenario was. 946. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/9/2001 5:40:35 PM “. . .Republican attitude towards gays, in fact.“ 947. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:41:34 PM As for hiring people illegally--I once had a nanny who lived in my house. She had three other jobs. She also directed her own work, made her own decisions about how she would run my life. So I told her to pay her own taxes and she agreed. Checked it out with an accountant just to be sure. 948. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 5:41:40 PM Chavez: No good deed goes unpunished. 949. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:43:46 PM Well, now I don't buy that line either, JJ. Had Baird said, "Gosh, I was just doing a good deed for people who needed work!" no one would have bought it. 950. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/9/2001 5:45:19 PM Good line, JJ! 951. Fielding - 1/9/2001 5:46:50 PM 952. Fielding - 1/9/2001 5:48:42 PM 953. bbb - 1/9/2001 5:51:20 PM 918. CalGal - 1/9/01 5:21:14 PM 954. bbb - 1/9/2001 5:53:29 PM 918. CalGal - 1/9/01 5:21:14 PM 955. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:53:59 PM . Lewinsky was not a case of sexual harassment. 956. CalGal - 1/9/2001 5:55:57 PM As for Wood (thanks for the correction), the perception that she was pulled because she, too, had nanny problems. It may be that Clinton didn't want to stand by her because of her hubby. 957. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:06:09 PM 958. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:08:07 PM Fielding, 959. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:09:45 PM CalGal - The operative issue for Chavez was that the woman told her she was an illegal. At that point, Chavez had no options save either turning her in or telling her to leave and get back to Guatemala instantly. 960. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:14:30 PM Fielding - Prior to Lewinsky, most femminist groups classified any relationship between employer and employee as sexual harrassment because of the unequal power in their positions. Granted it was an absurd position, but that is what they claimed. Had it been a Republican President and an intern, they would have gone ballistic and protested outside the White House 24/7 and appeared on every available venue to denounce the scoundrel. 961. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:15:11 PM JJ, 962. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:19:57 PM 963. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:21:01 PM 98% of NOW would disagree with your analysis. 964. Wombat - 1/9/2001 6:23:57 PM Chavez: 965. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:30:44 PM Fielding - You are taking the extreme views of Andrea Dworkin and tarring all feminists with them 966. mgleason - 1/9/2001 6:31:56 PM JJ, Chavez was in a prime position to help Chavez gain political asylum if that was her motivation for leaving Guatemala. 967. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:32:16 PM Wombat, 968. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:33:10 PM CalGal - You are joking. You must be. 969. mgleason - 1/9/2001 6:33:14 PM Sorry, that should be 'Chavez was in a prime position to help Marta Mercado gain political asylum...' 970. Wombat - 1/9/2001 6:34:22 PM Cal: 971. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:35:51 PM I know--I'm just saying that I think she would have duked it out if it was only the "similar" issue. 972. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:38:22 PM 973. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:38:32 PM mgleason - Chavez was in a prime position to help Chavez gain political asylum if that was her motivation for leaving Guatemala. 974. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:39:36 PM Toys 975. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:41:26 PM Fielding - Trust me. You don't want to hear about the treasonous activities of Congressional Democrats in Iran-Contra, and the number of people who died because of their treachery. 976. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:42:54 PM 977. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:44:00 PM "You don't want to hear about the treasonous activities of Congressional Democrats in Iran-Contra, and the number of people who died because of their treachery." 978. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 6:44:23 PM In Arizona they arrest people who harbor illegal aliens. Linda Chaves is a jerk who got just what she deserved. The GOP practices affirmative action for Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities who are willing to "turn." 979. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:50:21 PM Fielding, 980. Fielding - 1/9/2001 6:53:25 PM 981. mgleason - 1/9/2001 6:54:04 PM JJ, 982. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 6:55:44 PM Wonkers - In Arizona they arrest people who harbor illegal aliens. 983. CalGal - 1/9/2001 6:58:28 PM Well, actually, Chavez isn't a Hispanic because neither she nor her family of origin are from South America, yes? Or does being from Spain count as Hispanic rather than European? 984. mgleason - 1/9/2001 7:00:33 PM 'Hispanic' pertains to both Spain and Spanish-speaking countries. 985. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 7:01:33 PM Fielding - Moreover, you freely make up bullshit, like when you said that the bigger states like Montana earned more federal funds per person than the smaller states because of more miles of federal highways. 986. CalGal - 1/9/2001 7:02:37 PM Maria, 987. Fielding - 1/9/2001 7:02:57 PM 988. mgleason - 1/9/2001 7:03:52 PM From the Latin 'Hispanicus.' 'Hispania' means Spain. 989. CalGal - 1/9/2001 7:07:19 PM Fielding, 990. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 7:09:00 PM JJ, yes they do arrest well meaning people in Arizona for harboring aliens running from Central America as a result of Reagan's insane policies there. I believe the people who helped Hispanics from Guatemala and Honduras and other war torn countries in Central America are participants in a movement called "Sanctuary." Many of them have been arrested for doing less than Linda Chavez did. And they don't make the refugees do house work either. 991. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 7:15:30 PM Let's be honest about it, Democrats didn't object to Chavez because she befriended an illegal alien. That would get her a medal from many of us. We objected to her because of her radical right views on many of the issues she would have been dealing with as Secretary of Labor and because she made a big fuss eight years ago over the same or similar issue involving Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird. What goes around comes around! She is the Hispanic equivalent of an Uncle Tom, a Tia Tomasina I guess. 992. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 7:22:36 PM Wonkers - We objected to her because of her radical right views on many of the issues she would have been dealing with as Secretary of Labor 993. CalGal - 1/9/2001 7:25:19 PM They had no right to object to her views as Sec of Labor. But the fact is that if you leave as big a paper trail as Chavez, you'd best be sure you haven't done anything to contradict it. 994. robertjayb - 1/9/2001 7:27:58 PM . 995. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 7:28:18 PM 996. mgleason - 1/9/2001 7:32:22 PM I do wonder how the 'what did she know and when did she know it' will play out. 997. CalGal - 1/9/2001 7:34:12 PM I wonder if she was worried that she'd been told. 998. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 7:34:59 PM 999. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 7:35:38 PM 1000. JudithAtHome - 1/9/2001 7:35:57 PM 1001. robertjayb - 1/9/2001 7:40:53 PM 1002. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 7:54:35 PM JJ, I don't recall anyone waging an assault on Chavez'z character. I certainly didn't unless calling her a jerk qualifies. Anyway, my dislike for Ashcroft is much greater than for Chavez. One down, two to go! 1003. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 7:58:54 PM robertjayb, thanks for the info on Elaine Chao. From the info in the link she sounds better than Chavez. But let's wait and see what crawls out of the woodwork. 1004. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 8:08:03 PM Cal, what are you talking about that we had no right to object to her views as Secretary of Labor? What could be more relevant to her appointment as Secretary of Labor than her views on the laws she will be responsible for enforcing? That's what the confirmation process is all about. If Bush had appointed a skinhead or Grand Dragon as Chairman of the EEOC we wouldn't have a right to object? Give us a break. Chavez was a near equivalent. She has publicly stated her scorn for many of the laws she would have been charged with enforcing. 1005. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 8:28:27 PM Two possible nominees for Labor Secretary were just mentioned on CNN--James Talent and Eloise Anderson. A third name which I didn't catch was also mentioned. Talent is a Congressman from Missouri, a former labor lawyer who I believe worked briefly as an attorney for the NLRB. Anderson is an African American woman who the correspondent compared to Tommy Thompson due to her creative work on overhauling welfare. I would bet on Talent. My impression is that he is a more moderate and pragmatic Missourian than Ashcroft and would be a much better and less controversial choice than Chavez. JJ, what's the word on Talent? 1006. concerned - 1/9/2001 8:29:48 PM "I would never support racism - " 1007. concerned - 1/9/2001 8:31:23 PM "I would never support racism - " 1008. wonkers2 - 1/9/2001 9:53:59 PM Well, lets not get hung up on racism. Suffice it to say that Ashcroft's public statements and actions have caused nearly all African Americans,and a majority of women, gay men and women, trade unionists and Democrats to be revulsed by his nomination. Privately, many Republicans consider him well beyond the pale for the party of Abraham Lincoln. In sum, letting Falwell and Pat Robertson and their ilk pick the Attorney General was not a consensus building move on Bush's part. There are plenty of moderate to conservative deans of first tier law schools who would have been better picks. Gerry Ford picked Levi, the distinguished dean of University of Chicago Law School to clean up the Justice Department after Watergate. 1009. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 10:09:59 PM Judith - It isn't the sex; it's the lying. 1010. Fielding - 1/9/2001 10:12:47 PM 1011. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 10:21:07 PM Wonkers - JJ, what's the word on Talent? 1012. JJBiener - 1/9/2001 10:29:10 PM Wonkers - Suffice it to say that Ashcroft's public statements and actions have caused nearly all African Americans,and a majority of women, gay men and women, trade unionists and Democrats to be revulsed by his nomination. 1013. arkymalarky - 1/9/2001 10:39:09 PM "You can't expect the entire country to look the other way while the President of United States acts like a the head of an organized crime family. Clinton has more in common with John Gotti than he does with John Kennedy." 1014. arkymalarky - 1/9/2001 10:42:42 PM And fwiw, most Democrats have better things to do than preoccupy themselves with what the president does with his penis, and the fact that he wasn't up front about it should come as no surprise. What's surprising and disgusting (and scary) is that anyone, much less almost the entire Republican Party, found any way to rationalize a sick voyeuristic tendency to dig up every minute detail about it and its doings, hiding behind "the rule of law" (a phrase I despise, btw). 1015. Cellar Door - 1/9/2001 10:57:26 PM "Seriously, 90-95% of the people you claim are "revulsed by his nomination" have never heard a word Ashcroft has said" 1016. JJBiener - 1/10/2001 12:14:58 AM Arky - If you want anyone to take your posts seriously in here, you're going to have to ratchet your hyperbole down at least a notch or two. 1017. CalGal - 1/10/2001 3:05:56 AM Truly fabulous Conan O'Brien essay, Why I'll Miss the President. The whole thing is wonderful, but these two paragraphs are sublime: 1018. milkmaid - 1/10/2001 6:59:48 AM Thanks for the link, CG. I couldn't stop laughing at this: 1019. joezan - 1/10/2001 7:15:59 AM 1020. joezan - 1/10/2001 7:22:17 AM 1021. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 8:15:58 AM JJ, hyperbole is what the Mote is all about! 1022. rubberducky - 1/10/2001 9:03:25 AM 1023. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 9:23:49 AM Chavez' withdrawal was Clintonesque. Her exit, however, should be a point of agreement between all political persuasions. She was dishonest with those who vetted her; she may have attempted to thwart a thorough FBI investigation; she was contradictory as to her knowledge of the woman's illegal status; and talking heads are unsuitable choices for cabinet-level positions. 1024. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 9:26:40 AM I don't think that Lee/Jackson day was celebrated in VA. until there was a legislative proposal for a Martin Luther King day and then Lee and Jackson were thrown in for good measure so as to keep the minorities from gettin uppity. 1025. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:31:13 AM hahahahaha! It makes sense that Frankie would disapprove of Chavez. After all, she's not really "of the club", you know. I can't help but wonder if he'd be bending over backwards to protect a true member. Of course, a true member would be a guy. 1026. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:37:54 AM Chavez harbored an illegal alien. That's a felony. And she tried clumsily to cover her tracks. That was stupid. She got caught. End of story. Beyond that her views were extreme and inappropriate for a Secretary of Labor--e.g,"The minimum wage is Marxist." 1027. Fielding - 1/10/2001 9:39:12 AM 1028. glendajean - 1/10/2001 9:41:55 AM I know good people that live in DC whom have harbored illegal aliens. These friends are almost to the left of Lenin. I have a hard time seeing where helping immigrants is a bad thing or dishonorable. 1029. JudithAtHome - 1/10/2001 9:42:39 AM 1030. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 9:44:29 AM Arkansas celebrates Robert E. Lee day. 1031. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:46:40 AM Judith, 1032. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 9:49:53 AM This is interesting. 1033. JudithAtHome - 1/10/2001 9:49:56 AM 1034. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 9:51:12 AM 1035. glendajean - 1/10/2001 9:53:12 AM Texas has a state holiday called Confederate Heroes day. 1036. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:54:43 AM Oh, god. Must we go through another recitation about the true heroism of Lee, blah blah blah? 1037. Wombat - 1/10/2001 9:54:57 AM Urquhart: 1038. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:58:32 AM Fielding, wherever you are: Wood did indeed hire an illegal alien as a babysitter. 1039. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:02:00 AM glenda 1040. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 10:02:20 AM In Virginia, I believe legislation has either been introduced or passed to split Lee-Jackson Day from King Day. 1041. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 10:09:04 AM Two or three years ago, the Gen. Assembly officially de-commissioned "Carry me Back to Old Virginny" as the Virginia state song on account of it's referernces to "where this old darky longs to go" and such. Of course a significant contingent opposed changing the state song for PC reasons and insisted that it be made the state song "emeritus". 1042. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:09:13 AM Wombat 1043. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:09:21 AM While the Civil War was not "about" slavery, the romanticization of it began when civil rights became an issue--around the early 60s. Hmm. I wonder why? 1044. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:10:11 AM 1045. glendajean - 1/10/2001 10:10:13 AM Francis -- I've been interesting in hearing your comments about the Wilson book since you first posted you were reading it. 1046. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:10:16 AM However, from what I read, Chavez is now whining about how unfairly treated Zoe Baird was. Ptoeey. Burn her. 1047. Wombat - 1/10/2001 10:10:19 AM Urquhart: 1048. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:14:26 AM CalGal: 1049. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:15:23 AM Fielding 1050. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:21:58 AM Fielding, 1051. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:23:41 AM 1052. Wombat - 1/10/2001 10:23:54 AM Urquhart: 1053. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 10:25:47 AM the romanticization of it began when civil rights became an issue--around the early 60s. 1054. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:26:04 AM bubbaette 1055. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:26:30 AM Unless the "Lee/Jackson Day" is code for something else. I defy anybody tell me with a straight face that Lee/Jackson Day isn't intended as some kind of White Supremacy symbol. 1056. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:31:03 AM CalGal: 1057. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:32:49 AM Wombat 1058. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:36:30 AM Fielding, 1059. Wombat - 1/10/2001 10:40:32 AM Urquhart: 1060. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 10:41:15 AM Of course Birth of a Nation was well before that (1915). The Daughters of the Confederacy was founded in 1894. 1061. milkmaid - 1/10/2001 10:43:00 AM -I guess you'd prefer that these women to stay home and take care of their own children 1062. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:43:37 AM 1063. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:44:02 AM Milkmaid, 1064. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:44:55 AM Nonetheless, I would be happy to share lemonade with you at your manse. 1065. mgleason - 1/10/2001 10:47:31 AM An interesting side-note about Kimba Wood is that she ended up divorcing Michael Kramer, the columnist, but not before becoming embroiled with an investment banker whose diary was made public by his wife during their divorce. 1066. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:49:03 AM You know, I knew there was some weird marital scandal with them, but I couldn't remember what it was. 1067. mgleason - 1/10/2001 10:50:48 AM She could have acted as a useful diversion during the Days of Monica, I think. 1068. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:51:29 AM Wombat 1069. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 10:54:45 AM But there are black Southerners too, you might be surprised to learn, and some of them might be a little bit sensitive to confederate imagery. 1070. Fielding - 1/10/2001 10:55:54 AM 1071. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 10:56:03 AM "served in" should be "served with" 1072. mgleason - 1/10/2001 10:58:52 AM Those parents who put 'their child's well-being ahead of compliance with arcane immigration and/or tax laws' should not be in the position of enforcing those laws at the highest levels. 1073. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:58:58 AM Indiana 1074. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 11:00:05 AM Thank you, suh. 1075. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 11:07:11 AM Clinton: Republicans won by stopping vote 1076. CalGal - 1/10/2001 11:08:44 AM Fielding, 1077. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 11:20:17 AM "What about blacks who served in the Confederate Army? Were they racists? " 1078. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 11:21:02 AM Cellar 1079. Toenails - 1/10/2001 11:22:15 AM 1080. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 11:26:08 AM 1081. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 11:28:39 AM Cellar 1082. CalGal - 1/10/2001 11:30:12 AM Toe, 1083. mgleason - 1/10/2001 11:37:01 AM Cellar, 1084. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 11:44:29 AM Imagine! The very nerve! After all, would Jews get all bent out of shape at admiring Hitler's military strategy and flying the Nazi flag? P.C. has certainly gone too far!! 1085. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 11:52:20 AM "Take a hair off the self-pitying, give me a little more tremor to the voice, and ratchet up the indignation." 1086. Fielding - 1/10/2001 11:53:01 AM 1087. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 11:56:28 AM We should condemn FDR for Pearl Harbor, the Japanese for "comfort women," and Harry Truman for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 1088. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 11:57:38 AM "What were blacks who owned slaves?" 1089. mgleason - 1/10/2001 11:59:53 AM Bubba, 1090. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:05:53 PM CalGal: 1091. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:06:17 PM There is one particularly oddity in Ashcroft's support for neo-Confederate issues, and that is that he was from Missouri, which did not join the Confederacy. I am a little more tolerant of people from former Confederate states that feel the need to call Jefferson Davis a hero - the sentiments are a lot more common there, and if you are grown up in an environment where someone is a hero, it is more difficult to change your mind in adulthood. Too many formerly untarnished American heroes, like Jefferson and Andrew Jackson have such clear shades of gray that I have at least some sympathy toward Virginians and their support for Lee and Jackson, none of whom are clear-cut villains like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Hell, many Americans respect Rommel, who served a worse cause. 1092. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:12:24 PM This parsing of history to impugn Ashcroft is amusing, if not perplexing. Bush recently invoked Thomas Jefferson. He would, therefore, appear to be showing "indications" of racism, having drawn from the salev-holding rapist of Sally Hemmings. We can catalogue a pantheon of American giants from Wahington to LBJ and play this game, to the unending happiness of reductionist academics and other strident, stupid people. 1093. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:14:03 PM 1094. glendajean - 1/10/2001 12:15:53 PM Rask -- Border states have sections that are much more southern than northern, and Missouri is no exception. It is in part a tribute to Lincoln's political deftness that they remained in the union. 1095. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:16:16 PM Fielding 1096. Wombat - 1/10/2001 12:17:02 PM Indy: 1097. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:17:39 PM Please ignore the second "indicates racism". Thank you. 1098. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:17:49 PM And it is more Ashcroft's statement that the goals of the Confederacy weren't perverted, than a defense of Lee and Jackson, that raises my eyebrow. But I'll certainly agree that it doesn't mean he is necessarily a racist. Quite possibly he is just misinformed. 1099. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:18:38 PM Ashcroft's musings about the glories of the Confederacy are not a problem. 1100. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 12:18:59 PM Nazi Germany is "shared history" between Germans and Jews. Are Jews living in Berlin not permitted to be offended by a statue of Hitler in their home town? 1101. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:19:03 PM Raskolnikov 1102. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:20:14 PM "Do you believe Lee is an American hero?" 1103. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:20:27 PM "The point is whether deeming Confederate leaders as heroic and the Southern cause as less than perverted indicates racism in the face of a public record of results-backed support and encouragement for African-Americans indicates racism." 1104. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:21:22 PM This is a classic fallacy, signifying only that the fool is you. 1105. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:23:14 PM Of course Lee wasn't an American hero. If nothing else, he wasn't part of the US when he performed the deeds that made him famous, and he fought a war that, had he won, would have meant he wasn't an American. 1106. lisajolie - 1/10/2001 12:23:32 PM Is Ashcroft a racist? I don't know what's in the man's heart. It's almost beside the point. 1107. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:25:19 PM Fielding 1108. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:25:42 PM What's ironic is that it is probably abortion that will do Ashcroft in, not racism. The anger of the African American community is apparently what drove the nail in his Senate coffin (although running against a dead guy couldn't help). 1109. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 12:26:27 PM Thanks Maria. Apologies to FU -- the Lee Jackson King day was enacted in 1984 with the holiday first celebrated in 1985. I'm still looking for information about Lee/Jackson day as I don't recall that holiday as an official day off to be celebrated by state workers and closed schools. 1110. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:27:26 PM Raskolnikov 1111. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:28:32 PM Bubbaette 1112. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:28:49 PM Yes, abortion will do him in. Probably, although the old code of Senators almost always voting to confirm one of theirs or their formers may be enough to get him (barely) over the line. 1113. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:29:50 PM What Ashcroft's comments mean to me is that he should be asked about them in his confirmation hearings. Not that this is a trap: he could easily say that the goal of the Confederacy was not to preserve slavery but to maintain state's rights, and probably get away with it, although he would be mostly wrong. 1114. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:31:11 PM States' Rights has been the convenient mask for more than 200 years. 1115. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:32:49 PM The war was brought about by a confluence of factors. Edmund Wilson has some interesting comment on the matter. When I get a chance, I'll excerpt his thoughts in "Books." 1116. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 12:34:15 PM he wasn't part of the US when he performed the deeds that made him famous, and he fought a war that, had he won, would have meant he wasn't an American. 1117. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 12:35:25 PM Thanks for the heads up, Wombat. I've a question that I think I'll post there instead of here because it's probably not on topic for either! 1118. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:35:30 PM 1119. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:35:41 PM "Is Thomas Jefferson an American hero?" 1120. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:35:49 PM Yes, of course, a confluence of factors. But one overriding one (although I will grant you that it was in many ways not just slavery but slavery/perceived economic needs for same.) 1121. Wombat - 1/10/2001 12:36:48 PM Lee was responsible for the construction of the levees that made St. Louis a viable port during his days in the Corps of Engineers before the Civil War. 1122. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:37:57 PM 1123. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:38:47 PM And, here I thought maybe his famous horse (I forget the name, unfortunately) had been a many-generations back sire for the Budweiser ponies. 1124. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 12:38:51 PM Thanks Wombat 1125. Wombat - 1/10/2001 12:40:25 PM Lee's heroism manifested itself in his superlative performance during the Mexican War (as part of the US Army). 1126. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 12:40:58 PM Lee's horse's name was Traveler. School chirren used to be required to know that as part of Virginia history. There is an ally here in downtown Richmond named for Lee's horse. 1127. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:41:27 PM You are arguing that it is appropriate to use ad hominem attacks when you have decided that the target is a fool. 1128. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:42:38 PM Raskolnikov 1129. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:43:52 PM "Lee's heroism manifested itself in his superlative performance during 1130. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:44:16 PM 1131. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:44:40 PM Wombat, 1132. lisajolie - 1/10/2001 12:45:51 PM And, here I thought maybe his famous horse (I forget the name, 1133. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:47:42 PM Fielding, 1134. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:49:00 PM Francis: I recognize the counterarguments, but disagree with them as Jefferson's personal views on slavery were largely irrelevant to the codification of slavery that occurred in the Constitutional convention (he wasn't even there, remember), but his general views on liberty and freedom were quite relevant to the growth of democracy and liberty worldwide - those views were eventually critical in convincing mainstream northerners that slavery was wrong, no matter what Jefferson's personal actions indicated. 1135. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:49:09 PM It seems clear that the Founding Fathers in most ways decided to shove the slavery issues under the rug as much as they could. Postponing the conflict, so to speak. (Going from memory here, but as I recall there was a early Federal law passed which in effect put a 20 year moratorium, ending in 1808 as I recall, on any Federal efforts to end slavery (although, again from memory, I think that slave trade itself was banned.) 1136. Fielding - 1/10/2001 12:52:44 PM 1137. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 12:52:57 PM On second thought, I'm posting it here. There's a story by Borges that begins with a discussion of the Spaniard who made the decision to bring the first African slave to the New World. All the details escape me, except it's extremely thought-provoking as it analyzes the cause-and-effect in a "because of a nail the shoe was lost" way. 1138. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:56:30 PM Are you saying that it was not "warranted or deserved"? If that is the case, you could have saved both of us some wasted time. 1139. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:57:44 PM As someone frequently says around here, take it to the Inferno. 1140. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:58:52 PM I never brought it up, nor did you. 1141. CalGal - 1/10/2001 12:59:51 PM Janjon, 1142. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:01:17 PM Will Clinton resign in time so that Al Gore can be POTUS for a few hours? 1143. Wombat - 1/10/2001 1:02:45 PM Rask: 1144. Fielding - 1/10/2001 1:02:54 PM 1145. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:03:02 PM Will G.W. Bush nominate Elaine Chao as the Secretary of Labor? 1146. janjon - 1/10/2001 1:03:56 PM No, but some of the wingnuts around here will probably chime in that were he to do so it would be for the purpose of Gore being able to pardon him. 1147. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 1:04:50 PM Indy: that is a potentially interesting conversation, but would probably be off-topic. Maybe we should create a new thread based on historical "what ifs". 1148. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:05:03 PM John Ashcroft will be confirmed with at least a 68-32 margin. 1149. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 1:06:19 PM Rask: Fair enough. (And I think that's a great idea for a thread.) 1150. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 1:07:35 PM "I don't consider Lee an American hero. He did perform heroically in 1151. CalGal - 1/10/2001 1:07:52 PM Fielding, 1152. Fielding - 1/10/2001 1:09:16 PM 1153. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:10:36 PM Census Shows Surge for New Sun Belt 1154. CalGal - 1/10/2001 1:10:59 PM Fielding, 1155. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 1:12:38 PM "GWB's victory margin would be a 279-258 one if Census 2000 data were used." 1156. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 1:13:19 PM Ohio 1157. janjon - 1/10/2001 1:14:06 PM No, Gore's margin would have been 285-252, had the Florida vote been properly counted. 1158. janjon - 1/10/2001 1:14:55 PM Ohio- yes, yours was VERY good. 1159. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 1:15:05 PM bbb 1160. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:15:19 PM Survey Sees Slower Economic Growth 1161. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:17:11 PM Has any of the four liberal FLSC justices been impeached yet? 1162. janjon - 1/10/2001 1:17:34 PM nah, bbb. The figures will hold up quite well until after Jan. 20. Assuming bad economic figures develop after that date, Big Bill can always argue that had W's handlers done the right things, the then mess wouldn't have developed. 1163. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 1:17:46 PM Surpise surprise 1164. CalGal - 1/10/2001 1:23:09 PM Arrgggh. This is my last post, since I was in a hurry and posted incorrectly. 1165. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:25:54 PM HERE IS A GOOD SUMMARY FROM A CNN POSTER: 1166. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:28:54 PM USSC was ONLY reacting to FLSC's unconstitutional acts and decisions. Algore should blame it on the FLSC and David Boies. 1167. Ronski - 1/10/2001 1:47:15 PM bbb, 1168. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:49:11 PM Ronski 1169. bbb - 1/10/2001 1:58:10 PM Access To Carnahan Files Angers GOP 1170. Fielding - 1/10/2001 2:01:58 PM 1171. bbb - 1/10/2001 2:03:05 PM Poor spin. 1172. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 2:03:32 PM More Democrat "dirty tricks": repeating the nominee's public statements! 1173. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 2:04:32 PM "C+ at best." 1174. bbb - 1/10/2001 2:07:05 PM Another good account on FLSC's stupid and arrogant acts 1175. janjon - 1/10/2001 2:07:42 PM Pretty glib for you, Ronski. You know darn well that concern over "feelings" has nothing to do with it (nor, for that matter, do all those butterflied/Buchanan votes or the Duval County mess-ups caused by overzealous advise by Dem. workers on how to vote - those are part of the risks.) It is the rest of the familiar mess. 1176. bbb - 1/10/2001 2:09:40 PM Ohio, 1177. bbb - 1/10/2001 2:13:14 PM Bush's lead will increase from 930 to ~1500 when the illegal Broward County votes for Gore tossed out and the military absentee ballots counted in the media recount. 1178. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 2:15:41 PM Speaking of Bush v. Gore, here's a judge that does not share the sensitive Justice Scalia's concern about variance among government officials in their application of a legal standard: 1179. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 2:16:37 PM 1180. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 2:16:58 PM . . . or at least not December's Justice Scalia. 1181. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 2:18:57 PM 1182. rubberducky - 1/10/2001 2:19:01 PM 1183. janjon - 1/10/2001 2:19:30 PM Ace - you are tilting at windmills. As far as most of the so-called lefties around here are concerned. 1184. glendajean - 1/10/2001 2:21:53 PM Ronski, 1185. bbb - 1/10/2001 2:22:08 PM Ashcroft will have NO problem in his confirmation. Only a few tough questions to answer. 1186. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 2:22:25 PM Hee hee hee. Protesting too much again, Ace. 1187. janjon - 1/10/2001 2:24:40 PM Ace is obviously having a bad-work day. Again. You can always tell. 1188. glendajean - 1/10/2001 2:26:31 PM Ace -- I wouldn't call Gettysburg all that flattering to Lee. Put aside Martin Sheen doing a poor job acting, the movie re-emphasized that Lee blew it on Pickett's charge. 1189. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 2:35:57 PM 1190. Ronski - 1/10/2001 2:37:36 PM janjon, 1191. glendajean - 1/10/2001 2:40:19 PM Probably from reading the Harry Potter books. They're having a subliminable effect on me. But I still won't watch The Exorcist. 1192. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 2:40:59 PM 1193. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 2:43:06 PM "Prove to me . . ." 1194. bbb - 1/10/2001 2:43:27 PM Is Gore going back to school to get a few more As? 1195. janjon - 1/10/2001 2:45:37 PM Ronski. You know full well that had a certain vote gone 5-4 the other way, that another type of full count of the votes made that certain day would have been completed and that the odds are that it would have provided a different result. 1196. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 3:00:24 PM 1197. Ronski - 1/10/2001 3:04:38 PM Nothing remotely fatuous about it. Bush played by the rules, and won. Gore to his credit also played by the rules. He had every right to contest the count, and then acted wisely by abandoning his fight. It is not he who is claiming that Bush is illegitimate. 1198. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 3:06:24 PM 1199. janjon - 1/10/2001 3:09:00 PM That is about as close to whitewash as I have ever seen you come, Ronski. 1200. Wombat - 1/10/2001 3:10:38 PM Johnson also said that the problem with his southern colleagues was that they were always yelling "nigra, nigra, nigra" whenever legislation on desegregation, or voting rights came up. 1201. bbb - 1/10/2001 3:11:06 PM Same mo same mo all over again. 1202. bbb - 1/10/2001 3:12:14 PM Where is NRA and the gun control policy? 1203. janjon - 1/10/2001 3:13:10 PM And, there is no doubt in my mind that part of that political motivation indeed was a realization on Scalia-and-his-four-friends' part that THEY had better be the ones to end it, because had they not, you indeed would most likely have had a situation where the ultimate vote total in Florida would have been in Gore's favor AND the Fla. Legislature/U.S. House nonetheless having certified W as the "winner". That scenario, indeed, would have made our constitutional process creak more than ever before. (I for one do not believe that the GOP in the final analysis would have gutsed it out. Public opinion would have been overwhelming against it, in the face of a vote total showing Gore having won Florida.) 1204. janjon - 1/10/2001 3:13:58 PM Do we know you under a different moniker, b redux twice? 1205. glendajean - 1/10/2001 3:14:21 PM Lee wasn't a Hitler. Napolean was more in that category. 1206. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 3:15:41 PM 1207. Wombat - 1/10/2001 3:17:19 PM bbb is probably Cygnus. All hat, no cattle. 1208. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 3:17:41 PM 1210. janjon - 1/10/2001 3:17:51 PM One thing for sure - Napoleon had better taste in furniture than Hitler. I have no basis to compare his taste in same to that of Lee's. 1211. bubbaette - 1/10/2001 3:19:12 PM I think that Ace has the conversation all out of context in stating that RE Lee was being compared to Hitler, but I expect that. 1212. Wombat - 1/10/2001 3:19:52 PM Ace: 1213. janjon - 1/10/2001 3:21:08 PM Well, yes, Bubba, I was going to comment that Ace also is doing one of his ridiculous stretched-out-of-all-reasonable-bounds comparisions and then snorting around indignantly based on same, but I thought What the Hell, he's having a bad day, why add to it. 1214. Ronski - 1/10/2001 3:24:36 PM janjon, 1215. bbb - 1/10/2001 3:26:33 PM Bush Searches for New Labor Choice 1216. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 3:27:15 PM 1217. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 3:28:51 PM bbb is Andy from TableTalk. 1218. bbb - 1/10/2001 3:28:56 PM FLSC Chief Justice Weils was right. 1219. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 3:31:28 PM Ace is on point. The issue, broken down, is the proposition that it is an indication of racism (Wombat's words) when Ashcroft states that Lee, Jackson and Davis are heroic and the Southern cause was not perverted. In rebuttal, it is pointed out - to little avail - that in dealing with African-Americans, Ashcroft has an impressive record of appointments, nominations, and support. 1220. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 3:35:48 PM Moreover, Fielding did make the comparison of the Confederates and the Nazis. 1221. bbb - 1/10/2001 3:36:54 PM Canada Makes Offer on Mideast Peace 1222. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 3:38:49 PM Indeed, in post no. 1093, Fielding congratulated bubbaette on their joint use of the Nazi comparison: 1223. bbb - 1/10/2001 3:43:07 PM http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/08/bush.pardon.clinton/index.html 1224. Ronski - 1/10/2001 3:43:18 PM bbb, 1225. bbb - 1/10/2001 3:44:02 PM 1226. Fielding - 1/10/2001 3:46:10 PM 1227. bbb - 1/10/2001 3:46:33 PM Ronski 1228. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 3:46:56 PM "After all, would Jews get all bent out of shape at admiring Hitler's military strategy and flying the Nazi flag?" 1229. Wombat - 1/10/2001 3:47:27 PM No one denies Lee's abilities as a soldier and his stature as a leader of the Confederacy, and his dignity in accepting defeat (well one could argue about the former, but not here). However the real patriots fought for the United States of America, not the Confederacy. 1230. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 3:48:09 PM Fielding 1231. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 3:48:11 PM Not In a Million Billion Years? 1232. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 3:49:17 PM Wombat 1233. Fielding - 1/10/2001 3:50:44 PM 1234. Wombat - 1/10/2001 3:51:38 PM George Thomas, AKA the "Rock of Chickamauga," was a patriot. Although a Virginian, he chose to fight for the United States. He was also a damn good general. Needless to say, he is not honored in his home state. 1235. Fielding - 1/10/2001 3:51:40 PM 1236. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 3:52:29 PM 1237. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 3:55:48 PM Wombat 1238. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 3:56:02 PM Why do some southerners claim a monopoly on patriotism today yet wax nostalgic over the Confederacy? Why do some politicians cater to this? 1239. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 3:57:37 PM The South, black and white, suffers the stigma of intellectual bankruptcy of the "Hee Haw" variety. 1240. Wombat - 1/10/2001 3:57:54 PM Fielding: 1241. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 3:58:30 PM 1242. bbb - 1/10/2001 3:59:23 PM Bush Team Lets Clinton Slap Go By 1243. CalGal - 1/10/2001 3:59:26 PM The South, black and white, suffers the stigma of intellectual bankruptcy of the "Hee Haw" variety. 1244. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:00:41 PM 1245. bbb - 1/10/2001 4:00:53 PM ''By the time it was over, our candidate had won the popular vote and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida,'' 1246. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 4:01:22 PM Why does Craig T. Nelson get so much work? 1247. CalGal - 1/10/2001 4:01:43 PM I would point out again that the issue with various politicians talking about southern civil war "heroes" is the extent to which they are used as code words to the intended audience. 1248. Wombat - 1/10/2001 4:02:31 PM Ace: 1249. CalGal - 1/10/2001 4:02:35 PM Indy, 1250. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:03:13 PM 1251. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:04:07 PM Ace 1252. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:05:41 PM 1253. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:06:07 PM Wombat 1254. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 4:06:29 PM Didn't Grant fight in the Mexican-American War? (Either that or the Blackhawk wars.) 1255. Fielding - 1/10/2001 4:07:13 PM 1256. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 4:07:34 PM Nah, let them have their fantasies. 1257. Wombat - 1/10/2001 4:07:44 PM I don't think anyone--except a well educated Texan--would consider Polk a hero. 1258. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 4:08:53 PM 1256 was in response to 1252. 1259. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:09:02 PM The American treatment of Indians has often been likened to Nazi extermination. 1260. bbb - 1/10/2001 4:10:13 PM Sharon Calls Past Peace Pacts Null 1261. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:10:17 PM Ohio 1262. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:10:53 PM 1263. Fielding - 1/10/2001 4:11:08 PM 1264. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:12:00 PM Wombat 1265. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 4:13:02 PM Cal: I waste enough time on the computer to not need another vice. As long as TV sucks, I can stay away from it (and save the money cable costs too). 1266. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:13:06 PM "I don't think anyone--except a well educated Texan--would consider Polk a hero." 1267. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:13:13 PM Fielding 1268. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:14:08 PM In terms of the expansion of the United States, Polk is about as heroic as one gets. 1269. Wombat - 1/10/2001 4:15:08 PM Urquhart: 1270. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 4:16:25 PM I always admired Polk for saying he just wanted one term and then sticking to it. IIRC he died within a few months of leaving office. 1271. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:16:57 PM "But don't give support to them in "Nazi Nostalgia" magazine." 1272. Fielding - 1/10/2001 4:18:22 PM 1273. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:18:40 PM Wombat 1274. Wombat - 1/10/2001 4:20:14 PM Urquhart: 1275. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 4:21:11 PM Wombat: Do you think advocating succession was in and of itself "evil"? Before the Civil War, was there any legal reason to believe that a state could not leave the Union if it wished? 1276. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:21:33 PM Fielding 1277. CalGal - 1/10/2001 4:21:38 PM Ace, 1278. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:22:48 PM 1279. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 4:25:08 PM Francis and Ace: My point in hypothesizing a "Nazi Nostalgia" magazine is that Ashcroft's choice of forum was significant, maybe more than the views he stated there. "Southern Partisan" is a publication that's full of racist crap. 1280. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:25:38 PM Game over. 1281. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:26:56 PM 1282. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 4:27:13 PM 90% of your morality is decided by your society. 1283. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 4:28:02 PM wore broke out = war broke out 1284. CalGal - 1/10/2001 4:28:42 PM I'm not sure what you or Ace think you proved, if anything. Unless Fielding spouted some platitude that I missed. 1285. CalGal - 1/10/2001 4:29:20 PM Indy, 1286. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:30:59 PM 1287. Fielding - 1/10/2001 4:31:30 PM 1288. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:32:28 PM 1289. Wombat - 1/10/2001 4:33:37 PM Indy: 1290. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:34:02 PM Ace 1291. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:36:04 PM 1292. Wombat - 1/10/2001 4:37:10 PM What made Lee a patriot? 1293. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:37:39 PM 1294. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:38:24 PM Wombat 1295. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:43:50 PM 1296. PsychProf - 1/10/2001 4:45:12 PM Ace...quite insightful. 1297. Wombat - 1/10/2001 4:45:31 PM And I would make it into your pantheon of great American heroes, too. However tempting it may be, the Union must be preserved. 1298. Ronski - 1/10/2001 4:47:11 PM Why? 1299. janjon - 1/10/2001 4:48:19 PM Ronski. Because it was indeed such a close election, it was even more important to make sure that ALL of the votes were counted, under the standards, varying or not, customary in the given locales. As Dick Gephardt said wisely at a press conference about ten minutes before the U.S. Sup. Ct. lowered the boom by granting that ridiculous stay (and talk about political motivation - it is there in spades. What a ludicrous determination as to irreperable harm and to whom), that is what we Americans do when you have elections so close that the otherwise acceptable tolerances for miscounts etc. cannot be condoned. 1300. CalGal - 1/10/2001 4:48:55 PM Lee may or may not have been a patriot, but I don't see him as an American hero, for reasons mentioned earlier. Regardless of the reasons, he fought to destroy this country. Had he won, there wouldn't be an America for him to be a hero of. 1301. Wombat - 1/10/2001 4:49:31 PM Ace: 1302. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:50:35 PM Wombat speaks of preservation "the Union" like a Moonie speaks of marriage in Shea Stadium. Were he born in the South, he'd be talking about the War of Northern Aggression and spending all his free time at Civil War reenactments. 1303. PsychProf - 1/10/2001 4:50:44 PM 1304. Ronski - 1/10/2001 4:51:11 PM (I'll see what I can do about Urquhart at Middlebury. I just sent them a check.) 1305. Wombat - 1/10/2001 4:51:42 PM Also, most of us imperfect types do not seek higher office based on an allegiance to a hypocritical set of beliefs and policies. 1306. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:51:50 PM Wombat 1307. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 4:51:56 PM Wombat: The American Revolution was met with force of arms, too. If Washington et al had lost, would you no longer view him as a hero? 1308. CalGal - 1/10/2001 4:52:14 PM Were he born in the South, he'd be talking about the War of Northern Aggression and spending all his free time at Civil War reenactments. 1309. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:53:11 PM 1310. Ronski - 1/10/2001 4:53:17 PM Psych, 1311. CalGal - 1/10/2001 4:54:40 PM Ronski, 1312. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:56:54 PM 1313. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 4:58:52 PM 1314. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 4:59:35 PM Someone's head is now smoking and he is smashing into Susan St. James repeating "The Union must be preserved! The Union must be preserved!" 1315. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:02:12 PM 1316. Ronski - 1/10/2001 5:02:39 PM Btw, pseudo and I have been discussing secession in another context in International, if anyone be interested. 1317. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:04:10 PM Would the North have had the moral right to wage bloody war against the South for choosing to seceed? 1318. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 5:05:16 PM While there are many things I would do under certain circumstances, I would not be able to torture someone physically even upon "orders." 1319. Ronski - 1/10/2001 5:06:03 PM Indy, 1320. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:07:29 PM 1321. Wombat - 1/10/2001 5:07:53 PM Do bear in mind that the South actually started the war. However, without slavery as the principal right that was allegedly "threatened," I doubt the South would have seceded at all. The move toward secession was driven by the principal slaveholding states, with others like Virginia and North Carolina reluctantly joining in. 1322. Wombat - 1/10/2001 5:09:56 PM And we all can't be trimmers. Right Urquhart? 1323. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:10:16 PM Wombat 1324. OhioSTOPAS - 1/10/2001 5:10:22 PM All right, all right . . . 1325. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:10:31 PM 1326. Wombat - 1/10/2001 5:11:06 PM Remember Fort Sumter? 1327. Ronski - 1/10/2001 5:11:48 PM They fired first. 1328. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:11:51 PM 1329. Ronski - 1/10/2001 5:12:13 PM X-P. 1330. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:13:16 PM 1331. Ronski - 1/10/2001 5:13:17 PM New England came a bit close to seceding a couple of times, too, once with New York, as I recall. 1332. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 5:13:43 PM However, Fort Sumter was located on Southern territory and the South had told the North it would be fired upon if an attempt was made to resupply it. 1333. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:14:28 PM If Quebec seceeds from Canada, do the Canadians have the right to invade? 1334. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:14:36 PM I believe that the Confederates asked the Union soldiers to leave the harbor, as it was their contention that the Fort belonged to the Confederacy. The Union soldiers declined. 1335. glendajean - 1/10/2001 5:14:52 PM I've heard people in Texas say that it had the legal right to secede as part of the Republic of Texas' treaty with the United States. It is the only state that entered by treaty, between one power to another. Part of that treaty gives Texas the right to subdivide into 5 separate states. 1336. Wombat - 1/10/2001 5:15:29 PM Ace: 1337. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:15:48 PM Indy, 1338. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:17:23 PM Wombat 1339. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:18:11 PM 1340. Rosetta Stone - 1/10/2001 5:19:26 PM It's depressing how little you know about the American Civil War. 1341. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:20:51 PM 1342. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:20:56 PM Ace, 1343. Wombat - 1/10/2001 5:22:38 PM The commander of US forces at Charleston moved his forces from the dilapidated and indefensible Fort Moultrie to the incomplete but better protected Fort Sumter. He informed SC authorities that he would remain there until he received orders to the contrary. He was a Kentuckian, by the way. 1344. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:23:39 PM "Wars aren't about morality, they are about power, laws, government, and balance." 1345. Ronski - 1/10/2001 5:23:55 PM Kansas was to the Civil War as Spain was to WW2. 1346. Rosetta Stone - 1/10/2001 5:25:31 PM No, Ronski. Spain was another country in Europe. Kansas was part of the UNITED States of America. 1347. Fielding - 1/10/2001 5:25:37 PM 1348. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:25:44 PM I generally don't think abstractions are worth killing for or dying for. 1349. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:26:14 PM 1350. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:26:31 PM Wombat 1351. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:28:51 PM 1352. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:29:19 PM Ace, 1353. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:30:34 PM Lee is a hero to many Americans. 1354. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:30:53 PM 1355. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:32:46 PM 1356. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:34:34 PM Divested of slavery, however, what moral right did the Union have to dictate to the Confederacy how it governed itself? 1357. Wombat - 1/10/2001 5:35:24 PM So if other states decides to secede, that's OK? What if every state wants to do so. Is that OK too? Should each state have its own foreign policy, including its relations to other states? What if there are disputes between states? Should they be settled by the respective state militias by force of arms? 1358. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:36:03 PM Frank, 1359. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 5:36:50 PM FU: "Yet, when another historical figure who is presently not a nominee for the Attorney Generalship is offered, and that figure has said or done things on a par with Confederates, Wombat or Raskolnikov are naturally quick to credit the factual counterbalances of those historical figures in order to redeem them. They also inoculate politicians who characterize those figures as heroic from the same virulent smears endured by Ashcroft." 1360. Ronski - 1/10/2001 5:38:33 PM Rosie, 1361. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 5:38:51 PM Let's treat the new administration the same way they treated the last one. 1362. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:38:53 PM 1363. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:39:50 PM "He is not an American hero, by definition." 1364. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:40:06 PM BTW, Hamilton did not accept slavery, and fought against it all his life. As did Burr, I have been recently surprised to learn. 1365. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:42:14 PM 1366. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:43:04 PM Cal 1367. Ronski - 1/10/2001 5:43:13 PM In 1860, Brooklyn had the second largest slave population of any city in the country after Charleston. 1368. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:43:15 PM "Hamilton did not accept slavery, and fought against it all his life." 1369. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:44:08 PM Rask 1370. Ronski - 1/10/2001 5:44:10 PM I suppose a comma should go there somewhere, or parentheses. 1371. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:44:24 PM Ace, 1372. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 5:45:08 PM Most of this has been sheer straw man idiocy. No one is claiming that Lee is evil, so FU and Acce can indeed safely declare himself victory in a game with no opponent. How "heroic". 1373. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:46:39 PM Raskolnikov 1374. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:47:17 PM Frank, 1375. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:47:23 PM 1376. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 5:47:40 PM "Thus, the EP "freed" slaves only in areas in which it had absolutely no effect. Where Lincoln *could have* actually freed slaves, he chose 1377. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:47:45 PM Actually, only Fielding and Bubba have, I believe. And they aren't here. 1378. Wombat - 1/10/2001 5:48:11 PM And what if California had then decided to secede? And New England--finally? What would be left? You are mighty quick to abandon hypotheticals when their ultimate results are pointed out to you. 1379. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:48:43 PM End the country? He fought to wipe the North off the map? 1380. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:49:35 PM Raskolnikov 1381. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:50:18 PM 1382. Fielding - 1/10/2001 5:50:19 PM 1383. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:50:44 PM He's my new Hero, and I'm a red-white-and-patriot-blue-blooded American motherfucker. 1384. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:51:20 PM 1385. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:51:45 PM Fielding, 1386. Fielding - 1/10/2001 5:52:15 PM 1387. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:52:35 PM Are you sure you're talking about Robert E. Lee? 1388. Rosetta Stone - 1/10/2001 5:52:53 PM Thanks, Ronski. I'll buy that. 1389. ranheim - 1/10/2001 5:53:12 PM Additionally, as I have said many times before "The wrong side won the War Between The States. 1390. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:53:25 PM Cal 1391. Wombat - 1/10/2001 5:53:25 PM Ronski: 1392. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:54:02 PM 1393. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:55:47 PM 1394. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:55:55 PM Actually, the British ended slavery in their empire, and had the US not rebelled, slavery would have ended here when it did in the British Empire. 1395. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 5:57:34 PM 1396. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 5:58:26 PM The Constitutionality of the EP was in question from the get-go 1397. Fielding - 1/10/2001 5:58:42 PM 1398. CalGal - 1/10/2001 5:59:33 PM I thought Lee's aim was to make the United States light a few states. 1399. Fielding - 1/10/2001 5:59:42 PM 1400. Wombat - 1/10/2001 6:00:21 PM Had the Confederate States returned to the Union by 1864, they could have voted against the 14th Amendment, and it would not have passed. 1401. CalGal - 1/10/2001 6:00:29 PM Fielding, 1402. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 6:01:22 PM On Hamilton and slavery, the opinion of Douglass Turner: 1403. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:01:54 PM "The desire was clearly to end the country as it existed, to cease to operate under the rules that it had once agreed to." 1404. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 6:02:45 PM And can Hamilton be a great American having been born in Nevis? 1405. Fielding - 1/10/2001 6:03:22 PM 1406. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 6:04:06 PM Also, wasn't Hamilton a slaveholder? 1407. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 6:04:24 PM "You set a litmus test that an AG nominee must agree that the South 1408. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 6:04:38 PM Had the Confederate States returned to the Union by 1864, they could have voted against the 14th Amendment, and it would not have passed. 1409. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:04:46 PM 1410. Fielding - 1/10/2001 6:05:22 PM 1411. CalGal - 1/10/2001 6:06:03 PM this describes the Revolutionary War. In fact, it describes pretty much every secession/rebellion in history. 1412. Fielding - 1/10/2001 6:06:44 PM 1413. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:08:04 PM 1414. CalGal - 1/10/2001 6:08:55 PM Ace, 1415. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:09:11 PM "As a result, George Washington is not to be termed a British hero." 1416. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:09:50 PM 1417. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 6:10:57 PM Peter the Slave. 1418. CalGal - 1/10/2001 6:11:41 PM Ah. The General All-Purpose Universal Omniversal Distinction, always handy. "In case of Trouble, break glass." 1419. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:13:36 PM 1420. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 6:14:34 PM George Washington was indeed a British hero for his work during the French and Indian War. 1421. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:14:48 PM 1422. CalGal - 1/10/2001 6:15:21 PM Washington ceased to be British. 1423. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:16:21 PM 1424. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 6:16:40 PM Consider this: Virginians were livid about the secession of the western counties to form West Virginia, and sent military forces into the region. Evidently, "the right to secede" only existed by arbitrary political boundaries. 1425. CalGal - 1/10/2001 6:17:25 PM George Washington was indeed a British hero for his work during the French and Indian War. 1426. Fielding - 1/10/2001 6:17:27 PM 1427. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 6:17:49 PM Ace 1428. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:18:55 PM 1429. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 6:19:47 PM Ace: I know you and FU well enough to believe you are not closet racists. I don't know Ashcroft that well, so I believe he should be questioned about it. 1430. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 6:21:22 PM If "Movies and Television" sucedes from "The Mote" will you take up arms to force it back? 1431. CalGal - 1/10/2001 6:21:42 PM Worse than socialists or marxists, there are hacks and feminists in the party. They must be purged! 1432. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 6:22:17 PM Rask 1433. cmboyce - 1/10/2001 6:22:47 PM All this about Lee's standing is silly. If he was an American, and if he was a hero, and if he is a hero to many Americans, then he is an American hero. It is typical of our weird, contrarian society to adopt as a hero someone who opposed the country. Think Bonnie and Clyde. 1434. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 6:23:25 PM Mighty white of you too, o dusky one! 1435. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:24:41 PM 1436. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 6:25:54 PM If I, as a Catholic, were to speak at an organization who lauded the Inquisitors of the Grand Inquisition in Spain as noble sons of the Church who were trying to save Spain for Christianity; and that same organization was composed of decendents of supporters and family members of the Inquisition (since linear relationships are presumedly impossible) who feel that it was error to close the Inquisition; and that some of its precepts should be re-introduced to the Church, although in a more modern fashion- elimination of the rack let's say; and the Pope wanted to appoint me as a Papal Nuncio for an Ecumenical Council, would the college of Cardinals have cause for concern? 1437. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 6:30:34 PM "I wonder when the Confederates will get such dispensation." 1438. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:32:50 PM "The principles that Lee fought for have become more odious over time." 1439. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:35:35 PM 1440. Rosetta Stone - 1/10/2001 6:35:41 PM Wife just called me at work to say that our congresswoman, Rep. Connie Morella, just mailed us two more tickets to sit in the semi-VIP bleachers on Capitol Hill to witness George the Second's Inauguration. They must be good seats because the Secret Service want to know our SS numbers. 1441. CalGal - 1/10/2001 6:40:50 PM Or was he fighting against what he believed was an unconstitutional invasion and an illegal infringement on the right to self-determination? 1442. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 6:51:18 PM Ace: allow me to rephrase as "the principles that Lee's government were fighting for". You are right that Lee was not fighting for slavery. He wasn't even fighting for the Confederacy. He was fighting for Virginia. 1443. Rosetta Stone - 1/10/2001 6:53:54 PM Virginia is one of the most beautiful places on earth. 1444. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 6:59:49 PM 1445. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 7:03:00 PM 1446. Rosetta Stone - 1/10/2001 7:04:52 PM I like your writing, Ace, so I don't mind reading it twice. 1447. jexster - 1/10/2001 7:15:41 PM Wipe your nose Rose.... 1448. cmboyce - 1/10/2001 7:16:36 PM Ace, the point here, lest you have forgotten, is not what Lee was, or what Confederate soldiers were. I agree with you completely in 1444 (&-5) about why soldiers go to war, in whatever war (almost). And very well said, too, by the by. 1449. jexster - 1/10/2001 7:19:31 PM Saturday, Jan. 20, 12 noon. March and rally. Protest Bush's Inauguration. Meet at Civic Center Plaza, Grove & Larkin, near Civic Ctr. BART, march to Jefferson Park. 1450. Rosetta Stone - 1/10/2001 7:25:31 PM Reading back posts, I think the new person "bbb" is our old friend TT's "andy," and if so, I want everyone to be very nice to him. I'll be watching. 1451. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 7:27:29 PM A Washington Post reporter interviewed on NPR this afternoon strongly implied that he is onto something significant on the very honorable Mr. Ashcroft. For some reason his speech at BJ "University" has been classified TOP SECRET. Maybe somebody slipped the Post a copy. That may provide a clue why the academic hood for his honorary degree was white and covered his face except for the eye holes. 1452. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 7:29:58 PM 1453. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 7:34:58 PM 1454. jexster - 1/10/2001 7:38:00 PM As a true Son of the South, I must weigh in on the Civil War. There's nothing wrong with RE Lee, Stonewall Jackson nothing wrong with reenactments, nothing wrong with Shelby Foote. The military history and fighting spirit of the South makes far more interesting reading and study than the woeful, well-healed Yankees. 1455. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 7:38:04 PM 1456. CalGal - 1/10/2001 7:40:21 PM Ace, 1457. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 7:40:45 PM 1458. jexster - 1/10/2001 7:41:35 PM Still as every son of the South, my heart swells with pride each time I revisit Pickett's Charge. 1459. CalGal - 1/10/2001 7:42:03 PM I should say that if admiration of Lee is a sin or racist codeword of some sort, there are quite a few respected liberal historians who are racists. 1460. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 7:42:58 PM "Oldest son will be somewhere else with Boy Scouts. He has to wear special jacket that SS is giving the boys who attend workshops next weekend. " 1461. CalGal - 1/10/2001 7:43:04 PM Lee was doomed to lose. 1462. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 7:44:36 PM 1463. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 7:46:20 PM 1464. CalGal - 1/10/2001 7:46:32 PM Is Shelby Foote a racist then? 1465. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 7:47:34 PM 1466. jexster - 1/10/2001 7:47:56 PM Generally losers aren't romanticized. Generally its the winners who write the histories. Southerners, however, invented history as an academic discipline in this country beginning in about 1870 at the close of Reconstruction, partly as a reaction to their humiliation and also as an expression of their hopeless myopia. 1467. CalGal - 1/10/2001 7:48:35 PM Mention Lee while campaigning for Republican votes, and you're a racist. Why? Well, du-uhhhhh!!!! REPUBLICANS!!! You see, they're racist! 1468. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 7:48:58 PM Is this a mandate which I see before me, 1469. CalGal - 1/10/2001 7:51:22 PM You all are so fucking arrogantly intolerant and biased. 1470. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 7:56:46 PM 1471. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 7:59:18 PM 1472. msgreer - 1/10/2001 8:00:26 PM Cellar Don't confuse CalGal with facts. 1473. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:00:54 PM "I have said several times that I don't think Ashcroft is a racist..." 1474. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:01:42 PM Well Ace, comfort yourself in your ignorance all you wish but I am here to tell you that your argument is facile and quite wrong. 1475. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:04:07 PM 1476. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:04:26 PM He "pandered" by making one remark in Southern Partisan? 1477. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 8:05:29 PM Cal, Just what makes you think Ashcroft isn't a racist? The fact that he is clearly pandering to redneck, Christian Right voters doesn't mean that he doesn't actually believe in their program. I give him full credit for sincerity. After all he is an honorable man. They are all honorable men. 1478. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:06:18 PM No, merely that he intentionally "panders to racists" by daring to mention RE Lee in a single interview. 1479. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:07:32 PM 1480. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:08:34 PM The fact that he is clearly pandering to redneck, Christian Right voters doesn't mean that he doesn't actually believe in their program. 1481. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:10:42 PM The following from the AceOfSpades is not accurate. 1482. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:11:22 PM Squawk all you want. No one cares. 1483. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:12:09 PM BTW, "the left" really doesn't mean Dems anymore. It means well left of center. Plenty of Dems aren't "left". 1484. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:13:07 PM 1485. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:14:47 PM I said nothing about "moderates". 1486. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:16:51 PM But shouldn't we cut the next top-cop some slack? After all it's not like he's off giving interviews to crypto-racist, pro-Confederate magazines, right? 1487. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 8:17:46 PM I'm not sure that he doesn't "act on his (racist) beliefs as a politician." I suspect he does whenever he thinks he can get away with it. He clearly acted on his homophobic beliefs by opposing Hormel's appointment as ambassador. And I imagine Judge White may feel that race played a part in Ashcroft's blocking his appointment. Even though Ashcroft mentioned crime and capital punishment not race, the fact that White was black gave Ashcroft a "twofer" with his constituents. 1488. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:19:24 PM We know how to treat our niggras and don't need no yankee tellin us how ... if they'd only let us be.... 1489. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:19:51 PM He clearly acted on his homophobic beliefs by opposing Hormel's appointment as ambassador. 1490. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:22:28 PM "I realize it is more emotionally satisfying to condemn "the Left" rather than "Dems", but it's just not accurate these days. If the Dems were left, there would have been no need for Nader." 1491. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:23:20 PM Fuck the left. You lost. You will lose again. 1492. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:25:01 PM Nader got 3% more than all wignuts combined. 1493. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 8:27:40 PM Southern history is deep fried in romanticism and patriotism for the lost Cause. Some susceptibility to it by Southerners is par for the course. It's much like speaking to the Irish about the English. 1494. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:27:49 PM Ashcroft...Jerry Falwell approved. 1495. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:28:32 PM You dems just want universal health care, higher taxes, more "social justice," partial-birth abortions and gay marriage. 1496. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:29:49 PM Ashcroft may not be a racist, but he is definitely opposed to the role of the Federal government in the vindication of citizens rights. 1497. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:30:47 PM 1498. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:31:40 PM Ashcroft may or may not be a racist. Without question though, he is appallingly indifferent. Not the sort of person who I would choose to enforce discrimination laws in a society that's becoming ever more multi-racial. 1499. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:31:51 PM "Ashcroft may not be a racist, but he is definitely opposed to the role of the Federal government in the vindication of citizens rights." 1500. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:33:03 PM He is also a rank homophobe and fundie religious freakazoid. 1501. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 8:33:04 PM CalGal- true, thus the connection between the old South and modern Republicans. The racists are parasitic baggage on the state's rights philosophy. The parasites have the added advantage of being able to vote, and thus the host tolerates them. 1502. cmboyce - 1/10/2001 8:34:35 PM Message # 1498 There it is. The reason for all the fuss. Can you read, Ace? 1503. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 8:35:03 PM Yes, the right of a citizen to get a job that another citizen is more qualified for, due to the color of one's skin. 1504. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:35:36 PM That "right" (Ace's distortion of fact notwithstanding or surpising) is the law of the land, part of his fucking job description/ 1505. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:36:22 PM 1506. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:36:50 PM Ace, 1507. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:37:04 PM Ace appears stuck in the Year of the Angry White Man. 1508. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:37:37 PM 1509. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 8:38:30 PM We're an evil rotten corrupt society, and we can only be cured by re-educating the likes of you. 1510. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 8:38:37 PM No, the right of minorities to have access to a good education and good jobs the same as everybody else. In case you haven't noticed we are still a long way from achieving this. Contrary to your white is black and black is white view of the world eliminating discrimination in America does not mean stamping out affirmative action. 1511. cmboyce - 1/10/2001 8:38:40 PM I actually meant Message # 1493! But Jexster's 1498 works as well. 1512. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:39:14 PM 1513. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:39:30 PM The racists are parasitic baggage on the state's rights philosophy. The parasites have the added advantage of being able to vote, and thus the host tolerates them. 1514. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:41:24 PM No question but that affirmative action has bettered the lot of the coloreds. No question whatsoever. As for the "better qualified" canard, that Jesse Helm's racism sounds no less vile today coming from Ace than it did in his infamous black hand stealing white job commercial. 1515. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:41:25 PM CM, 1516. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:41:37 PM 1517. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 8:43:55 PM Ace- you are naive beyond belief. Remember the whole Gore/Bush how did this guy get into the Ivy League argument? Neither was a stellar scholar nor exceptional in their entrance exam scores. Do you really think that there were no candidates with better qualifications when they got in; whether they be white, black, what-have-you? There was no true competition on merit alone, and never was. Personal, religious, racial and political factors have always entered into such decisions. 1518. cmboyce - 1/10/2001 8:44:49 PM Message # 1515 1519. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 8:44:52 PM "As a white Christian, I want preferences over Jews, who are overrepresented in my profession (and most of the classic "professions"). 1520. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 8:46:07 PM Ace- Careful! Assholes are over-represented in our profession, and I don't want to start writing checks to nice guys.... 1521. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 8:46:25 PM "Jews are overrepresented in the media, and I want your job." 1522. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:46:29 PM "Personal, religious, racial and political factors have always entered into such decisions." 1523. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:46:52 PM Of all the atavistic, pre-neutered, Nanny Warbuck's cabinet choices, Rumsfeld May Be The Most Dangerous 1524. Fielding - 1/10/2001 8:47:24 PM 1525. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 8:48:19 PM "Ah, but we've decided that religious and racial factors are out of bounds. 1526. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:49:20 PM I just wanna cry Ace. That was a real heart-ripper. Poor whites, poor jews, poor Asians - can't get into schools but for all those Hispanics and Nigras. 1527. jexster - 1/10/2001 8:50:21 PM Cellar is both blessed and cursed....black AND Jewish! 1528. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:51:47 PM The Republicans don't need to worry about affirmative action--the states are doing away with it on their own. 1529. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 8:51:52 PM Ace is like Ashcroft and Chaves who they think that achieving equal opportunity in America means protecting whites against discrmination due to affirmative action. 1530. CalGal - 1/10/2001 8:55:00 PM That's really not true. There are eminently respectable reasons for opposing affirmative action--particularly in education. And I've always noticed those "government setaside" programs are very easy to use as a way for minority owners to take advantage of the government's requirements to charge more money. I would like to know the percentage of minority owned contractors that don't rely on government contracts, for example. 1531. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:56:00 PM 1532. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 8:57:02 PM Athletes, children of alumni, piccolo players, children of influential legislators and minorities all get a small amount of admissions preference at University of Michigan. Why is it that people like Ace only object to the small preference given to minorities? 1533. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 8:58:42 PM Ace- your check keeps getting bigger and bigger. Mr. Rogers is going to own you. 1534. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:58:43 PM 1535. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 8:59:37 PM 1536. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:00:10 PM Why is it that people like Ace only object to the small preference given to minorities? 1537. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 9:01:53 PM Well, if racial preferences are so good, let's start a program to give whites preferences in college and professional athletics. 1538. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:02:16 PM Ace, but your race isn't getting penalized, overall, in this country. Reality is that your race is still getting most of the preferences. That's what you and Cal and Ashcroft, et al, are ignoring. Assuring minority participation in education is critical for the educational benefit of the majority and in order to provide minority engineers, doctors, etc. 1539. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:03:13 PM "But in general, I do think it harms the perception of minorities if the majority of them simply couldn't get into the school based on academics and are only accepted by virtue of race." 1540. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:05:34 PM 1541. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:05:52 PM The game is better when we just let the coaches pick the best guys. 1542. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:07:48 PM Cal, why don't you stop patronizing the minorities and let them worry about whether affirmative action "harms the perceptions of minorities." Why doesn't anybody tell the jocks that their perceptions are being harmed, or the legacies or any of the others who are getting preferences. The fact is that, although minorities are aware that there may be truth in what you say they are willing to accept that, and most of them support affirmative action. Your statement amounts to an attempt to tell minoritites what is best for them. I believe it's called a plantation mentality or something like that. 1543. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:07:52 PM Cal, why don't you stop patronizing the minorities and let them worry about whether affirmative action "harms the perceptions of minorities." Why doesn't anybody tell the jocks that their perceptions are being harmed, or the legacies or any of the others who are getting preferences. The fact is that, although minorities are aware that there may be truth in what you say they are willing to accept that, and most of them support affirmative action. Your statement amounts to an attempt to tell minoritites what is best for them. I believe it's called a plantation mentality or something like that. 1544. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:08:44 PM Ace, 1545. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:10:28 PM People chose to hire me, or admit me to schools, because I'm white? 1546. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:10:31 PM Cal, why don't you stop patronizing the minorities and let them worry about whether affirmative action "harms the perceptions of minorities." 1547. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:10:55 PM 1548. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:11:04 PM You'rekid will do just fine, CG. He doesn't have the advantages and preferences Ace gets because he's a cripple. 1549. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:12:26 PM "People chose to hire me, or admit me to schools, because I'm white?" 1550. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:13:10 PM Because I think the "but it harms the minorities by stigmatizing them" argument is complete bullshit. Obviously, they want to be "harmed" in this way, because they'll demonize you if you vote against such "harm." 1551. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:14:15 PM 1552. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:14:42 PM Cal, holding that opinion is your privilege, but why do you suppose most minorities don't feel that way? And who is in the best position to decide? You've been listening too much to that braying jackass of a California black guy, whose name escapes me at the moment, who makes opposing affirmative action his claim to fame. 1553. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:15:05 PM "Employers just loooooooove it when a white guy comes in." 1554. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:16:21 PM 1555. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 9:16:42 PM Ace- this is not a hypothetical for me. My father was next in line for a promotion when the first affirmative action program was enacted in his workplace. He was put on hold until they had addressed previously passed over blacks etc. By the time that it was "safe" for his promotion, the Superintendant had changed, and he never got the promotion he was promised. 1556. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:17:33 PM "You think they get similarly jazzed when a faggit walks in?" 1557. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:18:30 PM Ace, 1558. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:18:38 PM 1559. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:20:09 PM Sure they do Ace. Sometimes its a conscious choice because your white employer feels more comfortable with you. 1560. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:22:34 PM I largely agree with Jones post vis a vis race "preferences" in hiring. My belief that education and employment are two different realms is not the norm, but I see a much clearer case for a baseline standard in education than I do in employment. 1561. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:23:18 PM Cal, it is patronizing for a white person to argue against affirmative action because it allegedly "stigmatizes minorities." It would become you to let them worry about that. I suspect minorities feel that it opens up opportunities for them that might not otherwise be open to them, not because of their lack of ability but because of discrimination, inferior elementary and high school education, disadvantaged family circumstances, etc, etc., none of which are personally stigmatizing in any way, except perhaps in the minds of certain members of the majority who are prematurely preoccupied with "reverse discrimination." 1562. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:23:48 PM Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, became the first senator to publicly oppose Ashcroft's nomination, urging Bush in a letter to withdraw the nomination of a man whose views she described as ``far outside the mainstream of our nation.'' 1563. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:24:47 PM 1564. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 9:25:30 PM Ace- do I think that it is necessary for the government to force universities into admitting minorities and companies to hire them? Yes, and I think a passing familiarity with recent history supports this. Have things changed since I was a kid and US Marshals were accompanying black students into southern universities, desegragating school districts, companies and unions? Sure, and I don't think that as a whole the nation would immediately revert to the bad old days if the government folded its tent and stole away. But we could go down the Yugoslav road, and without some pressure to support admissions and hiring decisions by objective criteria, those decisions would go back to admitting Al and Dubya and passing over guys like you claim to be. 1565. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:26:50 PM Cal, it is patronizing for a white person to argue against affirmative action because it allegedly "stigmatizes minorities." It would become you to let them worry about that. 1566. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:28:48 PM 1567. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 9:30:05 PM Anyone worried about the Bill Bradley types who get into great schools because they're a jock? After all the perception is that jocks are stupid. 1568. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:30:35 PM Jones: 1569. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:31:26 PM Corporate Democracy; Civic Disrespect 1570. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 9:31:51 PM Ace- the objective criteria for hiring, job descriptions and college admissions got much clearer when the folks making those decisions were held to account to insure that race, religion etc were not the reasons for excluding people. Do you really think that the admissions process for Al and Dubya looked like today's? 1571. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:31:56 PM "In my own law school class, there were two or three real underclass or lower class blacks. The rest of the blacks were pretty damn well off>" 1572. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:32:45 PM Oh great. 1573. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:33:30 PM Al Gore's concession speech was justly praised for grace and humor. It paid due deference to the triumph of corporate political ethics, but did not embrace them. It thus preserved Gore for another political day- the obvious intention. But Gore also sent an unmistakable message to American democrats: Do not forget. 1574. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:33:50 PM 1575. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 9:33:57 PM Ace- I don't think that quotas hard or soft are necessary to insure that discrimination does not occur. Neither do I think that mechanical reliance on 'objective' test scores, high school grades etc would insure that it did not occur, 1576. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:34:00 PM Anyone worried about the Bill Bradley types who get into great schools because they're a jock? 1577. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:34:44 PM "Do you really think that the admissions process for Al and Dubya looked like today's?" 1578. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:35:12 PM Ace....not that i fuckin care what you think but I have never posted this article before. 1579. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:35:41 PM 1580. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:36:24 PM BECAUSE TO YOU "OBJECTIVE CRITERIA" MEANS WHITES ONLY AND SHUT THE FUCK UP, NIGGER!!! 1581. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:36:47 PM Jexter, That's good news. I just took time out to email my new Senator, Debbie Stabenow, to urge her to join with Barbara Boxer. 1582. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:37:36 PM 1583. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:38:24 PM GO JEX GO ! GO JEX GO! 1584. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:38:28 PM Eat Shit and Die Ace 1585. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 9:38:53 PM Cal- I never much cared about some football player's talent for running in the open field in poli sci class. Saturday afternoon was a horse of a different color altogether. 1586. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:39:40 PM Oh, Christ. It's been interesting all day here, people. Wouldn't it be nice if someone stopped by and actually saw this thread at its best? 1587. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:40:13 PM Suck up a good viral load from my cock but stick around twerp, I've loved kickin your ass from way back in Fray days. 1588. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:40:44 PM 1589. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:40:56 PM "Really, Cellar-- we whites really need to exclude you blacks to keep our high-paying jobs. I mean, we just can't compete, right?" 1590. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:41:43 PM Jones, 1591. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:41:53 PM 1592. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:43:33 PM 1593. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:43:41 PM "Wouldn't it be nice if someone stopped by and actually saw this thread at its best?" 1594. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:43:49 PM Personally I think the much-maligned Bell Curve was right on....there's an order of superiority 1. Asians 2 Whites 3. Indians 4. Hispanics 5. Wild American Negroes. 1595. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:44:43 PM 1596. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:45:01 PM "So, like, if we don't have all this discrimination, you guys are gonna take over the country? Is that what I'm supposedly afraid of, Cellar?" 1597. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:46:09 PM 1598. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:46:17 PM Where do cripples figure on the Bell Curve, jex? 1599. Jonesatlaw - 1/10/2001 9:48:16 PM You mean Ace is an untermenschen? 1600. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:48:37 PM Big time NCAA schools offer much bigger preferences to athletes than they do to minorities. If I am a white with high grades and board scores who doesn't get accepted because an athlete with lower scores is accepted, why shouldn't I be just as aggrieved as if a non-athlete minority with the same lower scores is accepted in preference to me? Or if the son of an alumnus with the same lower scores is accepted in preference to me? Or if a superlative white piccolo player to fill a vacancy in the orchestra with the same lower scores is accepted in preference to me? Or the son of the chairman of the state legislature's appropriations committee who can barely read is accepted in preference to me? Why is it that the only case that all you people who are arguing for merit only admissions bitch about is the minority. 1601. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 9:48:40 PM 1602. Cellar Door - 1/10/2001 9:50:54 PM Of course not. 1603. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:51:08 PM If I am a white with high grades and board scores who doesn't get accepted because an athlete with lower scores is accepted, why shouldn't I be just as aggrieved as if a non-athlete minority with the same lower scores is accepted in preference to me? 1604. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:51:28 PM More likely your Calculus class is 70% asian, in SF at any rate. Scarely a darky to be found. And Economics courses, shit those Chines e make up nearly 90%. 1605. jexster - 1/10/2001 9:54:59 PM Relevance is we live in a multi-racial society where people come from very different backgrounds some not so hot and its kill or be killed for Americans. 1606. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:57:21 PM Cal, I can't believe you wrote "at least those students (athletes) are perceived as bringing something in exchange for that deficiency." The current trend in college educators is that big time sports programs detract from the educational process. College presidents are trying to re-take control of their schools from their athletic departments and alumni. 1607. CalGal - 1/10/2001 9:57:30 PM He correctly discerned a great Chinese advantage, tight knit social and family groups and an homogeonous culture. 1608. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 9:59:33 PM Come on Cal how about a response. We are talking about a serious issue and you are flipping me off. 1609. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:01:57 PM I can't believe you wrote "at least those students (athletes) are perceived as bringing something in exchange for that deficiency." 1610. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 10:06:16 PM So we are arguing about how big the skew is, not whether there should be a skew. My impression is that the skew for minorities is smaller than it is for athletes and about the same as it is for other groups that are getting preferences-legacies, children of VIPs and other special cases that somebody in the admissions department believes will add to the diversity of the campus. 1611. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 10:10:42 PM Some college presidents and educators are even suggesting that sports programs be separated in some fashion from the rest of the university so that the academic charade for athletes can be ended. They would have their own separate campus, faculty, courses and degree. Others are talking about dropping out of NCAA Division 1 football and basketball, citing with admiration the University of Chicago's decision to do that because of the belief that football did not fit in with the university's educational purpose. 1612. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:11:17 PM So we are arguing about how big the skew is, not whether there should be a skew. 1613. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 10:14:34 PM There have been lots of articles on it. College presidents and educators all over the country cheered when Indiana finally got up nerve enough to fire Bobby Knight. It's also been a hot issue at University of Michigan and plenty of other schools where everybody wonders where the big time jocks are getting the money for new convertibles, etc. 1614. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:15:43 PM No, I'm talking about the depth of the skew needed to bring in an acceptable number of minorities. 1615. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 10:22:57 PM 1616. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 10:24:01 PM What do you mean by "economic preference?" I have trouble following Ace's logic so I usually don't read his posts. Do you mean admissions preference for poor applicants? Nothing wrong with that except that, that alone would result in a big cut in minority enrollment. You are repeating the fallacious thinking about the importance of diversity to the educational process when you speak approvingly of cases "where the student brings something other than color to the table," implying that minority students are not essential to the educational process of all students in the university. Outside of Bob Jones "University" most educators believe that including minorities is essential to the process. And most companies who now recognize that diversity in their workforces is essential to them agree because they can't hire minority engineers if engineering schools don't admit and teach them. 1617. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 10:24:29 PM "It's also been a hot issue at University of Michigan and plenty of other schools where everybody wonders where the big time jocks are getting the money for new convertibles, etc." 1618. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:26:54 PM You are repeating the fallacious thinking about the importance of diversity to the educational process when you speak approvingly of cases "where the student brings something other than color to the table," implying that minority students are not essential to the educational process of all students in the university. 1619. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:27:26 PM Outside of Bob Jones "University" most educators believe that including minorities is essential to the process. 1620. jexster - 1/10/2001 10:27:51 PM Bushies Plea to Clinton: Please Respect Bush 1621. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 10:29:01 PM "Outside of Bob Jones "University" most educators believe that including minorities is essential to the process." 1622. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 10:31:18 PM 1623. CalGal - 1/10/2001 10:32:27 PM No, corporations are just worried that they'll be forced to start skewing for diversity if colleges are required to ignore race. 1624. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 10:32:31 PM 1625. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 10:41:07 PM General Motors filed quite an eloquent amicus brief in support of University of Michigan's admissions policy. And quite a group of other blue chip companies have joined in support of the University. Lee Bollinger, U of M president is reportedly on the short list for president of Harvard. I guess you can attribute whatever self-interested, crass motives you want to the companies. The plain fact remains that they are supporting U of M's affirmative action admissions program. The reason is simple. They see the value of diversifying their work forces, and they can't do that with high school dropouts or Old Testament majors from BJU. 1626. jexster - 1/10/2001 10:41:10 PM A seriously disadvantaged group of large number whether its racial or not, does not help society one bit. Diversity is a fact of life, an ever growing one in this economy and society needs to account for it. It fails to do so at its peril. 1627. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 10:47:33 PM Ace, your views on race and diversity are reminiscent of the Third Reich or apartheid South Africa. 1628. jexster - 1/10/2001 10:48:07 PM I really can't get all worked over the American Meritocracy Myth anyway... 1629. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 10:50:17 PM 1630. jexster - 1/10/2001 10:52:18 PM Too many Rush Limbaugh dreams, too many Tom DeLay schemes wonk...ace would obviously prefer to be venomous than cogent much less accurate. One fried wignut there....too much Limbaugh bad for brain. 1631. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 10:56:49 PM 1632. jexster - 1/10/2001 10:57:31 PM racial discrimination against some races and preferences for others is just what Nazi Germany and Apartheid were all about. 1633. jexster - 1/10/2001 10:58:51 PM No Ace, God has great plans for me...he told me in no uncertain terms that he would not call me home until I drove you to the funny farm....from the look of things, better check that will again...hospice reservations next week 1634. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 11:00:44 PM Right Ace, you just keep on worrying about the big social problem in this country due to discrimination against WASPS and do everything you can to put an end to it. That'll get you a place in heaven along with Pat Robertson, John Ashcroft plus a million rednecks. I'll settle for Larry Flynt and a million hookers in hell. 1635. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 11:00:56 PM Incidentally, Moron, *I* didn't equate quotas with Nazis or Apartheid. 1636. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 11:01:55 PM 1637. wonkers2 - 1/10/2001 11:08:13 PM It's a matter of choice on my part, not "having to." 1638. AceofSpades - 1/10/2001 11:09:04 PM 1639. robertjayb - 1/11/2001 12:16:16 AM . 1640. Autodaffy - 1/11/2001 12:42:37 AM Jexter, if equating racism with affirmative action is worthy of serious ridicule, why doesn't a third rate brain like yours make the attempt in place of the unfulfilled promise? 1641. wonkers2 - 1/11/2001 8:20:16 AM Continuing discrimination across the land is the problem not affirmative action, asshole.. 1642. Rosetta Stone - 1/11/2001 9:00:11 AM Because of poor ratings and joining AOL, CNN is planning on cutting between 500 to 1,000 employees in both its cable and interactive divisions, according to a Drudge link this morning. 1643. Toenails - 1/11/2001 9:10:42 AM 1644. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 9:35:22 AM 1645. Rosetta Stone - 1/11/2001 9:39:04 AM Of course SDI will work. And once in place, we'll be able to protect our country for another generation. 1646. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 9:55:25 AM 1647. bubbaette - 1/11/2001 10:17:00 AM Of course there is a Santa Claus and he flys through the air in a sled pulled by reindeer to bring toys to all the good little boys and girls. Now finish your Count Chocula, Rosie, or you'll be late for the bus. 1648. Fielding - 1/11/2001 10:20:19 AM 1649. bubbaette - 1/11/2001 10:23:05 AM Whatever. 1650. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 10:39:19 AM 1651. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 10:39:47 AM 1652. Fielding - 1/11/2001 10:40:30 AM 1653. OhioSTOPAS - 1/11/2001 11:11:15 AM Then is bran a good idea? 1654. Ronski - 1/11/2001 11:11:28 AM How quickly the world has forgotten Booberry, I might add. 1655. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 11:22:59 AM What about Fruit Brute? 1656. bubbaette - 1/11/2001 11:26:44 AM or Quisp and Quake? 1657. Fielding - 1/11/2001 11:27:58 AM 1658. Fielding - 1/11/2001 11:29:34 AM 1659. rubberducky - 1/11/2001 11:31:10 AM 1660. Fielding - 1/11/2001 11:31:59 AM 1661. Fielding - 1/11/2001 11:33:34 AM 1662. CalGal - 1/11/2001 11:34:15 AM I read another name floated for Labor--I'll have to look it up. Who is the current Dem labor secretary? 1663. glendajean - 1/11/2001 11:35:19 AM Alexis Herman 1664. CalGal - 1/11/2001 11:37:25 AM That's what I thought, but I always get Labor and Commerce confused. Is there any reason why Labor seems to be the chick job these days? 1665. rubberducky - 1/11/2001 11:43:08 AM 1666. greystoke - 1/11/2001 11:43:45 AM Jeb has been subpoenaed. 1667. glendajean - 1/11/2001 11:44:59 AM Wasn't Elizabeth Dole Labor Secretary under Bush I and Transportation Secretary under Reagan? 1668. glendajean - 1/11/2001 11:47:45 AM I hope somebody comes up with a better system. Jimmy Carter said on NPR this week that the Carter Center would not certify elections in a country that they were monitoring if there were a 3% error rate. 1669. concerned - 1/11/2001 12:17:32 PM Leftist Censorship in a George Will column today: 1670. concerned - 1/11/2001 12:21:15 PM Re. 1668 - 1671. CalGal - 1/11/2001 12:21:55 PM GJ, 1672. cmboyce - 1/11/2001 12:24:04 PM The heritage of Frances Farmer. 1673. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 12:27:44 PM 1674. Wombat - 1/11/2001 1:01:04 PM It is also reasonable to believe that the Republicans stole the 2000 presidential election. 1675. concerned - 1/11/2001 1:21:09 PM Wombats - 1676. bubbaette - 1/11/2001 1:21:40 PM It is reasonably assured that George Will is a political hack. 1677. bubbaette - 1/11/2001 1:26:05 PM It is also reasonable to assume that George Will would sodomize baby bunnies if he thought it would help the Repubs. 1678. Wombat - 1/11/2001 1:31:28 PM Sure was...during the impeachment. Wasn't it? 1679. bubbaette - 1/11/2001 1:32:58 PM Hell fire -- if you start a sentence with "It is reasonable to assume" you can finish that sucker off with any absurdity you like, and not risk being called on the implausibility of your statement (not that George Will has any journalistic integrity to loose) 1680. robertjayb - 1/11/2001 1:34:37 PM . 1681. concerned - 1/11/2001 1:36:37 PM Re. 1678 - 1682. concerned - 1/11/2001 1:37:17 PM oops. 'be' for 'being' 1683. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 1:41:54 PM bubbaette: I don't think "it is reasonable to assume" gives one the carte blanche you do. 1684. cmboyce - 1/11/2001 1:45:00 PM Eloise Anderson looks right (quite right, for a Republican) for HEW, not Labor. 1685. Fielding - 1/11/2001 1:48:29 PM 1686. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 1:51:30 PM I've always been curious as to the 'public figure' defense to libel or slander. Does anyone with a legal background know the rationale behind this? 1687. bubbaette - 1/11/2001 1:51:57 PM IJ 1688. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 1:53:09 PM Fielding: Not on the rapist business. Perhaps his attitude will be different once out of office, but imagine a libel legal battle over whether the President once raped. 1689. Ronski - 1/11/2001 2:10:29 PM Claremont is a fairly homophobic group (which brings to mind Linda Chavez's fascination with moronic "ex-gay" claims), but not everyone associated with Claremont is a 'phobe (for example, Ward Connerly). 1690. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:18:23 PM 1691. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:19:14 PM 1692. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:20:06 PM ...unless the split, fattened lip (as witnessed by five other people) was just Bubba's idea of foreplay. 1693. robertjayb - 1/11/2001 2:22:59 PM No worries...Microsoft to do software for new voting system... 1694. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 2:24:13 PM Ace of Spades 1695. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:32:54 PM 1696. Fielding - 1/11/2001 2:34:05 PM 1697. concerned - 1/11/2001 2:34:30 PM re. 1694 - 1698. Fielding - 1/11/2001 2:37:35 PM 1699. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 2:38:46 PM Concerned 1700. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:38:52 PM 1701. Fielding - 1/11/2001 2:39:22 PM 1702. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:39:45 PM 1703. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 2:42:52 PM It would not surprise me either way. I don't find Clinton to be at all believeable in general, and Juanita Broaddrick was believeable (though a TV interview isn't enough for me to vote to convict someone). 1704. Fielding - 1/11/2001 2:45:56 PM 1705. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 2:46:05 PM Indiana Jones 1706. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 2:47:33 PM Fielding 1707. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 2:49:40 PM lisajolie: I'm sure Clinton is getting much better legal advice than I can offer. Moreover, given his track record, it would be pretty useless to appear on national TV and swear to the American people that he had not "raped that woman." 1708. Rosetta Stone - 1/11/2001 2:49:41 PM Thanks for the heads up on Will's column on "Clinton's Mark." 1709. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:51:19 PM 1710. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:51:55 PM 1711. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:54:16 PM 1712. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 2:54:51 PM Rosetta Stone 1713. Rosetta Stone - 1/11/2001 2:56:14 PM Nixon knew shame, something Clinton has never felt. 1714. Rosetta Stone - 1/11/2001 2:57:36 PM And lisa... cut out the name after each post. It already annoys me. 1715. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:58:21 PM 1716. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 2:58:55 PM 1717. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 2:59:30 PM Rosetta Stone 1718. Fielding - 1/11/2001 3:00:19 PM 1719. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:00:21 PM Lisajolie 1720. bbb - 1/11/2001 3:01:07 PM Elaine Chao! 1721. Fielding - 1/11/2001 3:02:05 PM 1722. bbb - 1/11/2001 3:03:03 PM Bush Names Labor Secretary Nominee 1723. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 3:03:12 PM So what's the reason behind Clinton's saying the Republicans only won because they stopped the vote: 1724. bbb - 1/11/2001 3:03:29 PM Chao is the wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and had been a prospect to 1725. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:04:20 PM 1726. Fielding - 1/11/2001 3:05:01 PM 1727. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 3:05:28 PM bbb: Have you met jexster? 1728. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:05:47 PM 1729. Fielding - 1/11/2001 3:09:16 PM 1730. Wombat - 1/11/2001 3:11:17 PM I thought he was against affirmative action. 1731. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:11:36 PM 1732. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:12:42 PM 1733. Wombat - 1/11/2001 3:14:50 PM Ace: 1734. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:17:42 PM 1735. Wombat - 1/11/2001 3:17:50 PM Ace: 1736. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:19:20 PM 1737. bbb - 1/11/2001 3:19:38 PM Elaine Chao would be a good candidate for DOT,USTR,UN Ambassador or 1738. Wombat - 1/11/2001 3:21:05 PM I'm just engaging in a little leg pulling, Ace. I really don't care. 1739. PelleNilsson - 1/11/2001 3:21:21 PM 1740. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:22:19 PM Then there's the executive style. We have gone from a Cabinet of yea-saying lawyers to a Cabinet of grown-up CEOs. Apart from you-know-what, the most embarrassing feature of the Clinton administration was its Cabinet. From the very beginning, it was staffed by nobodies. Clinton is a bright but insecure man who surrounded himself (with the exceptions of Robert Rubin and Richard Holbrooke) with appointees who weren't even close to challenging him intellectually or administratively. Exactly what Richard Riley or Donna Shalala actually did for eight years is one of the enduring mysteries of the modern world. Clinton's Cabinet, it turns out, was the longest-serving in recent history--not because it was unusually skilled (it wasn't) but because many of its members had no record of accomplishment in the private sector and didn't know quite what else to do. 1741. Wombat - 1/11/2001 3:22:20 PM It's a crazy new trend! 1742. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 3:22:57 PM 1743. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:23:52 PM 1744. bbb - 1/11/2001 3:25:14 PM Elaine Chao is a very smart,experienced,articulate,and no non-sense executive. Chao is 10 times better than Herman and you can start watching her on TV tonight. 1745. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 3:25:54 PM 1746. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:26:24 PM 1747. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 3:27:09 PM Let's be honest; Elaine Chao's main qualification appears to be that she's Mrs. McConnell. That and the fact she's not Linda Chavez. 1748. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 3:27:16 PM 1749. Wombat - 1/11/2001 3:27:20 PM Ace: 1750. Fielding - 1/11/2001 3:28:31 PM 1751. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:29:08 PM NORTON'S ANTHOLOGY: In the situation of the Confederacy, 'we certainly had bad facts in that case where we were defending state sovereignty by defending slavery. But we lost too much. We lost the idea that the states were to stand against the federal government gaining too much power over our lives.' - Gale Norton, in a 1996 speech. 1752. concerned - 1/11/2001 3:29:46 PM typo above...intimidation.... 1753. Fielding - 1/11/2001 3:29:54 PM 1754. CalGal - 1/11/2001 3:31:36 PM bbb, 1755. Ronski - 1/11/2001 3:34:00 PM I support Gale Norton, sort of, and I'm still a homo, too. Granted, she is, or was, an awful homophobe when she fought to preserve Colorado's unequal treatment of gay citizens (and lost). But she's not going to oversee the Administration's policy on queers. 1756. jexster - 1/11/2001 3:40:57 PM 1757. jexster - 1/11/2001 3:41:49 PM Saletan: The Impotence of Being Earnest 1758. glendajean - 1/11/2001 3:43:18 PM Ronski -- I read an interview with a gay attorney that worked in her office (and who criticized Norton's vigorous defense of Amendment 2) said that she thought Norton never gave her a hard time for being a lesbian -- unlike Bowers, the Georgia attorney general who fired an attorney for being gay). Norton did pay Paul Cameron $15,000 to be an expert witness but then didn't use him. 1759. jexster - 1/11/2001 3:43:47 PM Well right on Ronski! 1760. jexster - 1/11/2001 3:45:49 PM I really enjoy all the whining, all the cryin, all that pain emanating from BOTUS's Boyz...Leave Georgie Alone 1762. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:49:48 PM 1763. bbb - 1/11/2001 3:52:09 PM Clinton has also the weakest and most incompetent Cabinets. 1764. jexster - 1/11/2001 3:53:02 PM 1765. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:53:22 PM 1766. jexster - 1/11/2001 3:54:40 PM Damned profound BBB...and the Raiders are 1000 times better than the Ravens....and my daddy can beat up your daddy.....lets go watch Cartoon Network! 1767. glendajean - 1/11/2001 3:54:52 PM John Mitchell. 1768. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 3:55:50 PM 1769. Wombat - 1/11/2001 3:56:55 PM bbb: 1770. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 3:57:17 PM 1771. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 3:57:40 PM Ace: One thing you are forgetting is that when Clinton became President, 20 of the past 24 years had had GOP Administrations, and the 4 year exception was generally regarded as a failure. As such, there really wasn't a large pool of experienced Democratic bureaucrats to draw from (Christopher and Shalala were the exceptions in the cabinet, both high ranking Carter administration bureaucrats). As such, Clinton grabbed a lot of people from Congress and state government. Still, I think it is a hell of a stretch to call Les Aspin (former head of House Armed Services committee), Lloyd Bentsen (who was Clinton's first Treasury secretary, not Rubin), Richard Riley (former governor of SC), and Bruce Babbit "nobodies". 1772. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 3:58:21 PM Ace of Spades 1773. jexster - 1/11/2001 3:58:25 PM Janet Reno is the longest serving attorney general in US history who according to the last Republican AG - Dick Thornberg - has done more to restore independence to the Dept of Justice than any AG in modern times. 1774. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 3:59:11 PM 1775. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:00:16 PM "--Hitler's policies really put Germany back on its feet after WWI. Pity about the "bad fact" concerning the jews (and others)." 1776. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:00:55 PM Bush's cabinet picks are fuckin joke. Ford Admin retreads and/or whack jobs who have been politically sterilized so that Georgie's Nanny can run the government while the Moron plays video games and eats PB&J's..... 1777. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:02:13 PM "As such, there really wasn't a large pool of experienced Democratic bureaucrats to draw from" 1778. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:02:38 PM I remember James Watt in skirts. Herbert Hoover too. I remember cum stains on a blue dress. I remember Elian. 1779. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:04:39 PM "Bush's cabinet picks are fuckin joke. Ford Admin retreads and/or whack jobs who have been politically sterilized so that Georgie's Nanny can run the government while the Moron plays video games and eats PB&J's..... " 1780. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 4:05:10 PM Norton's "bad fact" statement was a boneheaded gaffe. I understand and sympathize somewhat with her larger point but it doesn't erase the fact she was trivializing slavery. 1781. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:05:48 PM Wrong again Ace. In 1992, a Democrat had occupied the WH only 4 out of 24 years. 1782. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 4:06:56 PM Hey, bbb. 1783. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:07:45 PM The most experienced and qualified cabinet in recent history, according to most analysts. 1784. concerned - 1/11/2001 4:08:11 PM Re. 1723 - 1785. concerned - 1/11/2001 4:09:28 PM Re. 1764 - 1786. bbb - 1/11/2001 4:10:10 PM 1787. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:10:26 PM "Norton's "bad fact" statement was a boneheaded gaffe." 1788. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 4:10:57 PM 1789. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:11:09 PM Speaking of Morons... 1790. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:12:48 PM 1791. concerned - 1/11/2001 4:16:39 PM Stooge Reno is undeniably the worst AG of this century; probably in the history of the United States. She makes John Mitchell look like an Eagle Scout. 1792. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:16:41 PM 1793. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:16:42 PM No, it wasn't. It's perfectly phrased. Lawyers speak of "bad facts making bad law" or "Hard cases making bad law" all the time, and this is PRECISELY the sort of thing they're talking about. 1794. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 4:18:00 PM Just a terribly, terribly dumb statement about "bad facts." Norton had her pick of tens of millions of examples and she picks the worst one. 1795. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:18:44 PM On second thought slavery DID give us the 14th Amendment without which.... 1796. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:21:45 PM 1797. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:25:33 PM The Nuremburg Trials. 1798. OhioSTOPAS - 1/11/2001 4:26:06 PM "On second thought slavery DID give us the 14th Amendment without 1799. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:30:15 PM No, because the "bad law" she was speaking of -- the denigration of federalism and states' rights -- was created by the "bad fact" of slavery. 1800. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:30:47 PM Idiot Jexster: 1801. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:31:54 PM That's right Ohio! 1802. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:33:35 PM Ace, if you talk like a neo-nazi, walk like a neo-nazi, well let's just say you ain't no freakin duck! 1803. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:34:12 PM 1804. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 4:37:29 PM Ace: try going to head to head on Clinton and Bush's initial cabinet members, on qualifications for the job. 1805. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:38:58 PM and the Declaration of independence was extra-legal..the Magna Carta ..the Code of Hamurabi also extra-legal 1806. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:39:05 PM 1807. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:43:24 PM 1808. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:43:46 PM State: Powell v Christoper. winner: Powell. WRONG! All that desk jockey experience tips that scale I suppose 1809. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 4:43:50 PM I don't have a problem with Norton's quoted statements. The civil war basically led to massive erosion of states rights, that probably wouldn't have been justified on merits if not for the issue of slavery (and subsequent civil rights issues). 1810. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 4:45:24 PM Ace: first, we are talking about qualifications based on time of appointment. No fair using future information about performance to disqualify the Clinton cabinet, as they haven't been tested yet. 1811. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:47:26 PM 1812. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 4:50:51 PM "Treasury: O'Neill v. Bentsen. winner: O'Neill. Bentsen was an old 1813. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:51:02 PM Ace I knew Lloyd Bentsen and you don't know shit about Lloyd Bentsen... 1814. Francis Urquhart - 1/11/2001 4:51:10 PM Rask 1815. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 4:52:03 PM Rumsfeld has been out of the loop for 24 years. But there isn't much of a point to this argument. You demonstrated your hackery quite clearly on Interior and EPA. 1816. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 4:52:22 PM 1817. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 4:53:14 PM FU: No, Aspin. 1818. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 4:55:21 PM "Perhaps you are forgetting that Rice served as Undersecrety of State 1819. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:55:54 PM The "massive erosion of states rights" was necessary, even inevitable with or without slavery..... 1820. wonkers2 - 1/11/2001 4:57:06 PM But the USSR is no longer the big enchilada. Rice has isolationist tendencies as evidenced by her opposition to intervention by NATO in Yugoslavia. 1821. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:57:41 PM Wrong again Ace. You should know better because I told you exactly what Rice was and most importantly what she wasn't back in August.... 1822. jexster - 1/11/2001 4:58:47 PM Ace I bet you could lose an argument with a dead man....you and Ashcroft 1823. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/11/2001 4:59:40 PM 1824. Francis Urquhart - 1/11/2001 4:59:54 PM I heard Rice once said jokingly, "Well, I have as much chance catching the L as Pickett in his charge." 1825. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 5:04:25 PM "Ace I bet you could lose an argument with a dead man...." 1826. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 5:05:17 PM Ace: Please note consistency here regarding EPA. Despite the fact that Riley was much more famous and higher profile than Paige, I gave the "better qualified" label to Paige, as he was a Superintendent in a very large school district. Similarly, Whitman is more famous than Browner was, but less qualified. The mere fact that you form an opinion about Browner without knowing shit about her (including her gender) says quite a bit about your tendentious political instincts. 1827. Greystoke - 1/11/2001 5:06:25 PM Norton said landowners have a right to pollute. 1828. jexster - 1/11/2001 5:06:27 PM Les Aspin had problems with the military in the event and that was neither surprising nor bad IMO...he had extensive Armed Services Committee experience.. 1829. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 5:08:32 PM 1830. Greystoke - 1/11/2001 5:09:03 PM Save place at DNC headquarters for Norton's head. Perhaps we can mount Chavez, Norton, and Ashcroft on the same wall. 1831. jexster - 1/11/2001 5:10:09 PM But Rask is correct, even without Ace's "contributions", his hackery, and manifest ignorance, there is no point to arguing cabinet comparisions without takin into account the top of the ticket - the bastardized Cheney regency and the ineptitude, the impotence of the vapid Bastard of the US BOTUS for short.... 1832. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 5:10:19 PM 'She argued that government should compensate property owners when their property values are decreased by regulations, such as those to protect wetlands or endangered species." 1833. jexster - 1/11/2001 5:13:07 PM I know she hasn't made a single paragraph of news. 1834. Greystoke - 1/11/2001 5:14:00 PM Sure. We should pay Exxon, Homestake Mining, and Champion Paper to not pollute our air an water. How much do we owe Exxon for not having an oil spill today? 1835. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 5:15:15 PM 1836. jexster - 1/11/2001 5:16:44 PM , I gave the "better qualified" label to Paige, as he was a Superintendent in a very large school district 1837. jexster - 1/11/2001 5:19:47 PM I hear from the media that Wall Street is very impressed with Paul O'Neill, as are the careerists at Treasury, who are surprised that they don't have to teach the nominee his job (as they usually do). 1838. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 5:26:39 PM According to Ace's logic, Madonna is more qualified to be Secretary of Treasury than any CEO of a major finance company that he can't name. 1839. DaveM - 1/11/2001 5:30:24 PM Ace, re: Message # 1832 1840. Fielding - 1/11/2001 5:34:22 PM 1841. jexster - 1/11/2001 5:35:33 PM 1842. jexster - 1/11/2001 5:36:24 PM Hey Rask...if Bush can be president.... 1843. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 5:38:09 PM 1844. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 5:40:58 PM Fielding:"Thompson over Shalala?" 1845. DaveM - 1/11/2001 5:43:42 PM Ace is absolutely right about the controversy surrounding the Nuremburg trials and the nature of "law" in that context. Rather than breaking down along liberal-conservative lines, though, the dispute broke down on positivist-natural law lines (with both conservative/Lockeans and liberal Thomists defending this position). The Nuremburg trials almost sunk the positivist tradition, since it was viewed as too relativistic to deal with such an atrocity. Hart and Sacks came along though, along with people like Alexander Bickel and Herbert Wechsler and revived positivism with an additional provision for "process theory" - the notion that only laws that are fairly passed become law. 1846. Fielding - 1/11/2001 5:48:51 PM 1847. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 5:50:52 PM 1848. Fielding - 1/11/2001 5:51:30 PM 1849. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 5:53:28 PM "Riley was a non-entity who did not do jack-shit. I assume Paige will 1850. Fielding - 1/11/2001 5:54:17 PM 1851. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 5:55:56 PM "Damn, Rask, that's the same logic that led to President Bush. " 1852. DaveM - 1/11/2001 5:56:13 PM Has there been any discussion of Elaine Chao? I have met her several times (I am a native KY and a U of Louisville grad), and she actually doesn't seem to be to bad personally. 1853. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 5:57:15 PM I think Ace was referring to the tendency of curry to stain the edges of his law school books while eating at Indian restaurants in Manhattan. 1854. DaveM - 1/11/2001 5:59:13 PM Ace went to law school in DC. And he apparently never opened his law school books. 1855. Fielding - 1/11/2001 5:59:51 PM 1856. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 6:01:21 PM "Education Secretary is one of the most irrelevant political posts in Washington. Education is primarily a state issue, and only 5% of funding comes from the Feds." 1857. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 6:02:06 PM Dave: well there goes that joke... 1858. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 6:02:29 PM 1859. Fielding - 1/11/2001 6:02:42 PM 1860. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 6:04:29 PM 1861. DaveM - 1/11/2001 6:05:56 PM Fielding - 1862. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 6:06:00 PM "Rrrrrrrreally, Rask? You're so full of facts which conservatives have 1863. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 6:07:26 PM 1864. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 6:09:05 PM 1865. DaveM - 1/11/2001 6:10:41 PM Ace - 1866. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 6:11:31 PM "I didn't even buy my textbook for evidence last semester." 1867. Fielding - 1/11/2001 6:11:53 PM 1868. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 6:12:38 PM "Underage girls from both schools dominate every bar I go to it seems. 1869. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 6:14:19 PM "And yes, Bush will have "control."" 1870. DaveM - 1/11/2001 6:14:31 PM My evidence professor, Wasserstrom, was a total flake. I went to class the first week, and all he did was rip on the text book. I figured what the hell, if it sucks that bad, I just won't use it. I used the nutshell (which is 800 pages), the Rules themselves, and Emanuels, which I got offline from lawschool.lexis.com. I haven't gotten my grades back, but I felt good after the exam. 1871. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 6:16:20 PM I never bought nutshells or Emmanuels or the other little cheats. I was a textbook guy, all the way. 1872. DaveM - 1/11/2001 6:17:22 PM There is no cheap beer in DC. $4 for bud light. 1873. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 6:18:51 PM 1874. DaveM - 1/11/2001 6:23:30 PM Ace - 1875. AceofSpades - 1/11/2001 6:28:06 PM 1876. Jenerator - 1/11/2001 6:31:12 PM Padre Island, Texas has dollar Coronas with tequila shots. Yes, all for a buck, plus it's on a beach. 1877. DaveM - 1/11/2001 6:37:41 PM Ace - 1878. bbb - 1/11/2001 6:51:53 PM http://www.cnn.com/images/0101/top.bush.chao.ap.jpg 1879. bbb - 1/11/2001 6:52:29 PM 1880. JudithAtHome - 1/11/2001 7:07:54 PM 1881. Raindog - 1/11/2001 7:28:41 PM Hi Judith- I am Max under new name cause I guess I got a new 1882. jexster - 1/11/2001 11:14:26 PM Big Dog Sharpening Teeth 1883. jexster - 1/11/2001 11:27:47 PM What about the Rathskeller, by CUA? Does that still exist or have 1884. jexster - 1/11/2001 11:29:08 PM Ace....in DC check out the Eagle or maybe the Frat House if they're still around.... 1885. jexster - 1/11/2001 11:36:35 PM And I can't remember the exact block, but there's a fine after hours haunt in Georgetown right in front of a house once owned by Burt Lance then by Henry Kissinger..... 1886. robertjayb - 1/11/2001 11:44:49 PM . 1887. Autodaffy - 1/11/2001 11:51:22 PM Kill em Bill, Kill em: 1888. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:08:38 AM thanks Robert!!! 1889. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:12:21 AM Boy Auto that really put me in my place! I'll know better not to mess with you again. 1890. Autodaffy - 1/12/2001 12:21:53 AM Jexter, 1891. Rosetta Stone - 1/12/2001 12:27:01 AM Wrong person to ask that question, auto. 1892. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:29:06 AM Zip zam bang. Cut to the fuckin quick and bleeding to death a;; over keyboard... 1893. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:30:00 AM Rosie you can bear my children any day... now bend over you hot bitch 1894. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:35:47 AM FYI all .. Properly humbled, chastened by the merciless poison keystrokes of AD, it is with fear and trembling that I announce that I was the first (and am still the only) Motier to answer Rosie's call for help with his new thread Bash Bush 2001 1895. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:36:33 AM Can't resist the cry a damsel in distress even with the Dragon Daffy lurking about... 1896. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:38:29 AM Is Jexster fearless or foolish? 1897. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:46:46 AM 1898. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:49:13 AM Damn you'd at least expect a cub plagiarist to get a freakin pic post right! 1899. concerned - 1/12/2001 12:51:52 AM Looks like a fukin Aryan turd. 1900. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:54:32 AM Looks like a god in the Pantheon AmeriKa to me 1901. concerned - 1/12/2001 12:59:55 AM Ray says has enought evidence to convict Willy Jeff Clowntoon 1902. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:00:07 AM There You Go Again Mister Jexster 1903. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:01:30 AM >gettin late nitol 1904. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:02:21 AM Bring it on Ray you bad thang you! 1905. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:08:38 AM If Milton Friedman weren't still alive, he'd be spinning in his grave. His legacy has been betrayed — not by big-government liberals, but by the conservatives about to take power. 1906. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:33:10 AM The WH Rapist is still acting like a 13-year old 1907. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:37:16 AM 1908. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:41:27 AM Racial Reparations takes some crippling body shots here 1909. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 9:55:35 AM Someone should teach tommydemoron how to link. 1910. wonkers2 - 1/12/2001 10:11:37 AM Norton's in the hole. 1911. bubbaette - 1/12/2001 10:47:07 AM Good to see you back, JadeGold. I've missed you. 1912. greystoke - 1/12/2001 11:45:14 AM More on Gale Norton. 1913. glendajean - 1/12/2001 11:48:36 AM Greystoke -- I read some description of her as being an old fashioned libertarian. 1914. wonkers2 - 1/12/2001 11:52:13 AM Moties may register their opposition to Gale Norton at www.saynotonorton.org. 1915. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 11:53:28 AM Wonkers - Where does one go to register support? 1916. wonkers2 - 1/12/2001 11:55:08 AM JJ, figure that out for yourself? 1917. wonkers2 - 1/12/2001 11:56:29 AM JJ, There you go again, clear-cutting the primeval redwoods! 1918. greystoke - 1/12/2001 12:04:12 PM glendajean 1919. Fielding - 1/12/2001 12:11:17 PM 1920. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/12/2001 12:16:24 PM Austinlopithecus. . . 1923. marjoribanks - 1/12/2001 12:21:55 PM Very good, WoW. 1924. rubberducky - 1/12/2001 12:22:33 PM good one - WoW! 1925. marjoribanks - 1/12/2001 12:23:27 PM And, as we all know, he is ape-like. I so look forward to his press conferences. 1926. greystoke - 1/12/2001 12:23:35 PM Fielding 1927. marjoribanks - 1/12/2001 12:24:42 PM Ducky, 1928. Rosetta Stone - 1/12/2001 12:25:12 PM The Republicans, the party of Lincoln. 1929. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 12:31:29 PM Einstein, Picasso, and Bush At The Pearly Gates 1930. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 12:36:12 PM One night, G.W. Bush was awakened by George Washington's ghost. Bush saw him and asked, "George, what is the best thing I could do to help the country, now that I am President?" 1931. bbb - 1/12/2001 12:41:08 PM Carnahan Will Introduce Ashcroft 1932. Rosetta Stone - 1/12/2001 12:45:25 PM Get lost, JadeGold1. 1933. concerned - 1/12/2001 12:46:30 PM Re. 1909- 1934. Indiana Jones - 1/12/2001 12:48:45 PM Someone should teach tommydemoron how to link. 1935. concerned - 1/12/2001 12:50:13 PM IJ - 1936. Rosetta Stone - 1/12/2001 12:50:42 PM You're=your time... 1937. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 12:51:30 PM tommydemoron; 1938. concerned - 1/12/2001 12:53:04 PM Sphincter - 1939. rubberducky - 1/12/2001 12:54:09 PM JG1: 1940. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 12:55:35 PM We all know that Ashcroft anointed himself with Crisco when he was elected to the Senate. 1941. Indiana Jones - 1/12/2001 12:56:28 PM Easy, big fellow. How would I know Jade was referring to you? 1942. concerned - 1/12/2001 12:58:29 PM Go for it, Sphincter. The man with the MBA beat out Flunky, even though the Demorats threw one tantrum after another. If you want to throw yet another fit in DC, be my guest. 1943. bbb - 1/12/2001 12:58:35 PM Ashcroft will get a minimum of 62-38 votes for his confirmation. 1944. Indiana Jones - 1/12/2001 12:59:37 PM So, Jade... 1945. Indiana Jones - 1/12/2001 1:00:23 PM Toy check 1946. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:00:30 PM Re. 1941 - 1947. rubberducky - 1/12/2001 1:00:52 PM 1948. Fielding - 1/12/2001 1:00:56 PM 1949. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 1:02:56 PM tommydemoron; 1950. PsychProf - 1/12/2001 1:06:23 PM Ah...the Jade and TomD Show....life is sweet. 1951. bubbaette - 1/12/2001 1:06:55 PM I advocate political trench warefare. Wound as many nominees from the other party as possible. Bayonet them if they fall. 1952. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 1:07:37 PM Apologies to H. Rey. 1953. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/12/2001 1:09:36 PM Marj & RD — Thanks, but I can only take credit for making it into a quick Gif. I stole the idea from someone who had a morh/video of it — the reason I didn’t sign it. 1954. PsychProf - 1/12/2001 1:09:55 PM Second rule...Biener and Jade Extravaganza is even better. In honor of such, I'll play "That's The Way I Like It" by KC Sunshine Band over at The SportsBar... 1955. bubbaette - 1/12/2001 1:10:01 PM I'm particularly enjoying the Republican bleating about respect for the office of president, how it's time to heal and put our differences behind us for the good of the nation yada yada yada. 1956. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:10:58 PM Re. 1949 - 1957. bubbaette - 1/12/2001 1:12:36 PM 3 digit IQ -- 16.5 1958. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:14:05 PM Re. 1957 - 1959. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 1:14:08 PM Daydrinking again, tommydemoron? 1960. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 1:14:41 PM Psych - Biener and Jade Extravaganza is even better 1961. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/12/2001 1:15:37 PM 1955. bubbaette “I'm particularly enjoying the Republican bleating about respect for the office of president, how it's time to heal and put our differences behind us for the good of the nation ...” 1962. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:17:07 PM Sphincter needs a purging, I see. She's full of the same stale donkey manure as she always has been. 1963. bubbaette - 1/12/2001 1:18:26 PM Thanks, Wiz. But it doesn't really take a good eye to recognize the Repub hypocrisy -- it's ubiquitous. 1964. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 1:21:32 PM Bubbaette - But it doesn't really take a good eye to recognize the Repub hypocrisy -- it's ubiquitous. 1965. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/12/2001 1:22:14 PM Bubbs ::LOL:: 1966. bubbaette - 1/12/2001 1:22:29 PM But JJ, we're supposed to be healing now -- y'all go first. 1967. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 1:22:50 PM Wiener is still here? 1968. CalGal - 1/12/2001 1:23:38 PM Who is this moron in the press conferences with the carrying voice who is always asking right-wing nutjob questions? 1969. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:25:08 PM Here's bubbaette calling Republicans playing by the rules and winning as 'hypocrisy'. Yet she would like nothing better than to see the Democrats cheat and lie in any way possible to win, which is the only way in which they would have a chance, it seems. What would the some suitable descriptions for that be? Pecksniffery? Pharisaism? Casuistry? Blatant Howling Hypocrisy? 1970. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 1:27:21 PM ValGal; 1971. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:28:01 PM "I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a results-oriented administration, because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be--a more literate country and a hopefullercountry."--Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2001 1972. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:28:59 PM Wiz - Positively serundipudus! You Da Man! 1973. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:30:19 PM Yo Jade! 1974. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:32:01 PM But I don't think that, given the Moron-in-Chief's performance, the moniker TommyDeMoron works quite as well as it used to.... 1975. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 1:34:03 PM Jex! 1976. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:34:38 PM Re. 1974 - 1977. Wombat - 1/12/2001 1:35:23 PM Insouciant: Pot calling the kettle black, old boy. 1978. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:37:39 PM Wombats - 1979. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/12/2001 1:37:44 PM jex- Thanks—it will grace the next cover of APJ. Spread it around! 1980. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:40:28 PM Jade - 1981. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/12/2001 1:41:42 PM Sorry about that link above! Here’s APJ: American Politics Journal 1982. bubbaette - 1/12/2001 1:42:49 PM Looks like TommyD's got himself a thesaurus. 1983. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 1:44:01 PM Hey Jade, welcome back. The band is still going strong. We aren't touring with N'Sync (nor would we if we could), but we are playing out several times a month. If you ever come to fly-over country, you would be welcome to come by and listen. 1984. bubbaette - 1/12/2001 1:44:34 PM As much fun as this has been, I must tear myself away. 1985. PsychProf - 1/12/2001 1:44:48 PM Jade...you still need those afternoon naps... 1986. Fielding - 1/12/2001 1:44:51 PM 1987. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:46:05 PM bubs... 1988. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 1:46:09 PM I think Jex has been watching far too many war movies. He's now having other people's flashbacks. 1989. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 1:48:02 PM It's too easy, Jex. 1990. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:48:47 PM bubbaette - 1991. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 1:49:00 PM Fielding - The Inferno feels like air conditioning next to this thread. 1992. jexster - 1/12/2001 1:49:43 PM Thanks for the APJ link 1993. concerned - 1/12/2001 1:50:47 PM Re. 1989 - 1994. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 1:53:38 PM Profanity Alert*** 1995. Fraaankster - 1/12/2001 1:57:50 PM Jadegold! 1996. PsychProf - 1/12/2001 1:58:32 PM Nap Time... 1997. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 2:03:47 PM Hi Frankster! 1998. bbb - 1/12/2001 2:07:19 PM Is Jade Gold pregnant again? 1999. bbb - 1/12/2001 2:08:21 PM Post 2000 is coming......................... 2000. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:08:29 PM 2K? 2001. jexster - 1/12/2001 2:09:02 PM Weener... 2002. bbb - 1/12/2001 2:09:10 PM Jade Gold and Mad Cow Disease. 2003. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:09:29 PM New millennium. 2004. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:11:28 PM I wasn't even close, this time.... 2005. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:14:08 PM Re. 2002 - 2006. Rosetta Stone - 1/12/2001 2:14:15 PM Ooops, Henry Bee was just erased from TT for quoting Mel Brooks. This is getting old. 2007. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 2:15:16 PM tommydemoron, 2008. Fraaankster - 1/12/2001 2:16:05 PM Shit! I didn't even see it. Damn it! 2009. Fielding - 1/12/2001 2:16:30 PM 2010. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:18:51 PM Jex - As you can see from my work with the criminally insane here on the Mote 2011. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:19:09 PM Sphincter - 2012. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:22:05 PM Jade - It is good to see you are as reality-impaired as ever. I don't know what I would do if you were actually honest about politics. 2013. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 2:23:13 PM Tired already, tommydemoron? Alcohol does have that effect on people. 2014. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:24:49 PM Tommy - Bush's nominees aren't real minorities. They're Republicans. Minorities are only real minorities if they are Democrats. The Dems are whining because they want Bush to pretend he lost the election and allow them to run the country. 2015. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:24:50 PM Sphincter - 2016. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 2:24:59 PM Wiener; 2017. azazel - 1/12/2001 2:25:29 PM in re: furious george 2018. Rosetta Stone - 1/12/2001 2:26:13 PM Ignore, jadegold1. 2019. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:26:57 PM Jade - What's competant(sic) about nominating someone who was running a sweatshop out of her home? 2020. Cellar Door - 1/12/2001 2:28:45 PM 2021. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:29:30 PM Jade - It's a gift. 2022. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 2:29:57 PM Linda Tripp? 2023. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:30:54 PM 2K? 2024. azazel - 1/12/2001 2:30:58 PM in re: furious george 2025. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:32:49 PM Re. 2014 - 2026. azazel - 1/12/2001 2:32:53 PM hey, if you see something written 3x, it must be true - gop logic 2027. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:34:13 PM Rosie - Ignore, jadegold1. 2028. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:37:03 PM Jade - No amount of cosmetic surgery can reverse the ugliness within. 2029. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:38:01 PM Re. 2026 - 2030. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:39:13 PM Az - hey, if you see something written 3x, it must be true - gop logic 2031. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 2:41:17 PM Tommydemoron must have received a thesaurus for Christmas. 2032. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:42:18 PM I have this mental image of Sphincter with a projecting, beetling brow ridge with one continuous eyebrow, two small deep-set eyes, a forehead sloping straight back, a nose like the WH Rapist's, Snaggletooth dentition and a receding chin. She needs to shave her cheeks - both pairs. 2033. Jadegold1 - 1/12/2001 2:43:34 PM tommydemoron: 2034. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:48:42 PM Sphincter - 2035. Indiana Jones - 1/12/2001 2:51:21 PM Are you the same Jadegold that also knew her/his baseball ? 2036. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 2:54:04 PM Concerned - I think you are mistaken regarding Jade's physical appearance. I would assume she is at least marginally attractive. I don't believe God could be so cruel as to make her ugly and inflict her with that personality. 2037. bbb - 1/12/2001 2:55:04 PM The same jade gold who had a 13-month pregnancy. 2038. concerned - 1/12/2001 2:55:42 PM Re. 2036 - 2039. bbb - 1/12/2001 2:56:53 PM 2036. JJBiener - 1/12/01 7:54:04 PM 2040. Rosetta Stone - 1/12/2001 2:59:46 PM bbb is andy. Welcome to mote, my neighbor. 2041. don s. - 1/12/2001 3:01:07 PM What's really ludicrous is the thought of what a Pinocchio Bore cabinet would have looked like. To sustain his pathological lies, we would probably have a Ministry of Truth. To lend a spurious justification to the breaking of international laws and to provide cover for violating other countries' hegemony, a Department of Peace. 2042. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 3:07:02 PM Tommy, BBB - Liz Winstead has the perfect line to describe Jade (IMHO): 2043. bubbaette - 1/12/2001 3:22:39 PM I love it how when the GOP fellers around here run out of ideas they go to denigrating physical appearance. There's just something so junior high school about that -- it takes me back. 2044. concerned - 1/12/2001 3:31:58 PM Re. 2043 - 2045. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 3:36:55 PM Bubbaette - There's just something so junior high school about that -- it takes me back. 2046. bubbaette - 1/12/2001 3:37:29 PM True enough 2047. bbb - 1/12/2001 4:09:28 PM http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49876-2001Jan11.html 2048. JJBiener - 1/12/2001 4:22:10 PM bbb - Isn't it interesting that Riady and Huang are guilty of making illegal contributions which Clinton is not guilty of taking. Interesting how justice works in Clinton's Justice Department. 2049. concerned - 1/12/2001 4:47:48 PM Re. 2048 - 2050. jexster - 1/12/2001 5:10:15 PM Beware Big Dog!!! 2051. concerned - 1/12/2001 5:14:18 PM Big Dog nothing. If it weren't for the Republican Party, Clowntoon would have turned the office of the presidency into a virtual dictatorship by now. 2052. robertjayb - 1/12/2001 7:27:58 PM . 2053. jexster - 1/12/2001 9:29:52 PM Ralph Neas, an old friend from that galaxy far far away (US Senate), now heads People for the American Way, a leader in the Stop Ashcroft Fight. 2054. jexster - 1/12/2001 9:31:04 PM Very good idea Robert. Nanny doing a fine job of protecting the Imbecile of the US 2055. jexster - 1/12/2001 9:34:30 PM As Thomas Jefferson laughs uproariously with all the angels and saints 2056. va - 1/12/2001 9:44:54 PM just wondering, where else did gore lose where he shuda won? ie: where else is the voting process suspect? since gore 2057. jexster - 1/12/2001 9:48:37 PM Just What We Wanna See! 2058. va - 1/12/2001 9:49:15 PM just wondering, where else did gore lose where he shuda won? ie: where else is the voting process suspect? since gore 2059. jexster - 1/12/2001 9:50:36 PM the vote in other states wasn't close enough for voting irregularities to have mattered.... 2060. jexster - 1/12/2001 9:55:56 PM The Imbecile hasn't even taken office and the Freaks are cutting each other's throats! 2061. Autodaffy - 1/12/2001 9:59:52 PM What is it with Ralph Neas? Did someone stomp out a forest fire on his face, or what? Someone post a picture. He is even more horrible to look at than just a few years ago. After he looses the Ashcroft vote and we can stop this bilateral bullshit and crap in the face of the dems more frequently, so that they all look like him. 2062. jexster - 1/12/2001 10:24:42 PM AD... 2063. jexster - 1/12/2001 10:25:29 PM 2064. jexster - 1/12/2001 10:26:24 PM And the Ashcroft objective is create as much pain and Freakazoid Frenzy as possible.. 2065. Autodaffy - 1/12/2001 10:36:25 PM Jexter, 2066. jexster - 1/12/2001 10:38:44 PM This just in from a friend...John Ashcroft's defense of his fillibuster of Dr. Henry Foster's confirmation as Surgeon General addressed to another friend Heyward Robinson. 2067. jexster - 1/12/2001 10:39:26 PM AD -- I annoint you with Crisco Oil in the name of Jesus 2068. jexster - 1/12/2001 10:40:01 PM Go fuck a fag for Christ 2069. Autodaffy - 1/12/2001 11:00:10 PM Jexter, 2070. AceofSpades - 1/12/2001 11:24:22 PM 2071. robertjayb - 1/12/2001 11:28:26 PM . 2072. jexster - 1/12/2001 11:40:12 PM So... is the entire state of Missouri made up of right wing extremist 2073. jexster - 1/12/2001 11:42:08 PM John Wayne Gacey would be confirmed as AG if he were a former Senator, even one who had lost to a dead man. 2074. jexster - 1/12/2001 11:43:51 PM On a more positive note, I am delighted to report that a republican, a bush supporter, a bush campaign worker/contributor and an Inaugural (sic) invitee has SIGNED THE PETITION 2075. robertjayb - 1/12/2001 11:46:01 PM . 2076. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:19:18 AM For an alternative view... 2077. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:22:54 AM BTW.. Ralph Neas used to be a Republican, legistlative assistant to Ed Brooke. 2078. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:31:55 AM In short, the days before 2079. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:40:16 AM 2080. Rosetta Stone - 1/13/2001 7:47:14 AM Life's Been Good to Us so Far... 2081. Francis Urquhart - 1/13/2001 8:25:48 AM Again, jexster is abusing his victim's status and taxing collective sympathy for his role as the bag lady down on Geary. When he is gone, this thread can be interesting. When he is here, it transmogrifies into jexster's primal scream/anger management/self-pity therapy. Again, I suggest that jexster be given his own thread to toss about such timeless bon mots as "suck the disease from my cock" and "Go fuck a fag for Christ." 2082. wonkers2 - 1/13/2001 9:08:21 AM The "Bananna Republicans" is a great site, eg additional titillating information on House Speaker Bob Livingston's resignation and on conservative moral beacon, George Will's adultery, divorce and abandonment of his Down's Syndrome child, what a sleazy bunch for such pious moralizers. 2083. JudithAtHome - 1/13/2001 9:42:57 AM 2084. Rosetta Stone - 1/13/2001 10:51:26 AM There is a difference between "mention" and "threaten," Judith. Watch me ignore you like you claim you want to ignore me, asshole. 2085. PsychProf - 1/13/2001 11:06:05 AM Rose...I suggest you have Message # 2080 deleted...TMI 2086. lemwalker - 1/13/2001 11:08:26 AM 2087. PsychProf - 1/13/2001 11:13:26 AM Lem...looks to me like "kids in a sandbox gettin pissed" will be the status quo... 2088. lemwalker - 1/13/2001 11:16:54 AM 2089. CalGal - 1/13/2001 11:17:16 AM Lem, 2090. lemwalker - 1/13/2001 11:18:12 AM Probably not worth posting once, and it gets on twice. Rats! 2091. jexster - 1/13/2001 11:40:53 AM BOTUS's FL Slut Slammed: Civil Rights Comm Chmn Calls Answers "Laughable" 2092. jexster - 1/13/2001 11:42:04 AM Speaking of acts, I for one would like to see Kathleen and Rose have some hot lesby sex! 2093. jexster - 1/13/2001 11:51:12 AM From Landover Baptist, America's Favorite Church, Ashcroft's Favorite Church 2094. jexster - 1/13/2001 11:54:13 AM 2095. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:02:32 PM Forget Aschroft's crypto-racism, his freakish fundie perverted religion, his homophobia if you can for just a few minutes. 2096. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:03:08 PM 2097. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:07:27 PM Clinton Environmental Record Rivals Theodore Roosevelt [not a banana republican btw] 2098. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:26:54 PM I think the Judiciary Committee should borrow some of his Crisco Oil, annoint all volumes of US Code Annotated and shove them one by one up Ashcroft's ass. 2099. Rosetta Stone - 1/13/2001 12:26:55 PM As anyone noticed that only one of the four top Bush campaign aides from Texas who didn't get promoted to the WH is Mark McKinnon? 2100. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:32:42 PM Similarly, Gail Norton does not deserve confirmation to serve an unelected and illegitimate Administration 2101. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:39:23 PM Republican environmentalists blast Norton - check out Yahoo - NPR 2102. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:41:13 PM The Wiz scores! 2103. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:46:30 PM Hey Rosie ....an idea for Bash Bush 2001 2104. CalGal - 1/13/2001 12:46:44 PM Jex, you have 10 of the last 11 posts--and the other is Stone, which is hardly a welcome interruption--and you're saying the same thing over and over. 2105. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:48:45 PM Well Cal... sue me 2106. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:50:32 PM and a friendly suggestion ...take a reading comprehension course because you are quite wrong.... 2107. jexster - 1/13/2001 12:56:16 PM 2 on Kathleeen Harris 2108. robertjayb - 1/13/2001 3:01:49 PM . 2109. robertjayb - 1/13/2001 3:11:37 PM . 2110. bbb - 1/13/2001 3:43:34 PM http://www.time.com/r0/Time/CNN_LINKS/in?http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,94980,00.html 2111. bbb - 1/13/2001 3:44:32 PM 2112. bbb - 1/13/2001 3:45:56 PM Alec Baldwin has to leave the country BY HIMSELF alone. 2113. robertjayb - 1/13/2001 3:48:32 PM 2114. Stumbo - 1/13/2001 3:49:43 PM 2115. bbb - 1/13/2001 3:52:42 PM Dr. Paige will be your Secretary of Education. 2116. Rosetta Stone - 1/13/2001 4:06:59 PM Oscar-winner Kim Basinger (she looks a lot like my wife, on a good day) should have left that jerk, Alec Baldwin, after he threatened to kill Congressman Henry Hyde and his family. 2117. cmboyce - 1/13/2001 4:09:45 PM This guy Paige is a great appointment, relatively speaking. Better a nudnik than a saboteur. 2118. JudithAtHome - 1/13/2001 4:24:00 PM 2119. wonkers2 - 1/13/2001 4:53:16 PM As in rosy red, perhaps? 2120. Cellar Door - 1/13/2001 4:54:40 PM "Oscar-winner Kim Basinger (she looks a lot like my wife, on a good day) should have left that jerk, Alec Baldwin, after he threatened to kill Congressman Henry Hyde and his family." 2121. robertjayb - 1/13/2001 4:58:05 PM . 2122. robertjayb - 1/13/2001 5:04:40 PM . 2123. wonkers2 - 1/13/2001 5:22:52 PM That's why campaign finance reform is the most important item on the legislative agenda. 2124. bbb - 1/13/2001 5:47:48 PM Salon.com is dead,again. 2125. bbb - 1/13/2001 5:49:38 PM http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55025-2001Jan12.html 2126. robertjayb - 1/13/2001 6:02:33 PM . 2127. OhioSTOPAS - 1/13/2001 6:02:39 PM Salon isn't out, but "Table Talk" is, temporarily. Salon posted that "Table Talk" would go down at noon PST; I forget for how long. 2128. vw - 1/13/2001 6:05:37 PM 24 hours was the scheduled downtime. 2129. CalGal - 1/13/2001 6:10:56 PM All right, the spookiest thing just happened. I watched Evans Hunt etc. and Trent Lott seemed almost likeable. 2130. jexster - 1/13/2001 6:32:16 PM 2131. jexster - 1/13/2001 6:33:44 PM Robert I am speechless. 2132. jexster - 1/13/2001 6:35:51 PM here ya go b3 2133. CalGal - 1/13/2001 6:37:28 PM Jex, 2134. Rosetta Stone - 1/13/2001 6:45:55 PM Reality check, Jex. Bush won. Gore lost. It was in all the papers 2135. jexster - 1/13/2001 6:56:56 PM Many many people care Cal.... 2136. jexster - 1/13/2001 6:57:51 PM And I didn't realize there was any quota on posts hereabouts Cal. 2137. jexster - 1/13/2001 7:00:06 PM Reality Rose.... 2138. jexster - 1/13/2001 7:18:32 PM My contacts on the Hill report that Trent Lott's nickname among Demo staffers is 2139. CalGal - 1/13/2001 7:25:06 PM Jex, 2140. jexster - 1/13/2001 7:43:53 PM The information is completely accurate Cal....it comes from the consortium counting the votes and uses the strictest standards. 2141. CalGal - 1/13/2001 7:46:50 PM Oh, I'm sure they're not going to change your behavior. But given that your posts are not only a waste of time, but loud and ugly to boot, I figure that I can amuse myself by telling you what an ass you are. 2142. Rosetta Stone - 1/13/2001 7:55:08 PM And to think that these two used to date. 2143. Cellar Door - 1/13/2001 8:08:03 PM My Table Talk pal Quentin Compsom has just written the following which he palns to send to all newspaper editors: 2144. Rosetta Stone - 1/13/2001 8:12:08 PM Hey, CD. Why do you think that Jexster's "ice cream" was melting when he and you were with CalCal in San Francisco? 2145. CalGal - 1/13/2001 8:15:57 PM Jex is gay, you dumbfuck. If his icecream was melting, it was undoubtedly for Cellar. 2146. Rosetta Stone - 1/13/2001 8:19:10 PM No one is really homosexual, CalCal. With the right gal, that's a proven fact. 2147. Fielding - 1/13/2001 9:02:22 PM 2148. Fielding - 1/13/2001 9:05:21 PM 2149. jexster - 1/13/2001 9:25:44 PM Now boyz and girlz BEHAVE! 2150. jexster - 1/13/2001 9:28:27 PM Cal - 2151. joezan - 1/13/2001 9:40:16 PM 2152. Rosetta Stone - 1/13/2001 9:55:48 PM Actually, I like it that Bush doesn't watch much cable news. We stopping watching it in the autumn, and I don't miss it. 2153. AceofSpades - 1/14/2001 12:25:29 AM The nation's politicians and editorialists and television pundits have had a lot to say lately about the need for all Americans to unite around George W. Bush, whom five members of the Supreme Court recently appointed to the presidency. 2154. concerned - 1/14/2001 6:14:57 AM The 'strictest standards' do not include dimpled or pregnant chads in punched ballots. 2155. Rosetta Stone - 1/14/2001 7:23:01 AM They go the chad route, concerned, because they don't want to admit that little Elian lost the election for Gore in Florida. 2156. Dubai Vol - 1/14/2001 8:19:31 AM There are a lot more questions about Dubya's win in FL than just chad. But in keeping with the fairness doctrine posted above, they should be mentioned daily. After all, by this point in '92 the GOP faithful had their "Don't blame me, I voted for Bush" stickers firmly affixed. Now you can recycle them. Just scratch out the "Don't" 2157. Cellar Door - 1/14/2001 8:54:29 AM Didn't know that little Elian voted. But then anything can happen in Florida. 2158. Rosetta Stone - 1/14/2001 8:56:22 AM I knew Quentin was a hack. Thanks for the confirmation, CD. 2159. Cellar Door - 1/14/2001 9:51:43 AM Thanks for the confirmation of your superfluousness, Rosie. 2160. Dubai Vol - 1/14/2001 11:13:35 AM WARNING! HONEST ATTEMPT AT NON-PARTISAN QUESTION! 2161. PsychProf - 1/14/2001 11:17:19 AM JONES AGAIN 2162. CalGal - 1/14/2001 11:47:33 AM Dubai, 2163. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 1/14/2001 12:03:29 PM You have to wonder about someone who would take as his pseud the name of a character who lusted after his sister. 2164. arkymalarky - 1/14/2001 12:18:59 PM That's quite an oversimplification of Quentin Compson. 2165. jexster - 1/14/2001 12:21:22 PM Mass Protests of Counterfeit Inaugural Expected - Guerrilla Tactics Planned 2166. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 1/14/2001 12:21:38 PM The character or the pseud? 2167. JudithAtHome - 1/14/2001 12:29:56 PM 2168. arkymalarky - 1/14/2001 12:34:56 PM The character, of course, unless your post was referring to the pseud, in which case it's more than I care to know about that person. 2169. arkymalarky - 1/14/2001 12:36:57 PM Judith, 2170. JudithAtHome - 1/14/2001 12:42:13 PM 2171. jexster - 1/14/2001 1:35:29 PM 2172. jexster - 1/14/2001 1:40:49 PM 2173. Dubai Vol - 1/14/2001 1:45:15 PM Cal-thanks for the reply; that was how I saw Gore's Elian position, I guess I'm glad it didn't work, even though Gore was the first presidential candidate I ever actually voted FOR, as opposed to voting against the other guy. My next question is, was the GOP stand a cynical play for the Cuban vote or simply a partisan knee-jerk against the Dems? Or do Republicans really think a parent's rights should be diisregarded due to political differences? Or is there a better argument? Don't want to start a drawn-out battle here, but I'm willing to listen to explanations of the GOP opinion on this. Briefly. 2174. jexster - 1/14/2001 1:52:51 PM 2175. CalGal - 1/14/2001 1:53:57 PM Dubai, 2176. jexster - 1/14/2001 1:54:14 PM Questions Senators Should Ask Ashcroft 2177. CalGal - 1/14/2001 1:54:52 PM BTW, Dub, welcome! 2178. Dubai Vol - 1/14/2001 1:57:19 PM Cal-you'd never recognise the place glass and steel high-rises as far as the eye can see 2179. Dubai Vol - 1/14/2001 2:02:14 PM Uh, Jexster, I surfed a lot of the boards on the mote, and you were on all of them. If I were your dad, I'd tell you to go play outside for a while. At least please don't post any more pics of Kathleen Harris, that is one ugly sorority girl EEEECCCCHHHHH! 2180. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 1/14/2001 2:03:23 PM What does the "Vol" mean? 2181. jexster - 1/14/2001 2:04:56 PM President-elect Bush's proposals for aggressively boosting domestic energy production are drawing stiff resistance from environmentalists and lawmakers from both parties in the clearest sign yet that the environment will be a major political battleground in the coming administration. 2182. jexster - 1/14/2001 2:06:18 PM But you're not my dad now are you... 2183. Dubai Vol - 1/14/2001 2:06:45 PM Short for Volunteer, as in GO BIG ORANGE! 2184. Dubai Vol - 1/14/2001 2:08:42 PM So correct me if I'm wrong... 2185. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 1/14/2001 2:12:35 PM > But you're not my dad now are you... 2186. CalGal - 1/14/2001 2:12:52 PM There is no "everybody". You're as much "everybody" as he is, or I am. 2187. Rosetta Stone - 1/14/2001 3:00:35 PM Dubai: "Everybody" is "somebody" here except Cazart and Nostradamus, two posters who took on the system and lost. 2188. PelleNilsson - 1/14/2001 3:32:35 PM 2189. CalGal - 1/14/2001 3:40:13 PM Is Bahrain an Emirate, or is it separate? I went there twice for tournaments. Never made it to Tehran, though--they didn't start hosting until after I left. 2190. PelleNilsson - 1/14/2001 3:42:45 PM Bahrein is separate. There I've been once - for champagne and caviar in the Concorde lounge. 2191. JJBiener - 1/14/2001 4:00:34 PM Judith - "I admire that mans black heart! He has an evil that can only be described as EBON in his heart and I'm in awe of it!" 2192. JudithAtHome - 1/14/2001 4:36:23 PM JJ: 2193. JJBiener - 1/14/2001 4:42:56 PM Judith - I'd much rather have a President who knows his limitations and knows where to look for the answers than to one who thinks he knows all the answers and is wrong. 2194. JudithAtHome - 1/14/2001 4:57:15 PM 2195. JJBiener - 1/14/2001 5:05:25 PM I hate it that he was wrong much of the time and he was too arrogant to seek better advice. 2196. wonkers2 - 1/14/2001 5:42:46 PM It's doubtful that Bush will get better advice from the clown cabinet he's assembling. 2197. wonkers2 - 1/14/2001 5:46:26 PM e.g., make abortion illegal, outlaw dancing, pull out of Bosnia, piss away the surplus on a gigantic tax break for the rich, clearcut the primeval redwood, drill in the Tongass, undermine the public schools with vouchers, allow Christian prayers in public schools, etc,etc. 2198. CalGal - 1/14/2001 5:54:48 PM Wonkers, 2199. CalGal - 1/14/2001 6:00:21 PM The GOP Has Forgotten The Good of Being Green 2200. CalGal - 1/14/2001 6:02:05 PM The derailment of the Republican revolution is usually blamed on the debate over Medicare cuts, the twin government shutdowns and Gingrich's undisciplined leadership. But look what was happening to the House leadership's support even before any of that took center stage: 2201. Rosetta Stone - 1/14/2001 6:09:41 PM I never want to hear you complaining about others not linking long, boring articles again, CalCal. 2202. CalGal - 1/14/2001 6:12:16 PM I will continue to do so, and that you don't want it will only make it that much more mandatory to do. 2203. Rosetta Stone - 1/14/2001 6:27:28 PM Oh, I want it CalCal. I want it so baaaaddd. 2204. lemwalker - 1/14/2001 6:40:15 PM Americans are all for the environment until stores start to run out of stuff. Canada ships in a major share of lumber. The clearcuts are not in the buyers backyard. The Canadian competition will, should, influence major timberland owners to be against any upswing in National Forest harvest. As much as competition is touted, it isn't really liked. Locals will still oppose mining, powerplant construction, transmission lines, etc. in the neighborhood. Everyone wants cheap gravel, but no one wants a gravel pit up the road. 2205. CalGal - 1/14/2001 7:01:46 PM Stone, 2206. lemwalker - 1/14/2001 7:35:17 PM The GOP simply follows the party line; I got mine screw the rest of ya. 2207. arkymalarky - 1/14/2001 8:29:19 PM "What they call a forest, I call a tree farm." 2208. joezan - 1/14/2001 8:40:31 PM 2209. arkymalarky - 1/14/2001 8:48:29 PM There's a lot of difference between hardwood forests and pine. And the differences are important environmentally. 2210. Jonesatlaw - 1/14/2001 9:01:21 PM There is a huge difference between tree farming and harvesting logs from old growth. The difference lies in the diversity of the plants and animals in each. 2211. CalGal - 1/14/2001 9:05:19 PM What I don't understand is this: why can't we just create more tree farms, rather than harvesting old growth? 2212. Jonesatlaw - 1/14/2001 9:17:27 PM Cal- we can, but it costs money. If lumber companies can get the same goodies at fire sale prices from Uncle Sugar, they won't invest the capital. Access to the national forrests at discount prices screws up the market. If we allow the price to rise by cutting off access to the remaining old growth forrests, they will either find lumber where the access is still open- the third world largely, or they will make the needed investment. 2213. arkymalarky - 1/14/2001 9:19:29 PM They've given incentives here to plant pines on old farm fields, which is what all the trees around our house are about, and a lot of old farmland has been replanted in pines. 2214. Jonesatlaw - 1/14/2001 9:23:17 PM Re 2171- I can just hear the sorority mating call--"I'm sooooo wasted...." 2215. joezan - 1/14/2001 10:24:33 PM 2216. Jonesatlaw - 1/14/2001 10:35:02 PM Joezan- There are far more deer here in eastern Nebraska than there were 100 years ago as well. That is not to say that everything is skittles and beer as far as nature goes. We are losing or have lost many plants and some animals because people have changed the landscape. Deer like forrest edges and meadows, and we provide them in windbreaks, small treed areas in draws and gullies not open to farming and now saved from prarie fire. Row crops provide forrage and large predators are nerely non-existent. In short, we create great habitat for an animal that was once only found in certain small areas over a large space. In turn we lose prairie chickens, buffalo, prairie dogs etc. We've extended the range of eastern trees and animals, and cropped that of western ones. 2217. Jonesatlaw - 1/14/2001 10:38:20 PM The shrinking of rural populations may have a benefit for some wild critters. There have been reports of mountain lions roaming in eastern and central Nebraska, where they have traditionally been scarce. Again, this has more to do with disruption of the ecosystem and replacing it with one more favorable to a non- or semi-native species than it does with the health of the ecosystem. 2218. arkymalarky - 1/14/2001 11:00:19 PM The proliferation of deer is not necessarily a good environmental sign, imo, and is evidence of an imbalance. 2219. iiibbb - 1/14/2001 11:11:14 PM Message # 2210 2220. iiibbb - 1/14/2001 11:16:37 PM Message # 2218 et al. 2221. joezan - 1/14/2001 11:17:26 PM 2222. iiibbb - 1/14/2001 11:18:01 PM You'll also note there are not any dramatic shifts in distribution projected except that much of the natural pine stands are expected to be converted to planted pine. 2223. iiibbb - 1/14/2001 11:22:46 PM The forested inventory of the US is expected to increase over the next 50 years. 2224. joezan - 1/14/2001 11:24:07 PM 2225. iiibbb - 1/14/2001 11:27:28 PM We can't create more Tree farms to replace the old growth because the tree farms are used to produce fiber for paper. Tree farms are profitable only if you can get the rotation age down to a minimum, otherwise the investment in planting, fertilization, and tree improvement is lost. 2226. wonkers2 - 1/14/2001 11:28:04 PM Cal, clowns, not idiots. 2227. iiibbb - 1/14/2001 11:28:17 PM that was re: Cal Gal 2211 2228. iiibbb - 1/14/2001 11:31:01 PM Much of the problem with old growth being cut is sheer demand. They wouldn't cut it if people didn't want it. You think people are cutting trees down just for the fun of it? What's your house made of? 2229. joezan - 1/14/2001 11:34:38 PM 2230. wonkers2 - 1/14/2001 11:35:45 PM Good point! 2231. Jonesatlaw - 1/15/2001 12:21:19 AM That is out and out wrong... most timber cut in this country is in private or industrial hands. 2232. Dubai Vol - 1/15/2001 4:22:10 AM Republicans spend money on defense for one reason: corporate welfare for their industry pals. Just another way of putting middle-class money in the pockets of the rich. The missile-defense shield is a perfect example: probably never work, but a great excuse to hand huge sums to defense contractors. Rem the Patriot missile? During the Gulf War they were claiming 98% sucess at stopping SCUDs. The BBC just did a special that reveals that there was not a single successful interception. OK, great propaganda, discouraged Saddam, kept Israel out of the war, absolutely the right thing to say THEN. But in the aftermath, let's not fall into the trap of believing our own lies and throwing hundreds of BILLIONS at a useless system. The GOP knows better, Raytheon knows better, but they want that money 2233. Dubai Vol - 1/15/2001 4:55:34 AM As for the timber industry, I just hope the Nader voters are paying attention to the GOP plans for our National forests. Oh there's no difference between the two major parties, is there? 2234. iiibbb - 1/15/2001 9:39:43 AM Message # 2231 2235. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 11:02:09 AM 2236. jexster - 1/15/2001 11:32:48 AM `John's a team player,'' Bush told NBC News. ``He will not politicize the attorney general's office.'' 2237. Francis Urquhart - 1/15/2001 11:33:53 AM `John's a team player,'' Bush told NBC News. ``He will not politicize the attorney general's office.'' 2238. Francis Urquhart - 1/15/2001 11:34:31 AM 'John's a team player,'' Bush told NBC News. ``He will not politicize the attorney general's office.'' 2239. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 11:34:37 AM 2240. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 11:35:20 AM 2241. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 11:45:48 AM Dubai Vol - Rem the Patriot missile? During the Gulf War they were claiming 98% sucess at stopping SCUDs. 2242. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/15/2001 11:46:08 AM The White House January 1, 2001 2243. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 11:48:19 AM Dubai Vol - Oh there's no difference between the two major parties, is there? 2244. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 11:53:02 AM 2245. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 11:58:23 AM Judith - You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. 2246. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 12:03:45 PM 2247. cmboyce - 1/15/2001 12:10:56 PM "..to use public lands responsibly to promote America's prosperity now and in the future..." 2248. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 12:38:34 PM CM - are you fully aware of the sheer flackiness of your diction? 2249. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 12:39:39 PM Judith - That's what I've been trying to tell you for ages... 2250. concerned - 1/15/2001 12:45:16 PM Looks like we'll be spending jillions on our armed forces but not using them to fight. 2251. cmboyce - 1/15/2001 12:45:17 PM Ah, JJ. You're an incorrigible... 2252. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 12:49:40 PM CM - It is my goal to live long enough to become a curmudgeon. I figure I am in training. 2253. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 12:50:03 PM 2254. concerned - 1/15/2001 12:58:15 PM Re. 2253 - 2255. jexster - 1/15/2001 12:58:57 PM Ashcroft To Face Questions on Campaign Fundraising Irregularities 2256. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 1:00:39 PM 2257. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:02:13 PM I for one welcome a fight over Star Wars II....one more nail in the Bush coffin 2258. concerned - 1/15/2001 1:06:54 PM Re. 2256 - 2259. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 1:11:03 PM Judith - And anyone who thinks this will work is thoroughly clueless as well. 2260. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 1:11:33 PM 2261. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 1:12:46 PM 2262. Cellar Door - 1/15/2001 1:21:42 PM All those scientists who say it won't work arre Liberals, secretly in league with Hillary in her nefarious plot to take over the U.S. and then the world! 2263. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:23:24 PM It is apparently beyond the atavistic, stuck in the 70's collection of know-nothing's that the Bastard Imbecile has selected to inform his uninformed mind on foreign policy but as the Los Angeles Times points out on its front page today 2264. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:23:49 PM 2265. concerned - 1/15/2001 1:24:02 PM Which 'scientists' say it won't work, anyway? Doctorates in literature, maybe? 2266. concerned - 1/15/2001 1:25:42 PM How did Clowntoon 'change the world'? By being thoroughly corrupt, which he was? 2267. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:30:44 PM 2268. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 1:33:30 PM Judith - Scientists are just as likely to be wrong as anyone else. Anytime that a scientist claims a certain thing is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong. Look at history. "The world is flat." "We can never circumnavigate the globe." "Man will never fly." "The Earth is the center of the universe." "Heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones." "Man cannot fly in space because there is nothing to push off of." "There is a world-wide market for about 10 computers." "A missle defense system is impossible." 2269. wonkers2 - 1/15/2001 1:34:44 PM From what derives the simplistic fallacy that armed forces must always be at war? A very dangerous assumption. 2270. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 1:36:18 PM I am surprised Moises Naim can have his nose pushed that far up Clinton's rectum and still be able to breath. 2271. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:37:50 PM "The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas."—To a Slovak journalist as quoted by Knight Ridder News Service, June 22, 1999. Bush's meeting was with Janez Drnovsek, the prime minister of Slovenia. 2272. wonkers2 - 1/15/2001 1:37:51 PM Moises Naim is correct. 2273. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:38:43 PM Speaking of intellectual grasp that is.... 2274. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 1:38:46 PM Wonkers - They do it because of our economic and military power and that of our allies. 2275. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 1:38:50 PM 2276. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:40:12 PM His willingness to bridge old and new global orders may prove to be greatest legacy. Los Angeles Times - page 1 2277. wonkers2 - 1/15/2001 1:40:25 PM Right, but it's doubtful that Bush and his advisers got the message. 2278. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 1:40:51 PM Judith - No, but you shouldn't trust blindly either just because they happen to confirm your political beliefs. 2279. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:41:27 PM wonk and if the Powell Doctrine were applied, April Glaspy's fuck up would never have been corrected. 2280. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 1:41:44 PM 2281. wonkers2 - 1/15/2001 1:43:17 PM Jexter, right. Powell opposed the Gulf War and, as much as anyone else, was responsibible for our withdrawal before completing the task. 2282. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:43:29 PM Clinton's international achievements "exceeded the average accomplishments of U.S. presidents," former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone writes in the latest issue of Washington Quarterly. "However slow in coming or seemingly small, over time they will deliver steady and substantive gains for the U.S." 2283. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:44:22 PM Seems a whole host of people who know what they are talking about have their noses up clinton's rectum.... 2284. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:45:04 PM The rest are kissing it. 2285. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 1:45:08 PM Judith - Not at all. I researched the science involved and it is sound. The technology still needs some work, but it is certainly achievable. As long as the science works, the technology will eventually. 2286. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 1:46:29 PM 2287. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:46:30 PM Trouble is there's not a shred of evidence to support the contention that effective missile defense will ever be achievable 2288. wonkers2 - 1/15/2001 1:47:11 PM JJ, When Reagan said this he was called a war monger. 2289. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:47:12 PM It'll just cost 500 billion to chase the silly and destabilizing fantasy 2290. wonkers2 - 1/15/2001 1:49:47 PM I believe Lyndon Johnson put the theory more colorfully: "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." 2291. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:51:52 PM Wonk... 2292. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 1:52:49 PM Wonkers - Powell opposed the Gulf War and, as much as anyone else, was responsibible for our withdrawal before completing the task. 2293. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 1:55:18 PM Jex - Trouble is there's not a shred of evidence to support the contention that effective missile defense will ever be achievable 2294. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 1:55:32 PM 2295. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:57:14 PM Technological Failures National Missile Defense Detailed 2296. JJBiener - 1/15/2001 1:57:37 PM Judith - It was just another no-win situation as far as the Democrats were concerned. No matter how Bush chose to act, he would have been criticized. 2297. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 1:59:45 PM 2298. jexster - 1/15/2001 2:11:33 PM Now Availabe in Book Form, The Perfect UnInaugural Gift! 2299. jexster - 1/15/2001 2:12:57 PM JAH..that will have to await another day...first I had to put Concerned's "comments" into the shit can... 2300. concerned - 1/15/2001 2:25:30 PM 2283. jexster - 1/15/01 6:44:22 PM 2301. concerned - 1/15/2001 2:38:02 PM Re. 2289 - 2302. concerned - 1/15/2001 2:40:42 PM NMD 2303. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/15/2001 2:50:14 PM 2304. Dubai Vol - 1/15/2001 2:54:13 PM As a mechanical/aerospace engineer, I have a pretty good grasp of the technical challenge of intercepting an ICBM. Yes it is theoretically possible. No the current state of the art is not capable of doing the job in the near future. It was just a few months ago that the current project failed the most elementary tests. What you saw on CNN during the Gulf War was Patriots exploding near SCUDs, possibly deflecting them slightly, but not destroying the warhead, which still impacted and detonated. As the SCUD is a mere unguided rocket, you can't even say the Patriot knocked it off target, as the target was defined as a large general area. And the SCUD moves at a crawl compared to an ICBM. Yes the Patriot was designed as an AA misile, but the state of the art is hardly more capable than that now. And the real question is: just who do you think is going to throw ICBMs at the US? I mean come on are you really going to let fear-mongering tools of the defense industry stampede you into giving them huge sums for no real purpose? 2305. Fraaankster - 1/15/2001 3:00:30 PM Let's see, we spend something like 12 times what our allies spend combined, and 22 times what these rogue nations spend combined. 2306. concerned - 1/15/2001 3:11:06 PM Re. 2304 - 2307. Dubai Vol - 1/15/2001 3:26:00 PM concerned- 2308. jexster - 1/15/2001 3:35:46 PM And that means that the President-elect, who told TIME several weeks ago that the greatest misconception about him is that he is racially insensitive, is now defending a key nominee in a fight so fierce it may once again be hard to tell the difference between winning and losing. There are Democrats publicly denouncing Ashcroft and privately praying he survives, so they can raise money and inflame partisans for years to come. There are Republicans publicly pledging their support and privately wondering why Bush chose a man who all but guaranteed that the era of good feeling would be over before his presidency even begins. 2309. jexster - 1/15/2001 3:41:52 PM Wingnut Appeal 2310. jexster - 1/15/2001 3:43:16 PM Thank you Dumbya! 2311. jexster - 1/15/2001 3:44:31 PM Amen Dubai...as many former Fraysters around here can confirm, I am a warmonger but not an idiot. 2312. JudithAtHome - 1/15/2001 3:50:58 PM 2313. AceofSpades - 1/15/2001 3:55:12 PM 2314. concerned - 1/15/2001 3:57:10 PM Re. 2307 - 2315. concerned - 1/15/2001 3:59:00 PM delete second 'which' in second paragraph of my previous post 2316. wonkers2 - 1/15/2001 4:00:22 PM But we have a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia under which we agreed not to deploy an anti-missile defense in return for certain actions by Russia. (My memory fails on the details.) 2317. jexster - 1/15/2001 4:00:27 PM Like Ole Jexster Hadn't Told You This Before Either 2318. jexster - 1/15/2001 4:01:58 PM Ace there you go again....neither Clinton nor Gore supported NMD....fuckin liar 2319. AceofSpades - 1/15/2001 4:03:24 PM 2320. concerned - 1/15/2001 4:05:33 PM Re. 2316 - 2321. concerned - 1/15/2001 4:07:59 PM re. 2319 - 2322. concerned - 1/15/2001 4:09:12 PM I can see it now - NMD - 2323. concerned - 1/15/2001 4:13:56 PM Something else that won't sell - 2324. jexster - 1/15/2001 4:14:58 PM From Hurling Rocks to MIRV's Why Defense Always Lags Offense in War 2325. Stumbo - 1/15/2001 4:17:37 PM 2326. concerned - 1/15/2001 4:21:50 PM jexster - 2327. concerned - 1/15/2001 4:25:15 PM Btw, wrt boost phase NMD. This could also be a sea based defensive system in many cases. 2328. OhioSTOPAS - 1/15/2001 4:26:56 PM The ultimate goal of SDI may be to "cause countries to scrap their nuclear arsenals", but unfortunately the immediate effect is to cause them to build up their arsenals. 2329. concerned - 1/15/2001 4:27:11 PM Also, if NMD is so 'impractical', why is the Navy paying big bucks for its Aegis systems, why is Israel involved in anti-missile laser systems and why is Taiwan planning to install an anti-missile system? 2330. concerned - 1/15/2001 4:28:11 PM Re. 2328 - 2331. concerned - 1/15/2001 4:42:28 PM Hundreds of votes cast illegally in Broward Country - mostly for Bore, natch 2332. jexster - 1/15/2001 8:35:28 PM The Bush Files From The Texas Observer 2333. jexster - 1/15/2001 8:39:11 PM Why The NMD Debate Sheds More Heat Than Light & Why You Should Care 2334. jexster - 1/15/2001 8:45:44 PM For the record (in case anyone was fool enough to believe Ace) 2335. jexster - 1/15/2001 9:15:09 PM StopAshcroft.com [Million Mom March] 2336. Dubai Vol - 1/15/2001 9:53:26 PM concerned-a point for you, a sea-based boost-phase system is a possiblity I hadn't considered. Never let it be said that I wasn't fair :) 2337. Rosetta Stone - 1/15/2001 10:54:59 PM Leave it to that conceited Clinton to demand eight minutes of TV network time on Thursday night to say goodbye while my daughter and others are singing their hearts and souls out at the Bush/Cheney Inauguration opening ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial. 2338. Indiana Jones - 1/15/2001 11:58:39 PM Ace there you go again....neither Clinton nor Gore supported NMD....fuckin liar 2339. mgleason - 1/16/2001 12:04:17 AM Did Ashcroft Take the Low Road on the Highroad? 2340. jonesatlaw - 1/16/2001 3:00:38 AM But when Ashcroft was governor in Missouri he rendered a decision that reaped a campaign contributor millions of dollars--and the probity of the deal was indeed questioned by a prominent newspaper and citizens in his state. 2341. jonesatlaw - 1/16/2001 3:23:44 AM NMD is a reasonable subject for research, but any plan to deploy it or even prepare to deploy it is foolish and premature. 2342. jonesatlaw - 1/16/2001 3:24:15 AM This is the same boogeyman idiocy as military policy from the folks who brought us the MX missle, with racetracks replaced by dense-pack (aka duncepack), the B-1 Lancer, and the six hundred dollar toilet seat; the toilet seat was the only truly operational and necessary equipment. The reality is that we have one system of nuclear deterrence which is truly effective and terrifying- boomers. So long as Trident equiped subs are out there, there is nothing any nation can do to avoid a retaliatory strike that will look like the comming of the day of judgment. They are hard to hear, find or hit, and even one can rain enough warheads to destroy the major cities of any given nation, or its military. Add to this the ability of our attack subs to use nuclear warheads on cruise missles, and we have a wealth of deterrence. The problem is with land based missles. The existence of a anti-missle system may push someone with an existing capability into a use it or lose it scenario. Further, it pushes other nations down the road to cruise missle technology, which need not be terribly sophisticated when you have a nuclear warhead. 2343. concerned - 1/16/2001 3:46:29 AM Unofficial Miami-Dade total shows Pinocchio Bore still would have lost Florida with all the recounts he asked for 2344. concerned - 1/16/2001 3:57:36 AM Re. 2341 - 2345. concerned - 1/16/2001 4:00:10 AM replace 'that' with 'with which' in first line of second paragraph of my last post 2346. joezan - 1/16/2001 7:11:48 AM ...make that 2347. rubberducky - 1/16/2001 10:19:36 AM 2348. glendajean - 1/16/2001 10:29:23 AM funny strange or funny ha-ha? This May guy is a Republican and the incoming chair of the Arizona House's Ways and Means Committee, and would be a good candidate for "a straight arrow" from Central Casting. 2349. rubberducky - 1/16/2001 10:32:05 AM Re: Message # 2348, glendajean. 2350. ycmeehan - 1/16/2001 10:43:55 AM RB, 2351. rubberducky - 1/16/2001 10:45:12 AM YC: 2352. ycmeehan - 1/16/2001 10:50:15 AM RD, 2353. ycmeehan - 1/16/2001 10:59:16 AM Oh, thanks, RD. 2354. jexster - 1/16/2001 11:53:41 AM The moral test of a government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life — the children; the twilight of life — the elderly; and the shadows of life — the sick, the needy and the handicapped. Hubert H. Humphrey 2355. jexster - 1/16/2001 11:54:14 AM I'm G 2356. Jonesatlaw - 1/16/2001 11:57:44 AM Concerned-Detonating a nuclear warhead at or near ground level is far less effective than an airburst, since much of the energy is reflected into the air. This makes your 'decrepit steamer' scenario much less than compelling. Initially, NMD would be for defense against blackmail or actual nuclear attack from rogue countries. 2357. jexster - 1/16/2001 11:59:00 AM By Dana Milbank 2358. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:04:05 PM 2359. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:05:07 PM Why does is keep doing that at education photo ops? 2360. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 12:06:41 PM 2361. concerned - 1/16/2001 12:07:34 PM Re. 2357 - 2362. rubberducky - 1/16/2001 12:12:37 PM 2363. concerned - 1/16/2001 12:18:22 PM Starr Deputy: Clowntoon indictment 'going to happen' 2364. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:20:15 PM Keep Em Barefoot & Pregnant 2365. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:20:59 PM Don't worry your empty little head, Clinton doesn't want any pardon. 2366. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:22:18 PM White Boy' Bush doesn't have 2367. concerned - 1/16/2001 12:23:46 PM jexster - 2368. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:25:42 PM Yes. He wants you idiots to try to bring such a bullshit case. 2369. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:26:01 PM Maybe Scalia will save you. 2370. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:26:37 PM I hear that the First Bitch's PB&J's and coconut cream pies are killer 2371. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:27:37 PM The fact that its only REPUBLICANS that are yapping about a pardon speaks volumes. 2372. concerned - 1/16/2001 12:29:21 PM Re. 2371 - 2373. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:30:28 PM Ready To RUMBLE: Ashcroft Ran From Vietnam War 2374. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:31:52 PM Of course that cuts both ways... 2375. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:32:54 PM Right concerned... 2376. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:42:43 PM LAT 2377. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:44:38 PM Although his arrest 2378. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 12:46:29 PM 2379. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:50:51 PM Longest Serving AG in 172 Years Shrugs of Both Criticism & Praise 2380. concerned - 1/16/2001 12:58:54 PM Longest serving and worst AG in 172 years shrugs off her job. 2381. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 1:00:34 PM 2382. Indiana Jones - 1/16/2001 1:24:50 PM Rather calls Ashcroft nomination "moon walking in the end zone or hanging on the rim after you score." 2383. robertjayb - 1/16/2001 1:34:03 PM . 2384. robertjayb - 1/16/2001 1:40:20 PM . 2385. CalGal - 1/16/2001 1:40:55 PM Great opening by Leahy, did anyone hear it? 2386. azazel - 1/16/2001 1:48:54 PM If only the Dems would realize that GWB is the best thing that could have happened to the so-called Left of this country - finally, there will be someone that will serve to synchronise all of the various progressive and liberal groups toward a common goal instead of causing the formation of the circular firing squads of years past. GWB and his crew needn't be overtly bigoted or racist (and most likely are not) - their indifference to and/or contempt of those who don't share his views will be the rope by which they will hang themselves. Then it'll be the Dems turn again - ain't America grand?? 2387. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 1:53:30 PM 2388. concerned - 1/16/2001 1:55:23 PM Re. 2387 - 2389. concerned - 1/16/2001 1:58:45 PM Wonder if the DNC ever discovered whether Thurmond was guilty of any 'youthful indiscretions' such as improperly tethering his horse or not paying the hansom cab fare. 2390. CalGal - 1/16/2001 2:02:00 PM Azazel, 2391. concerned - 1/16/2001 2:04:12 PM Re. 2390 - 2392. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 2:05:57 PM 2393. CalGal - 1/16/2001 2:08:11 PM Concerned, 2394. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 2:09:03 PM 2395. Fraaankster - 1/16/2001 2:10:17 PM Judith, 2396. concerned - 1/16/2001 2:11:26 PM I'd miss him. 2397. Fraaankster - 1/16/2001 2:11:50 PM Oops! 2398. Indiana Jones - 1/16/2001 2:13:40 PM I posted on TableTalk a while back that if the Ayatollah Khomeni (sp.) were still alive he'd be only two or three years older than Thurmond. IIRC Brezhnev would be younger. 2399. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 2:15:00 PM 2400. Fraaankster - 1/16/2001 2:18:55 PM Feingold can bring it, can't he ? He covered it all just about. 2401. Wombat - 1/16/2001 2:19:03 PM #2389: 2402. Indiana Jones - 1/16/2001 2:35:32 PM First you folks criticize the Republicans for not serving in the military, now you criticize them for serving, Wombat. 2403. Wombat - 1/16/2001 2:47:09 PM Depends on the army, Indy. 2404. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 3:02:18 PM Cal, Yeah, Leahy's opening was great. Hatch was his usually seamy self. Ted Kennedy's opening statement was quite eloquent. Looks like the main interesting thing will be whether any GOPers vote against confirmation and how many Dems vote to confirm. 2405. rubberducky - 1/16/2001 3:56:58 PM 2406. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 4:38:04 PM In the opening round of questioning of Ashcroft, Leahy, made the point that in opposing Bill Lann Lee and other Clinton nominees, Ashcroft applied an ideological approach or standard, which if applied to him, would result in a vote against his own confirmation. In other words, Democrats who might vote against him because of differences with his views on abortion, civil rights, gun control, etc, would be doing no more than he did when he voted not to confirm several Clinton nominees. To be fair, Ashcroft voted to confirm many more Clinton nominees than he voted against. However, Leahy, pretty well stuffed Ashcroft's words back down his throat. Ashcroft said he voted against Lee because he did not support the U.S. Supreme Court's Adorand decision holding that racial preferences be held to a "strict scrutiny" standard. Leahy immediately read back Lee's sworn testimony in response to Ashcroft's own question to him that he would uphold the law in the Adorand decision. Score one for Leahy. 2407. JJBiener - 1/16/2001 4:38:15 PM Judith - He'll be fabulously successful in whatever he attempts to do in private life, just as he was in public service. 2408. mgleason - 1/16/2001 4:43:42 PM From the Economist: How was it for you? Our parting judgment on Bill Clinton 2409. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 4:43:52 PM 2410. JJBiener - 1/16/2001 4:48:40 PM Judith - I aim to please. I wouldn't want you to be disappointed. 2411. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 4:49:35 PM 2412. JJBiener - 1/16/2001 4:51:31 PM Judith - That has got to be ugly. 2413. rubberducky - 1/16/2001 4:52:30 PM More on Clinton's Cancer: 2414. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 4:57:17 PM 2415. concerned - 1/16/2001 4:59:38 PM I think it's peculiar that we're suddenly hearing about this skin cancer when his medical history has appeared to be impenetrable up to now. I suspect that this news is either to lend an eleventh hour spurious sense of openness to disclosures about his health, or in anticipation that his medical history will soon out when he leaves office. 2416. jexster - 1/16/2001 4:59:51 PM WP Rough Draft - Bush Nominees Under Fire 2417. rubberducky - 1/16/2001 5:00:12 PM J@H: 2418. jexster - 1/16/2001 5:00:46 PM Columnist's note: In December, after the conclusion of the Florida recount and Al Gore's concession speech, there was an outbreak of conciliatory gestures, and promises of harmony and bipartisan cooperation. Rough Draft vowed to remain on hiatus throughout this sickening period. Today I can finally dust off the keyboard and get back into the game – because the bitterly divisive John Ashcroft hearings are just minutes away! 2419. jexster - 1/16/2001 5:02:51 PM For the Justice Department, he has picked a man who has been virtually an anti-Justice Department crusader. For the Department of the Interior, he has selected a woman who apparently views a forest as an elaborate storage facility for boards. 2420. jexster - 1/16/2001 5:03:14 PM Bastard Imbecile of the US 2421. jexster - 1/16/2001 5:04:22 PM Ted Kennedy is kickin ass...Ashcroft is shaking. 2422. jexster - 1/16/2001 5:04:41 PM He oughta take tough lessons from Reno 2423. jexster - 1/16/2001 5:06:13 PM we should probably defer to the wisdom of the people of Missouri. In November they bounced him from the Senate in favor of a dead man. 2424. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 5:06:50 PM 2425. concerned - 1/16/2001 5:07:11 PM Re. 2422 - 2426. jexster - 1/16/2001 5:07:42 PM Oooh Strom's Up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2427. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 5:08:23 PM 2428. jexster - 1/16/2001 5:09:13 PM He doesn't (sadly) have Parkinsons. 2429. jexster - 1/16/2001 5:10:21 PM Missouri, the Show Me State, took one look at Ashcroft & chose a dead man 2430. JJBiener - 1/16/2001 5:20:38 PM Jex - You are obviously unfamiliar with a sympathy vote. Had Carnahan lived, Ashcroft would have been reelected easily. 2431. AceofSpades - 1/16/2001 5:22:30 PM 2432. concerned - 1/16/2001 5:22:45 PM 2433. labwabbit - 1/16/2001 5:23:30 PM Where's the "insensibility police" when you need 'em? 2434. Al D - 1/16/2001 6:34:31 PM Does anyone really believe Ashcroft will not be confirmed? He might not be if there are not 60 votes to confirm or to stop debate. But I think that is not the case. 2435. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 6:39:43 PM 2436. cmboyce - 1/16/2001 6:42:16 PM I'd be surprised if it gets filibustered. So I, at least, assume he'll pass. But perhaps the fuss will slow the new administration down a little, inhibit possible bad behavior maybe. 2437. JJBiener - 1/16/2001 6:43:18 PM Ashcroft will be confirmed, but the Democrats need the opportunity to suck up to their various constituencies. They have worked with him for 6 years and they know the accusations against him are bullshit, but they have to make it look good for the folks back home. 2438. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 6:51:09 PM 2439. Al D - 1/16/2001 6:54:59 PM Dems. are being warned that a vote for Ashcroft will give them a surprise for their next election. In spite of the fact that most of their objections do not seem to have much basis in fact, they are determined. Since Ashcroft has comfirmed 25 of 26 AAs, it is beyond sense to say his vote against White was race based. And yet, Blaks will probably buy into the nonsense. 2440. Al D - 1/16/2001 6:55:25 PM Blaks=Blacks 2441. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 7:05:16 PM There's value in getting the "new" Ashcroft on the record in front of the American people as a promoter of racial integration, a protector of women's rights and an enforcer of gun controls. 2442. Al D - 1/16/2001 7:15:57 PM wonkers2 2443. DaveM - 1/16/2001 7:16:58 PM 2437. JJBiener - 1/16/01 11:43:18 PM 2444. JudithAtHome - 1/16/2001 7:18:29 PM 2445. CalGal - 1/16/2001 7:21:06 PM None of his white fellow Senators probably got a very good idea of how he truly thought about minorities. 2446. DaveM - 1/16/2001 7:24:37 PM I've met him too. Didn't like him one bit. Too conservative. 2447. CalGal - 1/16/2001 7:26:16 PM Lord, Dave, Castro is too conservative for you. 2448. DaveM - 1/16/2001 7:33:43 PM Cal - 2449. DaveM - 1/16/2001 7:34:23 PM Cal - 2450. DaveM - 1/16/2001 7:35:33 PM I'd like to see what Carol Mosely-Braun thinks about him. 2451. CalGal - 1/16/2001 7:42:12 PM "I have plenty of black friends" rejoinder is laughable. 2452. CalGal - 1/16/2001 7:43:16 PM I'd like to see what Carol Mosely-Braun thinks about him. 2453. jexster - 1/16/2001 7:51:41 PM The Booby Pulpit: Why Bush Can't Defend Ashcroft 2454. DaveM - 1/16/2001 7:58:20 PM Cal- 2455. DaveM - 1/16/2001 7:58:53 PM Cal - 2456. jexster - 1/16/2001 8:02:07 PM The question of the next four years is how a president who can't talk his way out of a paper bag can get anything difficult through a sharply divided Congress. 2457. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 8:03:35 PM Cal, There is plenty in Ashcroft's record that raises serious question about his attitudes on race. As Missouri attorney general he opposed integration in St Louis schools, exhausting all appeal rights with his every appeal rejected summarily by the courts. As governor he vetoed two state bills designed to encourage voter registration in largely minority St Louis. 2458. CalGal - 1/16/2001 8:05:05 PM I said that their personal feelings should be irrelevant. 2459. jexster - 1/16/2001 8:06:36 PM The Vapid and the Vacuous 2460. CalGal - 1/16/2001 8:09:55 PM Wonkers, 2461. DaveM - 1/16/2001 8:10:32 PM Cal - 2462. MaxMacks - 1/16/2001 8:11:02 PM the President Select-- in only 4 days.... Barf 2463. jexster - 1/16/2001 8:12:10 PM The PC police have some liberals tongue-tied it seems. While they have no difficulty stating the obvious that Ashcroft is anti-abortion and homophobic, when it comes to his obvious racism, their tongues twist. 2464. jexster - 1/16/2001 8:12:32 PM Never was PC 2465. DaveM - 1/16/2001 8:14:28 PM Jexster - 2466. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 8:14:52 PM Whatever he says his views are today, you can see in his eyes the glint of a true believer who 300 years ago would was burning witches in Salem, 150 years ago supporting slavery, a hundred years ago denouncing women's suffrage, 80 years ago he would have supporting prohibition, 50 years ago arguing against Brown v. Board of Education and currently opposing Roe v. Wade and affirmative action. I grew up with people like Ashcroft, some friends, some relatives. 2467. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 8:15:47 PM Cal, I am true north. Surprised you hadn't noticed. 2468. CalGal - 1/16/2001 8:16:20 PM Is my assertion that Ashcroft wasn't elected on the strength of his minority vote "inaccurate" because no Republican has been? 2469. ycmeehan - 1/16/2001 8:16:32 PM At least this guy is going to get out of committee next week or sooner and there will be an up-and-down-vote and he will be confirmed. Many of Clinton nominees have been under hold in committee for months and years until withdrawn. 2470. CalGal - 1/16/2001 8:18:20 PM YC, 2471. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 8:20:12 PM One of the best definitions I ever heard of racism came from a black UAW negotiator in the context of a discussion of a union proposal for an equal rights clause in their labor agreement. He said discrimination or racism is like the wind--you can't see it but you sure can feel it. Lots of people feel the wind of Ashcroft's racism. 2472. CalGal - 1/16/2001 8:22:28 PM He said discrimination or racism is like the wind--you can't see it but you sure can feel it. 2473. DaveM - 1/16/2001 8:22:34 PM So Cal thinks: 2474. jexster - 1/16/2001 8:23:01 PM Wanna SEE why Libertarians are such a joke? 2475. DaveM - 1/16/2001 8:30:30 PM CalGal - 2476. CalGal - 1/16/2001 8:37:17 PM Ashcroft's white senate buddies really know how he views minorities. 2477. CalGal - 1/16/2001 8:40:04 PM You are assuming that your perception and understanding of racism is the only legitimate one. 2478. CalGal - 1/16/2001 8:42:16 PM "Absolute" may be the wrong word to use, although I could probably argue it. The point being that racism and discrimination is based on intent and motive, not the feelings of someone who happens to belong to the race or party being discriminated against. 2479. DaveM - 1/16/2001 8:47:30 PM 2443. DaveM - 1/17/01 12:16:58 AM 2480. DaveM - 1/16/2001 8:49:41 PM The idea that there is only one understanding of racism is ludicrous. There are hundreds. Some are simply better than others. 2481. CalGal - 1/16/2001 8:57:42 PM Dave, 2482. CalGal - 1/16/2001 8:58:37 PM The idea that there is only one understanding of racism is ludicrous. 2483. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 9:03:39 PM Charles Schumer's opening statement on Ashcroft was the most eloquent and convincing of those that I have heard so far. 2484. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 9:16:04 PM The man who said that discrimination is like the wind, felt but not seen was speaking poetically and from his own personal experience. He wasn't offering a dictionary definition. He was talking about a hundred knife cuts in his own skin--Disrespect in the way he was addressed by supervisors or other workers. High paid job classifications reserved by invisible barriers for whites only. [Nothing in the contract kept blacks out of skilled trades or supervisory jobs but something like the famous glass ceiling kept them out.] Double standards for plant discipline. Racist scrawlings on toilet doors. Relegation of his children by white teachers to the industrial arts track in school. Harrassment by the police. Refusal by real estate salesmen to show houses in white neighborhoods. Snowplows and garbage trucks that come last to his neighborhood. And so forth. Cal, pardon my saying it, but you have a blind spot on this subject, in my humble opinion. 2485. CalGal - 1/16/2001 9:20:32 PM Wonkers, 2486. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 9:36:33 PM Cal, I'm glad you agree they are. But so are some of Ashcroft's crude appeals to racist voters in Missouri. Inflammatory racial politics is inherently, per se, racist by my definition. 2487. Cellar Door - 1/16/2001 9:43:33 PM "Just because someone "feels" discriminated against doesn't mean that they have actually been the object of discrimination, much less racism." 2488. AceofSpades - 1/16/2001 9:52:52 PM 2489. concerned - 1/16/2001 9:56:15 PM Re. 2488 - 2490. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 9:57:55 PM 100% would have been nice or at least 99 and 44 100th percent. I watched Ashcroft this afternoon and he was quite convincing, but not totally, on his support for blacks and women. Wonder what they know that we don't that causes them to have serious reservations about him? 2491. AceofSpades - 1/16/2001 9:59:41 PM "Wonder what they know that we don't that causes them to have serious reservations about him?" 2492. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 10:00:29 PM Who knows, maybe the 26 black judges that Ashcroft voted for were little clones of JC Watts or Thomas Sowell, or Clarence Thomas?? 2493. AceofSpades - 1/16/2001 10:00:43 PM 2494. jexster - 1/16/2001 10:01:09 PM 2495. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 10:02:52 PM No, but if 95 percent call him a racist it at least makes me wonder. But you, as somebody who thinks the biggest discrimination problem in America is affirmative action, wouldn't wonder about it. Would you? 2496. AceofSpades - 1/16/2001 10:03:13 PM 2497. Cellar Door - 1/16/2001 10:03:23 PM This jusat in from my TT pal hamp simmons: 2498. Cellar Door - 1/16/2001 10:04:17 PM Also from hamp: 2499. Cellar Door - 1/16/2001 10:05:40 PM "Even if Ashcroft votes in favor of 26 of 27 black nominees, if a black lesbian asserts he's a racist, I believe it." 2500. Al D - 1/16/2001 10:10:03 PM Ashcroft appointed many blacks when he was Gov. and did much more that indicates he is no racist. It is all for naught with Liberals. To them Republican, Conservative, racist are all the same. It is utter nonsense, but it is easy to get Liberals to believe nonsense. 2501. jexster - 1/16/2001 10:11:21 PM A higher John Birch Society Rating than Jesse Fuckin Helms 2502. Cellar Door - 1/16/2001 10:13:37 PM 2503. concerned - 1/16/2001 10:15:09 PM Lefties need not be so afeared of Ashcroft. After all, as AG, he isn't susceptible to the widely demonstrated Leftist propensity to let their personal ideological tendencies override their legally prescribed duties as public servants. 2504. wonkers2 - 1/16/2001 10:23:32 PM Ashcroft will be confirmed and he will stir the sleeping beast and the GOP lead will be wiped out in 2002. Appointing him was Bush's dumbest move to date. 2505. concerned - 1/16/2001 10:25:56 PM Re. 2504 - 2506. jexster - 1/16/2001 10:30:30 PM Super toon CD!!!!! 2507. jexster - 1/16/2001 10:33:03 PM The left hardly fears Ashcroft...the whack job means mega bucks and mega recruitment for gays, minorities, womens groups, labor, and sane people.....in other words anyone to the left of Jesse Helms 2508. Al D - 1/16/2001 10:37:28 PM wonkers2 2509. joezan - 1/16/2001 10:37:40 PM 2510. Greystoke - 1/16/2001 11:31:02 PM In 2002, the Dems will have the White House? 2511. AceofSpades - 1/16/2001 11:41:20 PM Rumors Fly: Tabloids said to be readying expose of Jesse Jackson "love child." 2512. jexster - 1/16/2001 11:56:06 PM Ari Fliesher: Bush was elected to cut taxes 2513. JJBiener - 1/16/2001 11:59:28 PM Democratic McCarthyism is alive and well. 2514. Stumbo - 1/17/2001 12:00:14 AM Campaign finance reform, meanwhile, scored an impressive 89%. 2515. Stumbo - 1/17/2001 12:04:15 AM But as Aris go, I do prefer Ari Meyers. 2516. AceofSpades - 1/17/2001 12:04:48 AM Jexster: 2517. AceofSpades - 1/17/2001 12:07:10 AM 2518. joezan - 1/17/2001 12:14:34 AM 2519. AceofSpades - 1/17/2001 12:24:58 AM 2520. AceofSpades - 1/17/2001 12:41:30 AM 2521. robertjayb - 1/17/2001 12:50:38 AM . 2522. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 12:55:18 AM Ace - To Democrats 'racism' means whatever they want it to mean at the time. They are not bound by petty concerns like proper usage or consistency. It is simply a tool that they can repeat endlessly to defame someone who dares to disagree with their political views. 2523. Indiana Jones - 1/17/2001 2:02:15 AM Transcript of Ashcroft hearing 2524. va - 1/17/2001 4:16:34 AM conservative, rightwing republicans are the bulls in the china shop of democracy 2525. OhioSTOPAS - 1/17/2001 6:44:52 AM Message # 2519: More straw manning from Ace. 2526. ranheim - 1/17/2001 8:09:50 AM Is there anyone posting in this site that wants a smaller, less intusive, less powerful government in Wahington? Or am I the only one? I have been sending my tax money to those clowns in DC for 40 years. 2527. ycmeehan - 1/17/2001 8:12:45 AM Message # 2524 2528. Toenails - 1/17/2001 8:39:43 AM 2529. azazel - 1/17/2001 9:01:11 AM 2522: Of course, the GOP faithful would never think to use a term (say, "liberal", or "activist", or "liberal activist") to describe anyone that doesn't agree with their rhetoric. Both camps use this technique relentlessly, and to be frank, this "he said/she said" bickering has become tiresome - 2530. ycmeehan - 1/17/2001 9:12:33 AM Toenails, 2531. Toenails - 1/17/2001 9:22:57 AM 2532. Dubai Vol - 1/17/2001 9:25:35 AM ranheim, tell us what the Interstates were like 40 years ago. I'm sure you're much too principled to use that intrusive system. Only travel on state roads I'm sure. Oh wait, Washington sends billions to the states for those roads too. Toll roads and footpaths for you, huh? 2533. ycmeehan - 1/17/2001 9:40:40 AM azarel, 2534. bubbaette - 1/17/2001 9:47:03 AM Joezan 2535. cmboyce - 1/17/2001 10:07:10 AM Interesting conjunction of posts, those last by azazel and Dubai Vol. I agree heartily with both of them. While the plutocratic Republicrats don't offer much in the way of social policy, and piss away our money on corporate welfare, etc., we still do—out of the country's massive wealth—get pretty damn good government services, by and large. (Now, if only the schmucks could get better at delivering them to the people who need 'em most.) 2536. cmboyce - 1/17/2001 10:08:42 AM AND could stay the hell out of our private lives. 2537. ycmeehan - 1/17/2001 10:15:09 AM Toenails, 2538. Raskolnikov - 1/17/2001 10:18:08 AM I think the Dems are picking the wrong fight with Ashcroft. All Ashcroft has to do is what he has done, say that he will enforce laws he disagrees with, and come up with a plausible defense of some actions that won't be all that controversial with the public. 2539. Rosetta Stone - 1/17/2001 10:36:13 AM She did a great job in Colorado. The people, especially those who use energy to get to work or heat their homes, want her. 2540. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 10:41:33 AM 2541. lisajolie - 1/17/2001 10:49:26 AM The Democrats ought to ask Ashcroft if he believes abortion to be murder. 2542. wonkers2 - 1/17/2001 10:58:10 AM I think he's already on the record on that one. 2543. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 10:59:53 AM 2544. Toenails - 1/17/2001 11:03:28 AM 2545. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 11:08:07 AM ve - conservative, rightwing republicans are the bulls in the china shop of democracy 2546. Raskolnikov - 1/17/2001 11:16:48 AM "She did a great job in Colorado. The people, especially those who 2547. Dubai Vol - 1/17/2001 11:17:15 AM Ashcroft should and will be appointed. It wouldn't surprise me to see a near-unanimous vote for approval. The Democrats don't want to reject him, they are just taking the opportunity of the hearings to say "look what sort of person GWB is appointing." Face it, democrats are just a little too complacent over things like abortion rights,, responsible environmental stewardshipand freedom of religion, and don't appreciate how easily they could wind up living in a theocracratic car park, from sea to oily sea. (Apologies to George Carlin) 2548. ycmeehan - 1/17/2001 11:20:38 AM Judith, 2549. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 11:25:13 AM Vol - Face it, democrats are just a little too complacent over things like abortion rights,, responsible environmental stewardshipand freedom of religion, and don't appreciate how easily they could wind up living in a theocracratic car park, from sea to oily sea. 2550. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 11:27:59 AM 2551. Toenails - 1/17/2001 11:35:55 AM 2552. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 11:39:36 AM Judith - My point is that the sky isn't falling. Her fears are irrational and they are being fed by people who benefit politically. John Ashcroft is not going to pollute the oceans, pave the forests and turn the country into a theocracy. It would be like someone in '92 being afraid that Clinton would corrupt the office by taking illegal contributions and having sex with an intern in the Oval Office. 2553. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 11:40:47 AM Toe - 'Course, I guess Edward's making a fool out of himself isn't exactly breaking news. 2554. wonkers2 - 1/17/2001 11:42:49 AM He was quite eloquent, in my opinion. So were Leahy and Schumer. Ashcroft reminded me of Joe McCarthy, and Hatch had his usual "lean and hungry look." 2555. rubberducky - 1/17/2001 11:45:51 AM Re: Message # 2548, ycmeehan. 2556. bubbaette - 1/17/2001 11:49:39 AM John Ashcroft is not going to pollute the oceans, pave the forests and turn the country into a theocracy. It would be like someone in '92 being afraid that Clinton would corrupt the office by taking illegal contributions and having sex with an intern in the Oval Office. 2557. lisajolie - 1/17/2001 11:49:58 AM If Ashcroft is confirmed, does the margin of his confirmation matter? 2558. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 11:52:36 AM Bubbaette - That you would equate the two indicates some screwy priorities on your part. 2559. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 11:53:02 AM Lisa - No. 2560. CalGal - 1/17/2001 11:54:55 AM Rask, 2561. lisajolie - 1/17/2001 11:55:49 AM JJBiener 2562. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 11:58:45 AM CalGal - While inside the Beltway, most people have shrugged off the election and moved on, he said he picked up on a very real sense of outrage not just among "liberals" but Dems in general over what happened. 2563. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 12:02:57 PM 2564. concerned - 1/17/2001 12:04:50 PM And don't forget that the Federal payroll SHRANK by something like 300,000 over the last 8 years. If I'm not mistaken, it grew during the previous 12. 2565. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 12:06:10 PM Lisa - What is the confirmation is a matter of a handful of votes? Don't you think it puts some pressure on Ashcroft and Bush to moderate their agendas? 2566. concerned - 1/17/2001 12:08:06 PM Re. 2557 - 2567. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 12:10:11 PM 2568. concerned - 1/17/2001 12:12:03 PM Re. 2567 - 2569. rubberducky - 1/17/2001 12:12:20 PM Re: Message # 2561, lisajolie. 2570. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 12:17:28 PM Judith - You are asking with one breath for us to accept Bush and with the next, you continue to belabor Clinton. 2571. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 12:18:52 PM Judith - And yet, didn't I hear that crime has gone down in the past 8 years? 2572. concerned - 1/17/2001 12:20:05 PM Reno's most egregious act of malfeasance, IMO: 2573. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 12:25:48 PM 2574. concerned - 1/17/2001 12:29:30 PM Re. 2573 - 2575. ycmeehan - 1/17/2001 12:30:09 PM Message # 2551 Kennedy is trying to make what I believe is a valid point. Ashcroft has been totally consistent with his position re-automatic weapons and other army type gear. His position has been articulated over and over again that the Constitution provides that private militias have a perfect right to organize and arm themselves in such a manner so as to enable them to resist the forces of a tyrannical federal government. 2576. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 12:30:46 PM Judith - I'm amazed you 2 will even admit it happened on her watch. 2577. concerned - 1/17/2001 12:31:23 PM Another cause of the drop in crime is the welfare reform which Congress proposed several years ago. Because of this, more people are busy working than stealing. 2578. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 12:33:46 PM 2579. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 12:34:09 PM YC - Of course, there's nothing new in the world and the Fascists of Spain to Germany and for ever have overthrown democratically elected governments with impunity. 2580. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 12:36:54 PM Judith - It had never occurred to me that the crime wave was spurred by Baby Boomers in their prime. 2581. concerned - 1/17/2001 12:36:59 PM Finally, what would a corrupt bureaucratic hack like Reno esconced in Washington have to do with local law enforcement? There have been no new DoJ sponsored initiatives wrt enforcement and crime prevention under her watch. 2582. ycmeehan - 1/17/2001 12:41:00 PM JJ, 2583. azazel - 1/17/2001 12:41:13 PM In re: 2572 2584. concerned - 1/17/2001 12:42:08 PM An arguable case can even be made that it was Reno who lost Bore the election. If she had only let Elian Gonzalez's custody case work its way through the courts rather than preemptively send her INS stormtroopers to abduct him at gunpoint, she wouldn't have pissed off virtually every Cuban-American in Florida and caused thousands of them to vote for Bush who might have otherwise gone for Bore. 2585. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 12:43:27 PM 2586. concerned - 1/17/2001 12:44:11 PM Re. 2583 - 2587. Raskolnikov - 1/17/2001 12:45:43 PM And let's not forget abortion, given the recent study showing that a large percent of the drop in crime was a result of Roe v Wade. 2588. Cellar Door - 1/17/2001 12:46:26 PM 2589. jexster - 1/17/2001 12:54:07 PM 2590. concerned - 1/17/2001 12:55:53 PM Re. 2587 - 2591. Raskolnikov - 1/17/2001 1:02:04 PM "No doubt PP and other eugenicists are using precisely this argument 2592. concerned - 1/17/2001 1:04:12 PM Re. 2591 - 2593. azazel - 1/17/2001 1:15:16 PM in re: 2586 2594. concerned - 1/17/2001 1:22:36 PM re. 2593 - 2595. concerned - 1/17/2001 1:23:48 PM Azazel is a zero wrt doing anything about campaign finance wrongdoing or reform, by his/her own admission. 2596. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 1:28:10 PM 2597. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 1:29:48 PM azazel - haley barbour in hong kong harbor, 1996, $M "donation" - your spin, please? 2598. lisajolie - 1/17/2001 1:34:00 PM That was my point regarding abortion as murder. If Ashcroft believes abortion to be murder, how can he ignore murder as Attorney General? 2599. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 1:34:59 PM Judith - if he is a man of strong religious convictions but is willing to set them aside, just how strong are those convictions? 2600. concerned - 1/17/2001 1:35:17 PM Re. 2596 - 2601. lisajolie - 1/17/2001 1:38:20 PM It sounds pretty absolutist to me if you are against abortion, even in the case of rape and incest. 2602. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 1:42:02 PM 2603. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 1:42:55 PM Lisa - There is a difference between personal beliefs and public policy. I personally believe that abortion is wrong and that it takes the life of a human being. I don't believe that people should engage in violence in order to stop abortion since that is equally wrong. 2604. concerned - 1/17/2001 1:47:47 PM re. 2601 - 2605. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 1:51:13 PM 2606. lisajolie - 1/17/2001 1:51:45 PM I understand and appreciate your comments, JJ Biener. I would disagree in that if the Attorney General is willing to overlook murder as a matter of public policy, his convictions appear somewhat fuzzy. 2607. bbb - 1/17/2001 1:52:53 PM Howdy! What if Joe Lieberman were elected Vice President as far as the religion conviction goes? 2608. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 1:53:19 PM Judith - Byrd was Majority Leader when the Dems controlled the Senate. 2609. azazel - 1/17/2001 1:53:50 PM ir re 2595: Does the term "every" as in "every candidate and officeholder has culpability" confuse you? Your attempts to twist my remarks into a partisan debate notwithstanding, it is the campaign finance system which is corrupt, not one political party or the other - 2610. concerned - 1/17/2001 1:54:18 PM re. 2605 - 2611. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 1:55:19 PM 2612. concerned - 1/17/2001 1:55:47 PM re. 2609 - 2613. bbb - 1/17/2001 1:55:55 PM Democrats: Ashcroft OK Is Likely 2614. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 1:56:47 PM Lisa - I would disagree in that if the Attorney General is willing to overlook murder as a matter of public policy, his convictions appear somewhat fuzzy. 2615. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 1:57:36 PM 2616. lisajolie - 1/17/2001 2:12:00 PM It would not be a part of his job to try and overturn them. 2617. lisajolie - 1/17/2001 2:19:20 PM I am struck by Ashcroft's testimony regarding some of his earlier presidential campaign rhetoric. He appears to be disowning some of his previous views. 2618. JJBiener - 1/17/2001 2:32:51 PM Lisa - The real question is which issues that Attorney General would place his emphasis and which issues he might be content to overlook. 2619. JudithAtHome - 1/17/2001 2:37:27 PM 2620. lisajolie - 1/17/2001 2:43:54 PM This is essentially true, but this will have little or no effect issues like 2621. Rosetta Stone - 1/17/2001 2:57:42 PM Forget hetrosexual-actor Kevin Spacey. 2622. azazel - 1/17/2001 3:03:00 PM Abortion as a topic is merely grist for the mill, and is playing nicely into the hands of those directing the debate away issues such as the good senator's advocacy for the likes of Schering-Plough. 2623. robertjayb - 1/17/2001 3:42:31 PM . 2624. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/17/2001 4:18:16 PM 2625. concerned - 1/17/2001 7:29:06 PM 2626. concerned - 1/17/2001 7:34:52 PM Anyone hear the one about Monica L's love life recently? 2627. concerned - 1/17/2001 7:52:51 PM Speaking of love lives, what's this vicious smear I'm hearing about that the Reverend Jesse Jackson took a pregnant paramour to the WH during Clowntoon's impeachment? So, does JJJr. now have a new little sibling? Enquirer-ing minds want to know. 2628. concerned - 1/17/2001 8:12:48 PM Boy, what a horrible, awful thing to say about an upright, decent, honest, squeaky clean, unctuous, sanctimonious, self-righteous man of God like the Reverend Jackson who would never, no, never, contemplate for even a second, actually doing such an immoral, disgraceful thing. 2629. concerned - 1/17/2001 8:32:28 PM Hey, wait! Isn't the Reverend Jesse Jackson married? 2630. concerned - 1/17/2001 8:36:51 PM Excerpt: 2631. wonkers2 - 1/17/2001 8:45:42 PM Ashcroft's toughest question: Did you block Ambassador Hormel's confirmation as ambassador to Luxembourg because of his sexual orientation? Why did you do this after a majority of the Senate was in favor of approving him and after Luxembourg had indicated they supported the appointment? Why did you say that you felt he would not be an appropriate representative of the U.S.? Why did you refuse his request for an interview with you to discuss and attempt to resolve any issues you had with regard to his appointment? Why did you nor any member of his staff not even give him the courtesy of returning his telephone calls? I repeat did you put a "hold" on his appointment because he is gay? (From Senator Leahy) 2632. concerned - 1/17/2001 8:56:17 PM 'nother excerpt: 2633. azazel - 1/17/2001 9:08:24 PM in re 2631: ah yes, the old Texas two-step - amazing how someone with such integrity could find himself in such a position. You know about places of ill-repute like the University of Chicago, though - they're well known for consorting with unsavory types...like...well, John Ashcroft, for one... 2634. wonkers2 - 1/17/2001 9:22:09 PM Congresswoman Maxine Waters: "Ashcroft reinvented himself right before our eyes." Echoing Sens. Schumer and Feinstein. 2635. wonkers2 - 1/17/2001 9:25:07 PM What about ole Hyde the weenie, Bob Barr, Bob Livingston and, of course, the Late Great Newt Gingrich? Lefties hardly have a monopoly on concubines. 2636. concerned - 1/17/2001 9:29:50 PM Re. 2635 - 2637. joezan - 1/17/2001 11:18:47 PM 2638. concerned - 1/17/2001 11:23:36 PM Re. 2637 - 2639. joezan - 1/17/2001 11:28:05 PM 2640. CalGal - 1/17/2001 11:32:45 PM It's not just conservatives. It's a very weird place. 2641. concerned - 1/17/2001 11:32:51 PM Plus, I never mentioned Jackson by name in the thread. The only specific reference I made to a person was to the 'WH Rapist'. To a certain breed of ignorant Lefty moderator, doing so seems to result in instant censorship and banishment. 2642. bbb - 1/18/2001 12:00:05 AM Is TT dead again? 2643. bbb - 1/18/2001 12:02:00 AM Algore is moving to Virginia. 2644. concerned - 1/18/2001 12:03:14 AM Re. 2642 - 2645. CalGal - 1/18/2001 12:03:23 AM Don't think so. 2646. concerned - 1/18/2001 12:04:14 AM Re. 2644 - 2647. bbb - 1/18/2001 12:04:15 AM Can you connect TT now? 2648. concerned - 1/18/2001 12:06:39 AM Look what this Nolan knucklehead posted about the my thread that she yanked, while also banning my alias: 2649. concerned - 1/18/2001 12:08:00 AM Re. 2647 - 2650. concerned - 1/18/2001 12:17:22 AM Re. 2643 - 2651. Jonesatlaw - 1/18/2001 12:17:46 AM Wonkers- I think Ashcroft deserves a pass on some of the 'can you enforce the law' questions. Not every prosecutor thinks that every penalty the pinheads on the Hill come up with are good policies. Nevertheless they do their job as best they can. 2652. Rosetta Stone - 1/18/2001 12:19:19 AM No can connect to TT. But can to other parts of Salon. 2653. concerned - 1/18/2001 12:19:22 AM Jones - 2654. bbb - 1/18/2001 12:21:01 AM So TT is as dead as California tonight? 2655. CalGal - 1/18/2001 12:21:16 AM It is probably the DNS problem they had last time. 2656. concerned - 1/18/2001 12:21:16 AM Re. 2652 - 2657. concerned - 1/18/2001 12:22:16 AM Don't know what's with your ISPs but I'm in TT as I post. 2658. bbb - 1/18/2001 12:23:21 AM Has Ted Kennedy contracted the mad cow disease? 2659. bbb - 1/18/2001 12:24:48 AM It is probably the DNS problem they had last time. 2660. Rosetta Stone - 1/18/2001 12:25:14 AM It's okay, concerned. You can always get another moniker from TT. If I can do it, anyone can. I'm embarrassed to say I've gone through hundreds of them. 2661. bbb - 1/18/2001 12:25:27 AM Don't know what's with your ISPs but I'm in TT as I post. 2662. bbb - 1/18/2001 12:29:32 AM Sorry. No Such Address. 2663. Rosetta Stone - 1/18/2001 12:29:56 AM Too late. We're off to bed. Big day tomorrow. But if you see a Van Ronk later tatter, it's me. 2664. concerned - 1/18/2001 12:31:42 AM Re. 2663 - 2665. robertjayb - 1/18/2001 3:24:18 AM . 2666. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 3:34:24 AM 2667. CalGal - 1/18/2001 3:37:50 AM Gawd. 2668. OhioSTOPAS - 1/18/2001 6:43:27 AM As John Ashcroft's supporters insist over and over and over again that Ashcroft's political and religious views are not relevant because as Attorney General Ashcroft will put those beliefs aside and enforce all laws, one wants to ask why they want him confirmed so badly. Aren't there dozens of other former state attorney generals with equal expertise and a commitment to enforcing the law that would serve at least as well as Ashcroft? 2669. ycmeehan - 1/18/2001 7:51:55 AM I wonder if Ashcroft has now become a traitor to the Glorious Cause of the Confederacy by his statement yesterday that if he had been alive during the Civil War, he most likely would have been with Grant. My first impression was: to make a statement like that, he must really want the job more than life itself. 2670. azazel - 1/18/2001 8:37:30 AM In re 2669: One could surmise from the hearings these past few days that a lust for power has driven him to disavow his life-long positions on abortion rights, gun control, and the like. If he is willing to concede on these issues, issues he has advocated for his entire public life, what does this say about the strength of his character? And if he is simply saying whatever it takes to get confirmed, what does that say? 2671. ycmeehan - 1/18/2001 8:58:48 AM Maybe he has finally gotten religion and become legitimate? 2672. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 9:14:23 AM 2673. Dubai Vol - 1/18/2001 10:38:29 AM Not all Democrats like Jesse Jackson. I certainly don't. Never have, never will. If I can stop laughing long enough, I might post something coherent about his latest "issue." But it won't be soon-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! 2674. Wombat - 1/18/2001 10:40:42 AM Perhaps Al Sharpton has also gone astray. Is it too much to hope for? 2675. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 10:53:27 AM 2676. bbb - 1/18/2001 10:54:20 AM Master Money-Grubber 2677. bbb - 1/18/2001 10:58:15 AM ON CLINTON LEGACY: 2678. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 11:00:27 AM 2679. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:02:47 AM MORE ON CLINTON LEG-ACY: 2680. joezan - 1/18/2001 11:05:29 AM 2681. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:07:30 AM BYE BYE,CLINTON: 2682. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 11:17:51 AM 2683. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 11:18:45 AM 2684. Wombat - 1/18/2001 11:18:47 AM And he reads newspapers. 2685. glendajean - 1/18/2001 11:18:56 AM And that you have an aversion to linking. 2686. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:19:48 AM The Conclusion of Kelly's "Clinton Legacy" : 2687. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 11:21:05 AM 2688. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:25:44 AM 2689. joezan - 1/18/2001 11:27:05 AM 2690. Rosetta Stone - 1/18/2001 11:28:55 AM bbb: Do whatever you want. The enablers only bitch about linking/non-linking when they don't like what the article say. 2691. Indiana Jones - 1/18/2001 11:30:22 AM TT's deletions of the Jackson threads are hilarious. I especially like this title: 2692. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:34:20 AM 2693. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 11:34:58 AM 2694. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:40:22 AM LOL! 2695. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:41:04 AM Has Teddy Kennedy exploded yet? 2696. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 11:42:22 AM 2697. joezan - 1/18/2001 11:43:03 AM 2698. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:43:36 AM Inaugural Demonstrators Arrested 2699. rubberducky - 1/18/2001 11:47:28 AM bbb: 2700. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:48:51 AM FDA Considers Mad Cow Precautions 2701. joezan - 1/18/2001 11:50:11 AM 2702. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 11:50:59 AM 2703. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:51:27 AM 2704. CalGal - 1/18/2001 11:53:01 AM Anyone listening to the testimony? 2705. joezan - 1/18/2001 11:53:37 AM 2706. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 11:55:23 AM 2707. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:57:41 AM 2708. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 11:59:18 AM So Jessie Jackson had an affair and fathered a child? How shocked I am to here such news! I mean, really, aren't Democrats pillars of society, moral icons, and such - you know, following in the footsteps of their leader? 2709. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 12:00:36 PM I understand Clinton gave Jackson a phone call today and offered to come over and pray with him for healing. 2710. PsychProf - 1/18/2001 12:01:36 PM Kulligan...Jesse's behavior will cause a lot of pain for his family amd himself. I am unsure what politics have to do with it... 2711. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 12:06:45 PM Your right PP. Perhaps Current Events would have been a better place. As for the politics of the matter, doesn't Jackson wax a bit self righteous at times? Rings a bit hollow now. 2712. bbb - 1/18/2001 12:06:46 PM Links,Links,More Links Everywhere for Judith at House 2713. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 12:06:55 PM 2714. joezan - 1/18/2001 12:08:48 PM 2715. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 12:09:01 PM 2716. Fielding - 1/18/2001 12:09:31 PM "Perhaps Al Sharpton has also gone astray. Is it too much to hope for?" 2717. ycmeehan - 1/18/2001 12:09:59 PM ...aren't Democrats pillars of society, moral icons, and such - you know, following in the footsteps of their leader? 2718. PsychProf - 1/18/2001 12:17:03 PM Joe...ok...let me rephrase...not politics, but rather political ideology. In any case, I get no joy from his pain. 2719. Rosetta Stone - 1/18/2001 12:18:00 PM The Jesse Jackson/"Get out the Bushes! thread was mine, IJ. It will be back tonight, bubba willing.. 2720. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 12:18:04 PM 2721. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 12:18:24 PM Politics have plenty to do with it. Jackson shows up for all sorts of political disagreements, fights, etc., to lend his moral value to one side or the other. Now we have further evidence that he has no moral value. It's about equal to Sharpton declaring war on whites doing business in Harlem and having a follower drop in and kill a few of them a day or two later. And in Jackson's case we are talking about the guy who shows up for counseling of the president and immediate moral whitewashing. 2722. bubbaette - 1/18/2001 12:22:14 PM Folks who live in glass houses ought not throw stones, I've always heard. 2723. PsychProf - 1/18/2001 12:22:25 PM Autodummie...Jackson's hypocrisy is front and evident...he will pay a steep public price for it. So what's yer point? 2724. Rosetta Stone - 1/18/2001 12:24:04 PM That the Red Sox suck? 2725. Rosetta Stone - 1/18/2001 12:26:43 PM I'm told that Jesse Jackson's mistress is white. What an insult!!! Now he's in trouble. 2726. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 12:27:23 PM 2727. joezan - 1/18/2001 12:27:33 PM 2728. Indiana Jones - 1/18/2001 12:36:01 PM Fielding: I disagree with your comment above re Democrats and Sharpton. 2729. Indiana Jones - 1/18/2001 12:37:45 PM No, the BIG story will be Jackson's misuse of funds...and that will 2730. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 12:41:30 PM PsychoProf: 2731. joezan - 1/18/2001 12:44:28 PM 2732. joezan - 1/18/2001 12:46:30 PM 2733. Fielding - 1/18/2001 12:46:47 PM 2734. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 12:46:57 PM Judith, 2735. rubberducky - 1/18/2001 12:51:25 PM 2736. Fielding - 1/18/2001 12:54:10 PM 2737. lisajolie - 1/18/2001 1:01:06 PM Questions have been flying for a few years now, as 2738. joezan - 1/18/2001 1:08:03 PM 2739. Wombat - 1/18/2001 1:10:10 PM There have been questions about Jessie Jackson's finances since the days of Operation PUSH in Chicago. 2740. lisajolie - 1/18/2001 1:10:34 PM Joezan: 2741. bbb - 1/18/2001 1:10:37 PM 2742. joezan - 1/18/2001 1:12:03 PM 2743. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 1:13:36 PM Fielding, 2744. Wombat - 1/18/2001 1:13:37 PM Lisajolie: 2745. joezan - 1/18/2001 1:14:26 PM 2746. bbb - 1/18/2001 1:15:00 PM 2747. lisajolie - 1/18/2001 1:16:47 PM Joezan: 2748. azazel - 1/18/2001 1:16:55 PM Now, now...let's not 'trade paint' with the other side on who's selling out now - just because Colin & Dick, et al, have traded the influence they gained from public employment to be lackeys for corporations and amassed personal fortunes as a result doesn't mean that they're bad guys, or that they're any different from almost everyone else that has done time in that swamp known as DC. 2749. bbb - 1/18/2001 1:18:47 PM http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,95554,00.html 2750. joezan - 1/18/2001 1:24:18 PM 2751. joezan - 1/18/2001 1:25:21 PM 2752. bbb - 1/18/2001 1:29:44 PM Bush Urged To Limit Mideast Moves 2753. lisajolie - 1/18/2001 1:31:47 PM Besides promoting educational initiatives in inner cities, I'm not sure. 2754. bbb - 1/18/2001 1:34:41 PM Huh? 2755. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 1:34:53 PM 2756. bbb - 1/18/2001 1:36:45 PM .....not any more than Powell extorts money from companies. 2757. Fielding - 1/18/2001 1:38:01 PM 2758. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 1:38:35 PM 2759. bbb - 1/18/2001 1:40:45 PM Gore wants to charge $60,000-$80,000 per speech too. 2760. bbb - 1/18/2001 1:41:46 PM Smooth Sailing Seen for Thompson 2761. Fielding - 1/18/2001 1:43:47 PM 2762. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 1:44:01 PM 2763. joezan - 1/18/2001 1:44:13 PM 2764. robertjayb - 1/18/2001 1:45:09 PM . 2765. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 1:46:15 PM 2766. Wombat - 1/18/2001 1:48:31 PM Or he could speak in tongues. 2767. lisajolie - 1/18/2001 1:50:12 PM No need to name-call, Joezan. 2768. concerned - 1/18/2001 1:50:38 PM re. 2719 - 2769. lisajolie - 1/18/2001 1:50:41 PM No need to name-call, Joezan. 2770. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 1:50:53 PM 2771. bbb - 1/18/2001 1:53:22 PM Larry Flynt at TT ? 2772. concerned - 1/18/2001 1:53:49 PM Re. 2729 - 2773. lisajolie - 1/18/2001 1:53:57 PM Sorry. Did I do something wrong? 2774. joezan - 1/18/2001 1:54:49 PM 2775. joezan - 1/18/2001 1:56:17 PM 2776. bbb - 1/18/2001 1:57:09 PM Gore will charge $60,000-$80,000 a speech on " How to screw up a Presidential election BIG TIME". 2777. joezan - 1/18/2001 1:57:48 PM 2778. lisajolie - 1/18/2001 1:59:45 PM Joezan: 2779. bbb - 1/18/2001 2:00:50 PM Will John Ashcroft indict Ted Kennedy if Ted had another similar auto accident(Bridge over the Trouble Water) 2780. rubberducky - 1/18/2001 2:01:11 PM Re: Message # 2773, lisajolie. 2781. bbb - 1/18/2001 2:02:40 PM I seem to remember that Texaco's Human Resouces Department had a plan to prevent minority promotions. 2782. joezan - 1/18/2001 2:03:02 PM 2783. concerned - 1/18/2001 2:03:16 PM jelly beans 2784. rubberducky - 1/18/2001 2:04:34 PM joe 2785. Fielding - 1/18/2001 2:08:40 PM 2786. concerned - 1/18/2001 2:12:33 PM Re. 2785 - 2787. bbb - 1/18/2001 2:12:49 PM I seem to remember that Texaco's Human Resouces Department had a plan to prevent minority promotions....... 2788. concerned - 1/18/2001 2:14:00 PM What eight years of 'reinventing government' has resulted in: 2789. Jonesatlaw - 1/18/2001 2:15:32 PM Texaco's problem was more than a comment about jelly beans, it was that they had conspired to destroy evidence or to withhold it from civil discovery in a civil rights action concerning discrimination in hiring and promotion in the company. The racist comments were just icing on the cake. They were outed by an employee who tape recorded the meetings planning the illegal/fraudulant activites. 2790. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 2:16:02 PM 2791. joezan - 1/18/2001 2:17:10 PM 2792. concerned - 1/18/2001 2:17:25 PM Re. 2790 - 2793. bbb - 1/18/2001 2:38:53 PM Senate Committee Approves Powell 2794. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 2:39:10 PM #2715 2795. concerned - 1/18/2001 2:39:12 PM Bush gains another hundred over Bore in Collier County recount 2796. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 2:41:27 PM Politics in the New Millennium, Democratic Style: 2797. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 2:42:58 PM I recently read that Sharpton and Jackson had managed to get on opposing sides. One of them was attacking one of the fast food companies as racist, in Manhattan I believe, while the other one was already collecting "protection" money from the company. 2798. bbb - 1/18/2001 2:44:04 PM FDA Makes Moves Against Mad Cow 2799. bbb - 1/18/2001 2:46:56 PM When will the Ashcroft confirmation hearing end? 2800. CalGal - 1/18/2001 2:48:23 PM You can sleep with a whore, so long as you fight for the poor 2801. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 2:50:15 PM CalGal, 2802. bbb - 1/18/2001 2:50:49 PM California Hit by More Blackouts 2803. concerned - 1/18/2001 2:51:24 PM It's an open question whether any good that JJSr. accomplished balanced out the damage he has done. Encouraging disadvantaged groups to be self sufficient is fine. Harassing Corporations with discriminatory hiring practices probably does more good than otherwise. Such things as the Decatur debacle as well asl ying about and misrepresenting the nature of the 2000 election results is quite another thing, however. 2804. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 2:57:03 PM "Encouraging disadvantaged groups to be self sufficient is fine." 2805. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 2:59:48 PM 2806. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:01:17 PM http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/clinton/voices/freed.html 2807. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:01:52 PM 2808. CalGal - 1/18/2001 3:03:43 PM Yeah, I haven't got the details on that, either. 2809. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:05:17 PM Jesse Jackson must be very very rich to pay $10,000 per month child support costs... 2810. PsychProf - 1/18/2001 3:05:39 PM 2811. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:07:24 PM 2812. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:08:39 PM JAH 2813. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:09:34 PM 2814. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:10:37 PM 2815. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:12:45 PM JAH, 2816. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:13:34 PM JAH, 2817. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:15:36 PM 2818. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:16:33 PM 2819. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:18:02 PM Huh? 2820. concerned - 1/18/2001 3:18:48 PM Re. 2807 - 2821. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:23:10 PM 2822. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:24:34 PM Whose moving expense? 2823. CalGal - 1/18/2001 3:25:54 PM Concerned, 2824. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:28:12 PM 2825. concerned - 1/18/2001 3:29:03 PM Re. 2821 - 2826. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:29:47 PM Jackson said that he had provided financial supports to the child and the mother of the child........ 2827. concerned - 1/18/2001 3:30:35 PM Then there is the question as to why Rainbow/PUSH should be paying any relocation expenses whatsoever. Certainly not a career move here. 2828. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:33:37 PM 2829. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:42:43 PM http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/willgeorge/index.html 2830. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:43:49 PM http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/willgeorge/A44949-2001Jan10.html 2831. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:50:41 PM 2832. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:53:07 PM Clinton is not the worst president the republic has had, but he is the worst person ever to have been president. 2833. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:53:13 PM 2834. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:54:36 PM Should PUSH pay for ANY moving expense for Jesse Jackson's misstress? 2835. bbb - 1/18/2001 3:56:04 PM JAH, 2836. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:56:10 PM 2837. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 3:58:35 PM 2838. concerned - 1/18/2001 4:00:52 PM 2839. Indiana Jones - 1/18/2001 4:02:42 PM Fielding: 2840. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:02:47 PM From the WP link: 2841. janjon - 1/18/2001 4:03:11 PM George Will, of course, is a hypocrite as well. He judges much when he can in turn be judged much. 2842. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:04:21 PM Ted Kennedy has plenty of opportunity to make a fool of himself. 2843. PsychProf - 1/18/2001 4:04:30 PM Will is a baseball fan, in any case. 2844. PsychProf - 1/18/2001 4:05:47 PM My fav Ted line..."TedK has the election in his pocket...now if he could only find his pants"... 2845. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 4:07:11 PM 2846. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 4:07:44 PM 2847. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:08:47 PM It is axiomatic: Some people want public office in order to do something, others in order to be something. Clinton was the latter sort. Which is why he never seriously considered dealing with America's most serious policy problem, and why he was an unserious president. 2848. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 4:10:07 PM PP: 2849. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:10:24 PM Question: 2850. CalGal - 1/18/2001 4:11:22 PM Let me put it this way. He [Sharpton] is less representative of the Democrats than David Duke is of the Republicans. 2851. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 4:11:26 PM 2852. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:12:04 PM Will Ashcroft look into Algore's "iced tea" fiasco? 2853. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 4:14:00 PM 2854. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:14:01 PM Will Ashcroft look into Algore's secretive Russian weapon deals and agreements? 2855. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:14:52 PM 2851, 2856. janjon - 1/18/2001 4:18:15 PM Judith - its just more of the same. Ted raises issue after issue about Ashcroft and the boys just try to muddy the waters by insinuating that it must be at least in large part because he fears what Ashcroft will try to do as A.G. about either him or his nephew. Rubbish is the kindest word I can find for it. 2857. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:18:24 PM G.W. Bush to Ted Kennedy : 2858. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 4:23:51 PM 2859. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:28:04 PM 2853, 2860. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 4:31:42 PM 2861. CalGal - 1/18/2001 4:33:05 PM My god, some woman from what must surely be Up With People is desecrating the National Anthem. 2862. janjon - 1/18/2001 4:33:14 PM Thanks for telling us that Lee had been long dead in 1975. 2863. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:33:42 PM Deadlock in Northern Ireland 2864. Fielding - 1/18/2001 4:36:51 PM 2865. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 4:37:26 PM 2866. Fielding - 1/18/2001 4:40:33 PM 2867. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:41:11 PM Who is going to the protest rally in Washington D.C.? 2868. janjon - 1/18/2001 4:45:18 PM I am in fact in D.C. as I write, but I am not going to a protest rally. Bigger and longer term fish to fry. 2869. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 4:45:36 PM Homely Judith 2870. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 4:45:39 PM 2871. Fielding - 1/18/2001 4:46:41 PM 2872. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 4:47:02 PM And $40k is an obscene amount to move someone, unless of course the person if FILTHY rich, which I would assume the mistress of the Right Honorable Reverend Jackson is. 2873. janjon - 1/18/2001 4:47:28 PM I hope you know how to hold your breath for a reallllly long time, Ace. 2874. janjon - 1/18/2001 4:48:33 PM Fielding - the short answer is that this is a time where the so-called "winner" didn't. He was given the golden ring. 2875. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:51:15 PM Ace, 2876. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:52:23 PM 2874, 2877. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 4:52:38 PM Judith what sorta bad things is George Will hiding, as you insinuate? 2878. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 4:53:54 PM #2870 is classic if true. 2879. janjon - 1/18/2001 4:55:37 PM bbb - although you do seem to be someone of limited range, don't you think you are overdoing it with the "sore and sour" bon mot? 2880. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:56:27 PM Commitee Approves Energy Nominee 2881. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/2001 4:58:37 PM "Abraham, 48, grandson of Lebanese immigrants, is expected to get easy approval to head the Energy Department, which he twice tried to have eliminated in the late 1990s." 2882. bbb - 1/18/2001 4:59:16 PM Dems, 2883. janjon - 1/18/2001 5:01:11 PM bbb - (psst. - we really DO want a couple or three TRUE BELIEVERS in that cabinet.) 2884. Fielding - 1/18/2001 5:02:02 PM 2885. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:02:41 PM G.W. Bush to Ted Kennedy : 2886. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:06:15 PM Bush Team Quiet on Power Crisis 2887. janjon - 1/18/2001 5:10:08 PM Oh, I don't disagree with you about the inanity of protest rallys, Fielding. Far from it. 2888. Fielding - 1/18/2001 5:11:58 PM 2889. CalGal - 1/18/2001 5:16:35 PM I always thought that protests were designed for some kind of tangible goal, not for blowing off steam. 2890. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 5:19:38 PM 2891. janjon - 1/18/2001 5:20:19 PM one of the problems with demonstrations, indeed, is that it can make a lot of participants just "feel good" and that they've done their bit on whatever the issue is. OTOH, they can serve to attract peoples' attention with at least some remaining involved in whatever the cause. 2892. Fielding - 1/18/2001 5:20:50 PM 2893. CalGal - 1/18/2001 5:22:17 PM In recent years, one of the most effective rallies was the abortion rights one in the early 90s. It got far less leadup hoopla than the gun control one and the million man march, but politicos were pretty much flabbergasted at the numbers and it really did start to change the pendulum back towards the center. 2894. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:22:19 PM Travel plan for Alec Baldwin? 2895. joezan - 1/18/2001 5:27:33 PM 2805. JudithAtHome - 1/18/01 2:59:48 PM 2896. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:31:57 PM JAH had Texaco Premium for coffee-break. 2897. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 5:32:48 PM 2898. azazel - 1/18/2001 5:35:11 PM in re 2895: chili with beans apparently, judging from the befouled air you've been introducing into this forum - do us a favor, JAH, quit pulling his finger!!! 2899. concerned - 1/18/2001 5:35:16 PM Re. 2857 - 2900. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 5:36:03 PM 2901. concerned - 1/18/2001 5:36:51 PM Chappaquiddick 2902. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:38:09 PM 2899, 2903. joezan - 1/18/2001 5:38:40 PM Judith: 2904. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:39:24 PM When do they plan to end the Ashcroft show? 2905. concerned - 1/18/2001 5:40:25 PM Re. 2888 - 2906. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:41:11 PM http://www.newsday.com/ap/topnews/ap712.htm 2907. concerned - 1/18/2001 5:41:19 PM Re. 2904 - 2908. JudithAtHome - 1/18/2001 5:41:22 PM 2909. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:43:07 PM Jackson's staff said he has not yet decided whether he will attend a rally Saturday in Florida to protest voting irregularities that he says disenfranchised blacks during the presidential election. 2910. concerned - 1/18/2001 5:44:41 PM Re. 2870 - 2911. joezan - 1/18/2001 5:45:08 PM 2912. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:47:22 PM In 1998, Jackson, once a Democratic presidential candidate himself, was a steadfast presence at President Clinton's side as the president struggled with the disclosure of his affair with Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment proceedings that followed. He went to the White House to pray with Clinton's family on a grim weekend in August that year, as Clinton admitted the truth to his wife and daughter and, in a televised speech, to the nation. 2913. joezan - 1/18/2001 5:49:07 PM 2914. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 5:49:29 PM "Jackson's staff said..." 2915. joezan - 1/18/2001 5:50:48 PM 2916. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:52:25 PM Did Larry Flynt expose JJ's scandal? 2917. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:54:52 PM Clinton Approves Appliance Standards 2918. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:58:31 PM Let's compare GWB's Cabinets with Clinton's : 2919. bbb - 1/18/2001 5:59:57 PM Let's compare GWB's Cabinets with Clinton's : 2920. bbb - 1/18/2001 6:01:27 PM Let's compare GWB's Cabinets with Clinton's : 2921. bbb - 1/18/2001 6:03:02 PM Let's compare GWB's Cabinets with Clinton's 2922. bbb - 1/18/2001 6:04:36 PM Let's compare GWB's Cabinets with Clinton's 2923. concerned - 1/18/2001 6:06:54 PM Can you imagine? An administration that is actually more ethical than the so-called 'most ethical administration in history'. Coming to a government near you. 2924. bbb - 1/18/2001 6:08:00 PM Let's compare GWB's Cabinets with Clinton's 2925. bbb - 1/18/2001 6:09:22 PM Let's compare GWB's Cabinets with Clinton's 2926. bbb - 1/18/2001 6:10:54 PM Let's compare GWB's Cabinets with Clinton's 2927. concerned - 1/18/2001 6:12:13 PM Re. 2925 - 2928. bbb - 1/18/2001 6:13:38 PM Democrats Ask Ray To Close Shop 2929. concerned - 1/18/2001 6:25:51 PM Re. 2928 - 2930. Cellar Door - 1/18/2001 6:31:28 PM Only the Death Penality will suffice. Right, connie? 2931. concerned - 1/18/2001 6:34:52 PM Besides, Ray is a Democrat! 2932. concerned - 1/18/2001 6:35:41 PM Oh, hi, cellar door. Didn't see you standing there. Honest! 2933. Fielding - 1/18/2001 6:43:09 PM 2934. Cellar Door - 1/18/2001 6:45:04 PM How should Clinton be executed, connie? 2935. concerned - 1/18/2001 6:49:06 PM re. 2933 - 2936. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 7:20:10 PM Two impressive witnesses against Ashcroft. 2937. Al D - 1/18/2001 7:20:41 PM 2914 2938. concerned - 1/18/2001 7:22:07 PM Rice was followed by a .... 2939. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 7:22:56 PM Thanks, Al, glad you liked it. 2940. concerned - 1/18/2001 7:25:59 PM Advice to people in California: Now's the time to stock up on your photovoltaic cell arrays and wind power generators. Then you can laugh: "Rolling blackouts? No prob." 2941. CalGal - 1/18/2001 7:28:38 PM Wonkers, of course, is one of those assholes who thinks it's okay to call black people "lawn jockeys" if they are Republicans. 2942. concerned - 1/18/2001 7:30:59 PM Hi, CalGal - 2943. Al D - 1/18/2001 7:33:16 PM wonkers2 2944. concerned - 1/18/2001 7:38:32 PM Wrt the new DOE appliance energy standards that Clowntoon just approved, it's sheer good luck that the new 0.8 gallon toilet and the 2.5 gallon bathtub standards inadvertently wound up in the shredding room where they were busily destroying DoJ and WH records and FBI files. 2945. concerned - 1/18/2001 7:51:52 PM More seriously though, I think people like me who are (going to) well and septic should be totally exempt from these high cost&low performance, er, 'high' efficiency standards. After all, the water I use goes right back into the water table. 2946. Al D - 1/18/2001 7:56:39 PM concerned 2947. concerned - 1/18/2001 7:58:51 PM Re. 2946 - 2948. concerned - 1/18/2001 8:57:29 PM A netscape poll is asking people to rate the WH Rapist's presidency on a grade scale A-F. 2949. concerned - 1/18/2001 8:59:02 PM or: would've found 2950. concerned - 1/18/2001 9:13:00 PM 2951. concerned - 1/18/2001 9:16:56 PM THE excerpt: 2952. azazel - 1/18/2001 9:21:07 PM in re 2947: rest assured, there will be no need to worry about any of those silly environmental regulations for at least the next four years - we'll be back to rivers on fire and slice-able, Houston-like air in no time... 2953. concerned - 1/18/2001 9:21:12 PM Here's a fun game: 2954. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 9:30:53 PM And you, CalGal, are a smartass, white racist suburbanite techie with shallow intellectual pretensions. 2955. concerned - 1/18/2001 9:32:54 PM Re. 2952 - 2956. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 9:33:05 PM Al, I made a joke not a mistake. And my recollection is that the point was made by Senator Leahy. I could be mistaken. Whoever made it is not important. It is a true and valid point. 2957. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 9:37:25 PM 2958. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 9:39:07 PM Ace, no thanks. They are your true colors, not mine. I'll stick with the American flag, thank you very much. 2959. joezan - 1/18/2001 9:39:36 PM 2960. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 9:42:13 PM 2961. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 9:43:34 PM Wonkers: 2962. concerned - 1/18/2001 9:44:04 PM Well, now that we know what a Lothario JJSr. is, when he was exhorting people in front of the USSC a month ago to remember 'Selma', was he referring to another one of his conquests? 2963. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 9:45:19 PM 2964. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 9:48:32 PM So what? I'm not a critic of Robert E. Lee. I give him credit for being a great general and for doing what he thought was right. That was in 1862. I won't extend the same courtesy to Ashcroft and you appologists for him in this forum. He is beyond the pale of civilized Americans and so are you. 2965. CalGal - 1/18/2001 9:51:13 PM Concerned, 2966. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 9:53:50 PM I am personally acquainted with one of the oreos who testified today. He is an Uncle Tom lawn jockey. He was one of the five percent who voted for Ashcroft and who probably agrees that Judge White is soft on crime and pro criminal, lies spread by Senator Ashcroft. 2967. concerned - 1/18/2001 9:54:17 PM Oh, wait. JJSr. told voters in PBC in November about Selma. And he was telling people in Decatur that Selma was there, if only in spirit. And awhile before that, in Riverside, California, Selma was there again for JJSr. 2968. concerned - 1/18/2001 9:55:03 PM re. 2966 - 2969. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 9:56:08 PM 2970. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 9:59:53 PM You didn't respond the other day when I pointed out what I believed to be deficiencies in your perspective on race and college admissions. Now you wait and start name calling which is not my practice. As you well know, lawn jockey is a term used by many blacks as shorthand for people like Thomas, Sowell and others who have benefited from affirmative action, gotten a good education and then joined the GOP and become advocates against policies benefiting their own race and other disadvantaged people in this country. 2971. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 10:02:08 PM Ace, I don't believe I said anything one way or the other about Ashcroft calling Lee a patriot. But now that you mention it, it was probably poor judgment, depending on the context which I assume was injecting race into his campaign against Carnahan. I wasn't even aware he said it. That is the least of my objections to Ashcroft. 2972. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:04:15 PM I think JJSr. ought to stop pussyfooting around and just start calling the president-elect Dred 'W'. Scott. 2973. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 10:06:22 PM "As you well know, lawn jockey is a term used by many blacks as shorthand for people like Thomas, Sowell and others who have benefited from affirmative action, gotten a good education and then joined the GOP and become advocates against policies benefiting their own race and other disadvantaged people in this country..." 2974. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:07:42 PM Dred 'W' Scott with his Nazi Cabinet and the USSC Wonder Kangaroos. There. If I can say it, so can you Lefties. Go for it. 2975. CalGal - 1/18/2001 10:08:15 PM I most certainly did respond to you. 2976. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 10:10:52 PM 2977. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 10:12:44 PM Cal, again you prove that on race you just don't get it. 2978. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 10:15:16 PM Cellar, where are you when we need you? Could you please help sort this out? 2979. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:15:55 PM JJSr. is definitely on the Lefty plantation. Not one of the Limousine Left masters out on the front porch sipping mint juleps. He's out cracking the whip on the cotton pickers for them. 2980. CalGal - 1/18/2001 10:17:48 PM hahahaha! Oh, sure, if Cellar calls someone a lawn jockey, it's okay. Right. 2981. Al D - 1/18/2001 10:22:00 PM wonkers2 2982. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 10:22:36 PM 2983. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 10:23:26 PM Sure, it's okay if it's true as in the case of the aforementioned African Americans who are supporting Ashcroft. It merely means that they are in the 5% not the 95%. It also carries a connotation of opportunism, i.e., taking advantage of the GOP's desires to create an illusion of inclusiveness. However, I am willing to give Bush credit for wanting to do more than create an illusion. I accept his sincerity on the issue. But he unfortunately is stuck with having to appease some rather unsavory supporters in his party. 2984. Indiana Jones - 1/18/2001 10:24:02 PM Hume: There is a belief among many Dems that your election was not legitimate, that you were selected not elected President. And therefore you are not entitled to nominate such nominees of such controversial views as Gale Norton and John Ashcroft. How do you react to that? 2985. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:26:33 PM Re. 2983 - 2986. Al D - 1/18/2001 10:26:57 PM Ace 2987. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:27:49 PM A great deal of resistance. And major obstacles. 2988. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 10:28:59 PM Ace, we are all free to use whatever terms that we are comfortable with. You seem to be freer than most with various uncomplimentary racial and religious slurs. I can only hope you are only indulging in sick humor. By the way, I don't ever recall revealing my race in this forum, not that it matters one way or the other. 2989. Indiana Jones - 1/18/2001 10:30:17 PM wonkers: I hope you are black, but I don't think so. 2990. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:31:18 PM I'm blacker than Wonkers. 2991. jonesatlaw - 1/18/2001 10:35:15 PM Concerned- Not only are you blacker than Wonkers, you're thick as a brick. 2992. jonesatlaw - 1/18/2001 10:35:56 PM I am racing for a millenial. 2993. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 10:36:15 PM 2994. CalGal - 1/18/2001 10:36:24 PM It sneaks upon us... 2995. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:36:27 PM You know something, Jones? You're a regular Boy Scout with the helpful comments. 2996. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:36:49 PM Y3K 2997. jonesatlaw - 1/18/2001 10:36:52 PM But I think I am sure to be beaten out with this doorstop of a a machine that I have at home. 2998. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 10:37:00 PM 2999. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 10:37:13 PM now 3000. jonesatlaw - 1/18/2001 10:37:17 PM Now? 3001. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 10:37:23 PM nw 3002. CalGal - 1/18/2001 10:38:07 PM Wonkers, 3003. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 10:38:35 PM Brit Hume is full of shit as usual. I haven't heard a single Democrat say that Bush isn't entitled to nominate whomever he pleases. He is President and obviously entitled to nominate anyone. And the Democrats and other groups are perfectly entitled to raise all the questions and objections they wish. Has anyone noticed that the Dems and other groups aren't objecting at all to most of Bush's nominees. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, both left-middle Democrats were quick to support Spencer Abraham. Powell came through unscathed with a unanimous vote by the Foreign Affairs committee. And the others, except for Ashcroft and Norton, will all be reported out and approved by big margins of Democrats and Republicans. That tells me that Bush may have erred in picking Ashcroft and Norton. He stirred up a big hornet's nest, completely unnecessarily. I wonder if he knew how bad Ashcroft really is, and whether if he had it to do over again he wouldn't pick somebody else. Spending political capital unnecessarily on such a far out turkey may well have been a big mistake. 3004. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:38:36 PM Oops. Here's an odd but interesting theory (not mine!). The Demorats trashed Jesse Jackson because he failed to provide the promised civil unrest in Florida and the Rev. Al Sharpton is Hilliary's favored one. 3005. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 10:38:48 PM Ah, Jessie, we hardly knew you before you were gone. 3006. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 10:41:16 PM Please. Your every post reeks of earnest righteous "I walked with Martin" white guy. 3007. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:41:59 PM Re. 3003 - 3008. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 10:44:58 PM Cal, if so, I make no apologies for it. It may or may not be true. I do have a lifetime of experience in several parts of the country and several different capacities, trying to deal constructively with racial issues. I have devoted a fair amount of time and thought to it. 3009. jonesatlaw - 1/18/2001 10:46:03 PM Let's see - didn't most of the really bad pollution begin occurring in the '60's? I lived in LA until late '68 and you could never see the San Bernardino Mountains because of all the smog then. 3010. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 10:47:09 PM concerned: 3011. CalGal - 1/18/2001 10:48:14 PM Wonkers, 3012. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:48:34 PM re. 3009 - 3013. joezan - 1/18/2001 10:48:50 PM 3014. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:51:50 PM Re. 3010 - 3015. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 10:52:14 PM Cal, you resort to insults when you can't think of anything else to say. Why don't you try growing up? You have been bantering with the likes of Ace for too long. I am not Ace. And I don't enjoy exchanging insults. If you want to debate a point with me do it but let's argue about the issues, not over who is the bigger asshole. I didn't start out in that vein. You did. 3016. CalGal - 1/18/2001 10:55:59 PM Wonkers, 3017. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 10:56:11 PM "If you want to debate a point with me do it but let's argue about the issues, not over who is the bigger asshole." 3018. concerned - 1/18/2001 10:57:57 PM Well, it seems we've had two types of Republican presidents over the last thirty years or so, more or less equally divided between those who were shot at and those who weren't. 3019. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 11:02:39 PM Sorry, Ace, I don't consider lawn jockey or oreo or Uncle Tom racial slurs, in contrast to may others you are in the habit of using. And somebody other than you will have to explain to me why they are. They are insults to blacks whose views are viewed by the majority of blacks as inimical to their interests, no more no less. 3020. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 11:04:33 PM 3021. Rosetta Stone - 1/18/2001 11:08:22 PM Time for commando Gordon Bok to slide back to the TT political battlefield to come up with three midnight threads before bed. 3022. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 11:09:29 PM Gee, I don't know how long it has been since I met a caucasian lawn jockey, oreo, or uncle Tom. When was the the last time you met one, wonkers. Now, these names have nothing to do with race, or race baiting, do they? 3023. concerned - 1/18/2001 11:10:49 PM Re. 3021 - 3024. Rosetta Stone - 1/18/2001 11:11:06 PM Shoot, TT is down for maintenance. Okay, now I backtrack a hundred posts to find out what you're talking about. 3025. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 11:11:18 PM Cal, pointing out that comments are assinine doesn't get it. Try explaining why you feel the way you do. Your feelings aren't as significant to others as some kind of an explanation, however lame it might be. 3026. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 11:13:41 PM Jexster and Wonkers are of the opinion that it is ok to make racist comments so long as the receiver is harbors the wrong political opinions. This is the way to keep blacks on the democratic plantation of accepted opinion. It doesn't apply to non blacks, and they don't apply it to non blacks, because they are bigots. 3027. concerned - 1/18/2001 11:21:01 PM It's time for......a Clowntoon joke: 3028. robertjayb - 1/18/2001 11:21:24 PM 3029. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 11:21:58 PM Uncle Tom. An Negro who is held to be humiliatingly subservient or deferential to whites. [After the Negro slave in "Uncle Tom's Cabin (1851-52, novel by Harriet Beecher Stowe.] 3030. concerned - 1/18/2001 11:22:45 PM Yeah, but Reagan averaged 59% for the entirety of his two terms. The Clowntoonian legacy falls a bit short of that. 3031. concerned - 1/18/2001 11:29:29 PM Re. 3029 - 3032. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 11:35:21 PM nigger.n. (taboo)l. TABOO OFFENSIVE TERM A HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TABOO TERM FOR A BLACK PERSON. 2. tABOO OFFENSIVE TERM a highly offensive taboo term for a dark-skinned person 3033. concerned - 1/18/2001 11:39:13 PM There's clearly a racist subcurrent in using the term 'Uncle Tom', since it perpetuates a reflexive 'us vs. them' attitude which is regularly manipulated by demagogues to the social disadvantage of those who buy into it. 3034. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 11:42:08 PM Uncle Tom. n 1: A pious and faithful, elderly Negro slave in the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe 2: a black eager to win the approval of whites and willing to cooperate with them 3035. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 11:43:54 PM 3036. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 11:49:00 PM Well, I suppose any criticism of blacks by whites or vice versa could be called a racist subcurrent. But that's a bit too PC for me. I haven't fallen into the trap of hesitating to criticize blacks that I disagree with. Uncle Tom is a perfectly acceptable way to describe many, not all, black conservatives or Republicans. It is perfectly accurate to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom, but I would not apply that term to Powell or the late Senator Brooke from Massachusetts or to Lowell Perry, U of M All-American, Republican and VP of Ford Motor Company who died last week. 3037. rubberducky - 1/18/2001 11:49:39 PM Wonkers: 3038. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 11:50:06 PM "Well, I suppose any criticism of blacks by whites or vice versa could be called a racist subcurrent. But that's a bit too PC for me." 3039. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 11:50:31 PM A slur used only on blacks, even if used on some subset that the speaker has determined can be slurred with impunity within his onw leftist community, is by definition a racist slur. If you mean no racism, wonkers, why don't you just call them politically incorrect blacks? 3040. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 11:51:05 PM 3041. rubberducky - 1/18/2001 11:51:25 PM 3042. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:53:25 PM WOW ! Over the top of 3000 posts? 3043. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:54:02 PM Is Salon TT dead again? 3044. AceofSpades - 1/18/2001 11:55:21 PM 3045. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 11:56:31 PM rubberducky, That's your privilege and thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I guess I could have gone through the circumlocution of explaining that I think that many of the blacks that testified for Ashcroft are opportunists/apologists for someone who has advocated policies contrary to the interests of the majority of African Americans. Uncle Tom or lawn jockey is simply short hand for that. I am sure they would find it insulting. But I feel I have a perfect right to insult any one I please without being called a racist. 3046. Autodaffy - 1/18/2001 11:57:05 PM Yes, and Nazi memorabilia are also for sale on line. 3047. bbb - 1/18/2001 11:57:20 PM FBI Ends Los Alamos Spy Probe 3048. wonkers2 - 1/18/2001 11:58:24 PM White people in Grosse Pointe still have them by their driveway entrances. (Not very many.) 3049. AceofSpades - 1/19/2001 12:00:14 AM "My assumption is that it is synonymous with Uncle Tom." 3050. rubberducky - 1/19/2001 12:00:21 AM wonkers 3051. Autodaffy - 1/19/2001 12:00:49 AM I thought blacks who sucked up to the white establishment were called Democrats. 3052. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:04:31 AM No, spic is the equivalent of nigger for Hispanics. I agree it is unacceptable in a way that Uncle Tom is not. You are just getting too PC for me. Uncle Tom is an accurate, commonly used term for blacks who suck up to the white establishment in order to advance themselves to the detriment of the majority of African Americans. 3053. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:07:03 AM Sorry, Ace, it's not. I would never use the term you just included in you post. It is a highly offensive completely racist term, like many others you seem to enjoy using in this forum. 3054. Autodaffy - 1/19/2001 12:12:26 AM Uncle Tom is a term, like nigger, that is used sometimes by blacks to describe one another. I have never heard a white use it publicly to describe a black, and I suspect that the politician who did so, for example, would be out of a job in about two seconds. Not even the enforcers of the NAACP use such terminology. It is in fact, a derogation appyling only to blacks. It is racist in all situations. 3055. bbb - 1/19/2001 12:15:18 AM 3056. bbb - 1/19/2001 12:21:30 AM 3057. joezan - 1/19/2001 12:37:29 AM 3058. Stumbo - 1/19/2001 12:44:04 AM bbb: 3059. Indiana Jones - 1/19/2001 12:50:54 AM Stumbo: bbb is TableTalk's andy, and not a regular here (though he did show up once briefly back when Niner ran the thread, and IIRC under the name andy). This is how he always posts, but he doesn't have jexster's "vocabulary." 3060. joezan - 1/19/2001 12:57:51 AM 3061. Stumbo - 1/19/2001 1:15:06 AM IJ: 3062. Al D - 1/19/2001 2:53:02 AM Ace 3063. Al D - 1/19/2001 3:12:22 AM This Mote is a strange place. I've been gone for several hours, great dinner on spring rolls we made ourselves, very mod. Great Liberal friends who keep up with these trends. But just above is a post I made hours ago. Go figure. 3064. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 8:09:07 AM Yes, you are, Al. 3065. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 8:24:15 AM EUNUCHS OPERATING SYSTEM (Slate on line) 3066. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 8:31:11 AM 3067. azazel - 1/19/2001 9:19:09 AM WASHINGTON, DC--Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over." 3068. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 9:25:49 AM wonkers 3069. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 9:30:21 AM 3070. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 9:32:05 AM Juditha 3071. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 9:33:24 AM 3072. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 9:40:34 AM 3073. jonesatlaw - 1/19/2001 9:43:37 AM Speaking of lawn jockeys, there was a motel in a Nebraska town which had a number of lawn jockeys holding a chain as a fence and lawn decoration. Apparently someone pointed out that they might be considered offensive, because one day they had all been repainted caucasian. 3074. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 9:53:37 AM One of the more striking undercurrents in Judge White's testimony was his obvious struggle to maintain some dignity in the face of unctuous Democratic condescension ("we are so sorrrrrrrrry for what happened to you . . . Could you please call Senator Ashcroft a racist?") and Republican dissembling to somehow transform Ashcroft's nix of the White nomination from a politically calculated hit to highlight Ashcroft's commitment to the death penalty to a simple matter of disagreement. 3075. glendajean - 1/19/2001 9:56:04 AM Well, it will probably on be a made-for-tv movie. These things rarely get made into feature films. 3076. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 10:01:56 AM Gosh, Niner. 3077. CalGal - 1/19/2001 10:02:05 AM I thought White did well, but I didn't see all the Dems trying to present it as racism. It is possible that they didn't think they needed to, that blacks would see any opposition as racist. I did see the Republicans trying to present it as a simple disagreement, but that attempt came with the guy who prosecuted the case later on. 3078. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 10:04:06 AM Jade 3079. glendajean - 1/19/2001 10:08:12 AM Cal -- here's how today's New York Times described it: 3080. CalGal - 1/19/2001 10:12:55 AM Although now that I think of it, the Republicans were actually trying to show that it wasn't disagreement, that White had simply been wrong. 3081. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 10:14:03 AM The Repug senators (what a collection) were the ones asking White if he thought Ashcroft was a racist. White said no. 3082. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 10:16:53 AM 3083. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 10:19:43 AM FU, Why not explain why you disagree instead of going off ad hominem? 3084. CalGal - 1/19/2001 10:20:11 AM While they don't have the votes to reject Ashcroft, they should have made Ashcroft leave these confirmation hearings on a litter. 3085. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 10:20:31 AM Interestingly, Sessions was rejected by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciaru Committee for a federal judgeship in Alabama prior to his election. It may have been the underlying action for his statement to Judge White, "I agree with you that this gaggle of blow-hards sitting in this Senate are not particularly good at making these decisions". 3086. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 10:23:43 AM Uncle Wonkers 3087. glendajean - 1/19/2001 10:26:11 AM Francis -- I didn't know that about Sessions. 3088. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 10:26:59 AM I agree that abortion was where the most points were scored against Ashcroft, thanks to the witnesses. 3089. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 10:29:29 AM glenda 3090. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 10:30:54 AM Jade 3091. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 10:37:24 AM Niner, we both know the motivation behind Ashcroft's smear of White. The Repug senators also know it. 3092. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 10:39:01 AM Jade 3093. rubberducky - 1/19/2001 10:39:14 AM Re: Message # 3081, Jadegold1. 3094. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 10:39:43 AM 3095. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 10:46:11 AM rubberducky, 3096. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 10:55:14 AM You're so right Jade. There's a Republican in the White House, yet J.J., connie, Francis, Rosie, Indy et.al. are positively roiling in misery. Can't they just relax and learn to shake their bon-bon like Dubbya? 3097. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 10:59:32 AM You must understand that Snippy was in a deep, deep funk when Ricky Martin tried to get him to dance, CellarDoor. My sources said that Laura had to remind him to smile every other minute. 3098. jexster - 1/19/2001 11:00:20 AM "I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed tofailure."-- Interview with the Associated Press, Jan. 18, 2001 (Thanks to M. Bateman) 3099. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 11:00:33 AM Logically following the argument, what kind of a moron loses to chimp? 3100. azazel - 1/19/2001 11:03:22 AM In re 3091: imo, the whole Ashcroft/White affair is not racially motivated, pre se, but rather a political vendetta stemming from among other things an abortion-rights votebacked by Ashcorft in the MO legislature whereby Ashcroft was "outmanuevered" by White, who called for a vote on the issue when several anti-abortion members were absent, thus dooming the issue to failure. Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold, and Ashcroft certainly got his (on both Judge White and WJC), but what does that say about his standing as a good christian and a man of character? 3101. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 11:08:08 AM Cellar - There's a Republican in the White House, yet J.J., connie, Francis, Rosie, Indy et.al. are positively roiling in misery. 3102. azazel - 1/19/2001 11:09:21 AM FU: No doubt there is a special place in dem-hell reserved for the G-man. Now we have to suffer through four years with another Texican at the helm - jeez! 3103. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 11:10:28 AM 3104. Indiana Jones - 1/19/2001 11:12:14 AM I'm not rolling in misery. Politics only marginally affects my sense of well-being, though I was surprised at how interested I was in the actual outcome for a few days there. 3105. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 11:14:16 AM Judith - Aren't you just a tad disappointed that the guy you ended up with is such a pouty, ill humored, uncurious person? 3106. Indiana Jones - 1/19/2001 11:17:23 AM As far as the Democrats bending over, Ted Kennedy hasn't, but then he's likely to bust his pants should he try. 3107. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 11:25:23 AM 3108. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 11:34:09 AM By almost any definition Ashcroft is obviously a racist. It's curious why no one wants to step up to the bar and say it. It's also curious how even the Democrats preface their remarks by saying how much character and integrity Ashcroft has. What bullshit. By that standard Gov. George Wallace of Alabama had integrity. Ashcroft is a bigger liar than Clinton and about much more important issues, i.e., Judge White's record and his own motives in fighting the desegregation of St Louis schools for 16 years. Just about all the Democrats and several of the Republicans apologized to Judge White for the mishandling of his confirmation, but Ashcroft, the key player in his rejection, didn't have the decency to apologize for his outrageous conduct, so far as I have seen. 3109. concerned - 1/19/2001 11:35:32 AM The WH Rapist was not only 'ill-humored', but childishly so, so GWB is an improvement in this regard also. 3110. Indiana Jones - 1/19/2001 11:37:20 AM By almost any definition Ashcroft is obviously a racist. 3111. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 11:38:33 AM Anyone who supports the Confederacy is by definitiona treasonous lunatic. 3112. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 11:38:46 AM Uncle Wonkers 3113. concerned - 1/19/2001 11:39:24 AM By almost any definition Ashcroft is obviously a racist. 3114. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 11:39:54 AM Oh yes -- that bastion of objective journalissm the New York Post. 3115. Indiana Jones - 1/19/2001 11:40:24 AM Cellar: In this case it was for supporting the Constitution (i.e., the Second Amendment). 3116. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 11:40:46 AM Judith - Reporters have called the man ill humored 3117. Rosetta Stone - 1/19/2001 11:40:47 AM concerned: The key to getting conservative threads onto TT is to post at (or after) 11 pm est. 3118. glendajean - 1/19/2001 11:40:56 AM AM I SEEING THINGS? 3119. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 11:41:15 AM Cellar 3120. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 11:41:31 AM Not hyperbole at all. Simple fact. He wants us all to worship the Confederacy and refers to those who won't as "perverts." 3121. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 11:42:30 AM NAME one fact in the article! 3122. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 11:42:54 AM But none has called him a racist and most have specifically said the do not believe he is a racist. The closest I recall is saying that he is "insensitive to racial issues or to the concerns of minorities." I guess there's a bit more comity in the Senate than here in the Mote! 3123. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 11:44:07 AM I've called him a racist, wonkers. 3124. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 11:44:34 AM And waving a lawn jockey in my face doesn't constitute proof. 3125. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 11:45:41 AM Uncle Wonkers 3126. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 11:46:29 AM Wonkers - By almost any definition Ashcroft is obviously a racist. 3127. Rosetta Stone - 1/19/2001 11:46:36 AM Let's count them. How many times can former Democratic congressman Michael Barnes, one of the most corrupt lawyers in Maryland, say "extremist" in Ashcroft conformation hearings? 3128. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 11:49:57 AM Cellar - NAME one fact in the article! 3129. concerned - 1/19/2001 11:52:56 AM Re. 3117 - 3130. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 11:54:35 AM The article is called "Ashcroft's Real Record" is a completely one-sided whitewash of the Senator. It didn't mention his 16 years of dogged apposition to the integration of St Louis schools nor his despicable lies about Judge Ronnie White. It didn't mention Ashcroft's votes to confirm white judges whose judicial records were much more liberal than Judge White's. It didn't mention the honorable Mr.Ashcroft's action as governor vetoing efforts to increase minority voter registration. Racism has a somewhat elastic definition. Although Judge White was remarkably restrained in his testimony yesterday, I would bet that a majority of the African Americans in St Louis and around the country think Ashcroft is a racist pig. George Wallace was at least a straightforward, honest racist. 3131. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 11:58:26 AM Uncle Wonkers 3132. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 12:04:19 PM 3133. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:04:29 PM The John Ashcroft Guide to Answering Embarrassing Questions 3134. CalGal - 1/19/2001 12:06:47 PM Ray and Clinton have come to a deal, has anyone mentioned this? 3135. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 12:07:23 PM 3136. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:09:46 PM The professor gets a D- for writing a polemic rather than a balanced scholarly piece. His facts may be accurate, but he left out other facts about the Honorable Mr. Ashcroft that paint a very different picture of a person whose views and ACTIONS on everything from abortion, to contraception, to guns to race relations and civil rights are so far beyond the norm as to make him unacceptable to a large number of Americans as Attorney General. 3137. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:10:43 PM Good for all concerned, Clinton, Bush and America. 3138. Rosetta Stone - 1/19/2001 12:11:16 PM Clinton has "cut a deal" with independent counsel to "avoid indictment" but will admit "wrong-doing." 3139. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 12:11:33 PM 3140. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:11:44 PM MSNBC is supposedly reporting that Robert Ray has reached a deal with the WH Rapist where he 'apologizes' and gives up his ABA membership in return for not being indicted. 3141. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 12:12:11 PM Of course Ashcroft is a racist. 3142. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 12:13:11 PM 3143. Wombat - 1/19/2001 12:13:21 PM Ray is a Democrat, after all. 3144. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:13:22 PM You're an idiot, Sphincter. 3145. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 12:14:29 PM 3146. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 12:14:49 PM Drinking again, tommydemoron? 3147. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 12:14:52 PM We know it's inappropriate, connie. Only death in Ol' Sparky will do, right? 3148. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 12:15:17 PM Wonkers - It didn't mention his 16 years of dogged apposition to the integration of St Louis schools 3149. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 12:15:34 PM (cont) I would bet that a majority of the African Americans in St Louis and around the country think Ashcroft is a racist pig. 3150. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:17:04 PM Re. 3147 - 3151. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 12:17:14 PM "It is McCarthyism, pure and simple." 3152. CalGal - 1/19/2001 12:17:56 PM Ashcroft doesn't appear to be racist. But then, JadeGold has always used the word rather broadly. 3153. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 12:18:27 PM Tommy revealed at last: SOFT ON CLINTON! SOFT ON CLINTON ! 3154. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:19:10 PM Re. 3146 - 3155. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 12:19:23 PM Ray could indict Clinton. Ham sandwiches and all. But he knows that he could never get a conviction. 3156. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 12:19:40 PM Jade - Of course Ashcroft is a racist. 3157. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:19:51 PM Ashcroft opposed the voluntary desegregation plan agreed upon by the community. He offered no serious alternative. Every one of his numerous appeals and dilatory legal delaying tactics were slapped down by appelat courts. Now to hear him talk he has really always been an integrationist and spreader of equal opportunity and racial harmony. Enough to make me throw up. 3158. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 12:21:03 PM Cellar - But wasn't McCarthy your hero, J.J. ? 3159. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:22:37 PM No, JJ, the worst that can be said about Ashcroft's despicable treatment of Judge White is that his statements were complete lies. Why do you think nearly all the GOPers on the committee fell all over themselves yesterday to apologize to Judge White? 3160. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 12:22:43 PM Willard, tommydemoron? 3161. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 12:24:52 PM Is that the JadeGold? I don't know how long you have been back, but welcome back! 3162. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:25:26 PM Clowntoon's 'word' (read apology) is worthless. He will, while using words such as 'remorse', once again admit to no illegality and sophomoronically attempt to mutilate the English Language in any 'apology' to the point where every thinking person unfortunate enough to made aware of the body of his spewing is deeply offended by yet another sham in which Robert Ray has played the part of a useful idiot. 3163. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 12:25:35 PM Roy Cohn a pal of mine? On what grounds? I'm only half-Jewish you know. 3164. Rosetta Stone - 1/19/2001 12:25:52 PM Clinton worked out the deal, on his last day of office. Didn't want his legacy to say all in the first sentence: impeached, indicted and pardoned. 3165. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:26:25 PM Re. 3160 - 3166. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:27:47 PM Cellar, please quit using that shameful racist term "lawn jockey!" You are setting a bad example for me and Ace and the others. You are responsible for getting me into hot water with the Mote's apostles of racial equality and moderation--Ace/Concerned/Niner/CalGal/et al. 3167. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 12:27:54 PM Wonkers - Ashcroft opposed the voluntary desegregation plan agreed upon by the community. 3168. Rosetta Stone - 1/19/2001 12:28:16 PM With Salon still down, imagine the TT enablers furious thinking that someone else will get the headline. 3169. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 12:28:38 PM 3170. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 12:28:45 PM You've really gotta hand it to Clinton. The guy can get away with basically anything he wants to, and, well, get away with it. A real American icon. 3171. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 12:29:56 PM Uncle Wonkers does not need facts. He needs only good intentions and the good sense to know what is right for African-Americans. 3172. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 12:30:16 PM Cellar - Roy Cohn a pal of mine? On what grounds? 3173. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 12:32:17 PM As for the Clinton-Ray deal, it is typical of half-loaf face-saving by administrative functionaries who have no business making political decisions. Ray should either indict or fold-up shop. It is not in his purview to have Clinton say "I'm sorry that I misled you" in a 4 sentence statement. 3174. Rosetta Stone - 1/19/2001 12:32:33 PM Still more big news to come from White House today. Lots of pardons for Bubba's friends. 3175. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:32:52 PM The Democrat lieutenant governor who testified yesterday characterized the plan as a voluntary consensus. I have no doubt as you say that the court influenced the voluntariness of the consensus. Nontheless, everyone but the Honorable Mr. Ashcroft was in agreement to proceed with the plan. Missouri was one of the "de jure" segregation states 20 years after Brown v. Topeka. Not exactly a testament to the Missouri establishment's progressive stance on matters of race. 3176. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 12:33:21 PM "I'm glad to hear this because now GW can't hold the whip of a pardon in his hands. I'm sure he's sorry that opportunity was removed from his list of duties..." 3177. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:33:54 PM He'll be a model all right, as in model airplane. I prefer the real thing to a model. 3178. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 12:34:15 PM Uncle Wonkers 3179. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:34:45 PM Robert Ray: Useful Idiot at the service of the WH Rapist. 3180. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 12:35:12 PM Admiration for who? Ken Burdick perchance? ken was the most beautiful dude in Gay Activists Alliance. His very presence at meetings was a recruiting tool. Then he became a Republican. 3181. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:36:28 PM Sandwiched in between as I recall. 3182. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 12:37:08 PM Uncle wonkers does not think "Lawn jockey" is a racist term when he uses it, because he once met a black person, and they both expressed their joint admiration for "Roots". 3183. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:37:42 PM Robert Ray: Enabler of more pointless, embarrassing, shameful, lying, self-serving verbiage from the WH Rapist with the nation as captive audience. 3184. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:37:54 PM Yeah, last night I was born again, after being castigated as a racist by one and all. Where were you when I needed a little help from a friend? 3185. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 12:37:57 PM Uncle Wonkers 3186. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 12:39:18 PM Something like that! But your'r not supposed to use that term. It's something similar to lawn jockey. 3187. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 12:40:19 PM I am amused. 3188. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 12:40:40 PM "I prefer the real thing to a model. " 3189. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 12:41:32 PM Uncle wonkers 3190. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 12:41:53 PM 3191. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 12:42:21 PM No, Jade, we are asking for you to give W. a chance because he is just now entering office. I had hoped (ridiculously of course) that Clinton would be a good president when he first entered office, a good leader, someone to look up to. I was wrong. But I gave him the chance to prove himself first. 3192. CalGal - 1/19/2001 12:42:54 PM Isn't a term that can only be used to deride a person of a particular race by definition a racist term? 3193. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 12:43:33 PM Jade 3194. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 12:43:46 PM Yawn, Judith. And your husbands moves furniture for a living, so anything you say on that MUST be true too! 3195. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:44:21 PM Re. 3187 - 3196. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 12:45:22 PM Cal 3197. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 12:46:51 PM Judith, you are the epitome of everything that is bad when the word "partisan" is used. 3198. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 12:48:01 PM "I live in Texas and you don't," so what I say about Bush, even things that I project into the future with no substantiation whatsoever, MUST be right. Neener, neener." 3199. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 12:48:05 PM What's the problem with "lawn jockey" or "Uncle Tom"? 3200. jexster - 1/19/2001 12:50:43 PM Ashcroft is not the man to head the Justice Department. The job is vested with such vast authority over the lives of people great and small, and such symbolic importance, that the minimum qualifications should include honesty, fair-mindedness, and judicious self-restraint in the exercise of power. Every new President is entitled to Senate deference in choosing his Cabinet, even when the nominee's policy views draw bitter liberal or conservative opposition. ... But no President is entitled to put a character assassin in charge of law enforcement. " Stuart Taylor, National Journal 3201. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:51:44 PM Maybe it's time for the three judge panel to decide who is going to replace Robert Ray for the remainder of the IC investigation. 3202. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:52:08 PM Toys, jexster, dammit! 3203. CalGal - 1/19/2001 12:52:41 PM Amused at Democrats who label Bush a chimp, and their lonely tears, tears borne of the fact that they got their hat handed to them - by a chimp. 3204. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 12:52:43 PM 3205. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 12:53:14 PM Jade 3206. concerned - 1/19/2001 12:53:39 PM CalGal calls the Constitution a technicality. Everything's a technicality, now. 3207. CalGal - 1/19/2001 12:55:52 PM Frank, 3208. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 12:56:34 PM Wonkers - Nontheless, everyone but the Honorable Mr. Ashcroft was in agreement to proceed with the plan. 3209. CalGal - 1/19/2001 12:57:14 PM Concerned, 3210. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 12:57:55 PM Judith, didn't you say yesterday when the topic of moving for $40k was obscene, that your husband was "in the business?" I could have sworn that you said that. In fact, I'll look for the post. Apologies are it being wrong. 3211. jexster - 1/19/2001 12:58:29 PM 'Splain something to me KH or anyone else for that matter... 3212. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 1:00:32 PM CalGal - Isn't a term that can only be used to deride a person of a particular race by definition a racist term? 3213. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 1:00:35 PM Cal 3214. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 1:01:06 PM "joezan: 3215. azazel - 1/19/2001 1:01:24 PM GWB is going to have to earn his stripes amid the crossfire of rancorous partisan sniping, just like every other president has had to in recent memory. If he is able to forge some coalitions and get some meaningful bi-partisan legislation passed, bully for him. If he tries to steamroll his agenda through, however, he is fair game. Let's see which George shows up... 3216. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 1:01:35 PM jexster 3217. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:02:40 PM Re. 3209 - 3218. CalGal - 1/19/2001 1:02:46 PM Frank, 3219. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 1:03:16 PM Jade - Maybe I can testify. I know Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham, ABC, Cat In the Hat, Mr. Brown Can Moo-Can You? and One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish by heart. 3220. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:05:28 PM Amused at Democrats who label Bush a chimp, and their lonely tears, tears borne of the fact that they got their hat handed to them - by a chimp. 3221. CalGal - 1/19/2001 1:05:31 PM Concerned, 3222. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 1:05:32 PM Niner, 3223. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:06:43 PM Oooh Frankie....your fe intellectual hissy fits and stilted prose get me hard. 3224. CalGal - 1/19/2001 1:06:49 PM It is pejorative, to be sure, but not racist. 3225. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 1:11:12 PM Jade - As I recall, Emerge magazine, a periodical for the black community (owned by Bob Johnson), once portrayed Clarence Thomas as a lawn jockey on its cover. 3226. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 1:12:56 PM "'Splain something to me KH or anyone else for that matter... 3227. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:13:27 PM Re. 3221 - 3228. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 1:14:18 PM Why not, Wiener? 3229. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 1:16:50 PM jexster 3230. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:22:04 PM Chance? 3231. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 1:23:05 PM Amen, Jexter. 3232. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 1:23:26 PM Niner - No, The Vikings defeated the Giants. It was corrupt refs who appointed the Giants the winner. 3233. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:24:34 PM Another shameful first from the WH Rapist's administration. 3234. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:24:56 PM Getting a bit rusty on analogies are we Francesca? 3235. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 1:25:20 PM Amen, Jexter. 3236. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 1:26:07 PM 3237. CalGal - 1/19/2001 1:27:28 PM Linda Tripp got canned, finally! Hallelujah. 3238. Domino - 1/19/2001 1:27:36 PM A guilty plea in anticipation of indictment issued to avoid indictment is as good as indictment and conviction. It is, fact, groveling and begging. Fortunately, we can not see if the plea is accompanied by a tear or two and quivering chin. 3239. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 1:27:47 PM Plea bargain? Nonsense. 3240. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:29:13 PM Why doesn't Robert Ray know any better? Clowntoon is merely going to repeat the same mewling lies he inflicted on the country while he was wangling himself into an impeachment. 3241. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:29:40 PM Jeeeest a leeetle off key there Biener..... 3242. seadate - 1/19/2001 1:29:59 PM Jade, 3243. Domino - 1/19/2001 1:30:23 PM Here's the difference between Clinton and Jackson. Jackson was upfront, straightforward, did not lie to the public, to the judge and to the jury, did not suborn others into perjury, and did not engage in a seven month long course of obstruction of Justice and had not a need to manipulate friends and subordinates into lying and covering up for lies and perjury since he had not lied and will not lie about the situation. 3244. azazel - 1/19/2001 1:31:03 PM In re 3227: should be interesting to watch the USSC try to backpeddle on their decision in Bush v. Gore - a couple of "states rights" cases on the current docket should allow them the opportunity to demonstrate their new appreciation for Federal primacy over the states, or alternatively, will illuminate (to the masses, mind you - those who have been paying attention the the goings-on at the USSC already know) the fact that partisanship tarnishes the judiciary as well as every other branch of gov't. 3245. Jenerator - 1/19/2001 1:31:14 PM Jade, 3246. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 1:31:17 PM Thanks, Jade, Cellar. I wonder where all this concern over racism is coming from anyway from all these Mote Republicans?? More down is up, up is down stuff, I guess. Biener specializes in it and manages to sound sincere. The Dems are racists and the Repugs are the friends of minorities. Wonder why the minorities don't realize that Ashcroft and Bush and the GOP are their last best hope??? 3247. CalGal - 1/19/2001 1:31:50 PM To make it short, Jackson dealt with an immoral situation in a moral fashion; 3248. bbb - 1/19/2001 1:32:25 PM Sources: Clinton Accepts 5-Year Law Suspension 3249. bbb - 1/19/2001 1:33:50 PM Clinton and Jackson? 3250. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 1:34:16 PM jex, #3230 3251. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:35:35 PM A guilty plea in anticipation of indictment issued to avoid indictment is as good as indictment and conviction. It is, fact, groveling and begging. Fortunately, we can not see if the plea is accompanied by a tear or two and quivering chin. 3252. bbb - 1/19/2001 1:37:12 PM Clinton Protest Ends With Haircut 3253. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 1:37:30 PM That attitude, jexster, is somewhat reminiscent of some blacks here that in essence complain about how the white's treated them, then turn right around and do the same things to the whites when given the chance. 3254. azazel - 1/19/2001 1:37:49 PM In re 3250: Agreed, but coming from GOP pols (not anyone here, mind you), it is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? 3255. Domino - 1/19/2001 1:39:25 PM It is not a matter of law except for the clintonian parsing of same. It is an admission of guilt in anticipation of indictment thus avoiding the indictment. 3256. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:40:41 PM No KH it isn't or at least that's what mommy always told me "Johnnie Boy now two wrongs don't make a right" 3257. Domino - 1/19/2001 1:40:52 PM Yes, he regrets that he did all of the things about to be charged to him in an indictment and will settle for a written admission and a five year suspension of his license to practice law. 3258. bbb - 1/19/2001 1:41:25 PM Clinton Deal 3259. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:41:33 PM Re. 3237 - 3260. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 1:42:45 PM jexster, once they finish the recount in Florida (they are still doing it, correct?) and if Bush is found to have won it AGAIN, would you then agree he should be our president (of course, he already is going to be, but you get my question)? 3261. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:43:08 PM bbb - 3262. CalGal - 1/19/2001 1:44:56 PM I believe she was canned because she refused to quit. In any event, I sincerely doubt Clinton heard about it. Plenty of other people no doubt made it their personal business to fire her ass. 3263. Domino - 1/19/2001 1:45:30 PM CalGal: 3264. bbb - 1/19/2001 1:46:07 PM More Clinton scandal deals 3265. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:46:51 PM Why a 5-year suspension? Because it's less than Nixon got. Are they going to resurrect "Let's Make a Deal" with Ray as emcee? 3266. Jenerator - 1/19/2001 1:47:41 PM That Ashcroft fellow sure is creepy. I mean forget the fact that he's qualified for Attorney General (with him being a senator, former state governor and state attorney general) The bottom line is that he's a conservative Christian. 3267. bbb - 1/19/2001 1:48:35 PM Who is going to hire Clinton as a lawyer anyway?! 3268. CalGal - 1/19/2001 1:48:42 PM Domino, 3269. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 1:48:49 PM Clinton wins again. 3270. Domino - 1/19/2001 1:49:08 PM These three following sentences are fact, not law, and can not be parsed. 3271. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 1:49:55 PM "It's true. Both Clinton and Jackson are dwellers in the cesspool of hypocrisy. Jackson, however, is a Reverend." 3272. bbb - 1/19/2001 1:50:06 PM Riady was arraigned Tuesday on a charge of conspiring to defraud the U.S. government. He has agreed to plead guilty and pay a fine of $8.6 million. 3273. CalGal - 1/19/2001 1:50:40 PM Forget qualifications, let's make this about ideological judgments. 3274. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:50:44 PM No Leftist who is not being critical of all this last second Clowntoon behind-the scenes chicanery, backfilling and covering up should try to presume on the incoming administration in this regard because that would reveal their desperate hypocrisy. 3275. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:52:06 PM Re. 3269 - 3276. Domino - 1/19/2001 1:52:17 PM CalGal: 3277. bbb - 1/19/2001 1:52:30 PM Linda Tripp Fired From Pentagon Job 3278. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:52:45 PM Sorry Domino, you can't plead guilty unless there is a charge. Kinda like love and marriage ya know? 3279. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:53:53 PM Re. 3274 - 3280. Domino - 1/19/2001 1:54:11 PM All the rats are running to their moorings as a new captain of the ship of state is about to come aboard. 3281. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:54:13 PM Clinton gave Ray the sleeve out of his vest and got the Arkansas thing thrown in for a bonus. 3282. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:54:25 PM ...who are not.... 3283. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:55:21 PM Clinton should have shit-canned that cow years ago. 3284. concerned - 1/19/2001 1:55:41 PM Re. 3281 - 3285. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:56:17 PM That's better Domino...try a little pathetic polemic....you won't look quite as ridiculous.... 3286. Domino - 1/19/2001 1:56:17 PM Clinton admits his guilt. Says he regrets his guilt. 3287. bbb - 1/19/2001 1:56:56 PM Ashcroft To Be Comfortably Confirmed 3288. CalGal - 1/19/2001 1:57:28 PM He said he told the truth and that he did not and had not lied. That is a moral statement. 3289. bbb - 1/19/2001 1:58:19 PM Clinton,Jackson,and Ted Kennedy? 3290. Domino - 1/19/2001 1:58:30 PM Mr. Clinton pleaded guilty in order to avoid the indictment in anticipation of conviction on the charge. That is a plea bargain. 3291. jexster - 1/19/2001 1:58:41 PM Domino....just curious...last time I saw law butchered around here quite like you seem bent on doing, it was Dusty lookin silly... 3292. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 2:00:46 PM "Shyster"? Are there "shysters" in the Mote? 3293. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:01:37 PM Clinton has always postured as a man of God, bible in hand at every photo op, solicictor of spiritual advice. That is a moral postion taken by an amoral creature. 3294. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:02:23 PM Jackson pays Stanford $3,000 a month in child support, spokesman John Scanlon said Friday. He said she also received a total of $35,000 in two payments from Rainbow-PUSH -- $20,000 to help her move from Washington to Los Angeles and a $15,000 advance on a contract to do consulting for the organization. 3295. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 2:02:47 PM Clinton did what the law allows him to do, plea bargain. Again, the guy is really a genius. 3296. jexster - 1/19/2001 2:03:26 PM Yea....you're Dusty all right.... 3297. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:04:27 PM >A moral statement would be, "I believe it is wrong to lie and have never lied ever, and I have always been an honest person whose truthfulness is not in question." 3298. CalGal - 1/19/2001 2:04:49 PM Clinton has always postured as a man of God, bible in hand at every photo op, solicictor of spiritual advice. That is a moral postion taken by an amoral creature. 3299. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:04:57 PM All the Clinton Library materials : 3300. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 2:06:46 PM Tripp Fired 3301. CalGal - 1/19/2001 2:07:30 PM That was, in fact, Clinton's position solidified even further as he manipulated cabinet officers, aides and friends into repeating after him, "Clinton is an honest man, Clinton is an honest man." 3302. jexster - 1/19/2001 2:07:53 PM Ray had to get a deal from the State Courts in Arkansas to get Clinton to go for a statement of regret - is that the 120th or 130th statement of regret.... 3303. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:09:27 PM Bill Clinton Prepares for New Life 3304. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:14:46 PM >I don't think any Clinton defender ever said "You should believe the President because he's an honest man." 3305. jexster - 1/19/2001 2:16:49 PM You Republicans are a sad lot indeed what with your kindegarten morality plays. 3306. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:18:00 PM Nevertheless, a moral position taken by an amoral creature is hypocritical. 3307. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 2:18:51 PM I wouldn't worry about Bill Clinton being lonely, bbb. 3308. jexster - 1/19/2001 2:19:42 PM Or in Domino's case...jizz brain 3309. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:20:34 PM 3310. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 2:21:12 PM "It must be terribly difficult for detractors of Clinton to realize that he is going to be an extremely wealthy man very soon." 3311. CalGal - 1/19/2001 2:21:51 PM Domino, 3312. CalGal - 1/19/2001 2:22:42 PM Oops. Add "Therefore, it is not hypocritical". 3313. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:23:00 PM Re. 3300 - 3314. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 2:24:18 PM KtH, 3315. jexster - 1/19/2001 2:24:33 PM But the fact is that truth is both a moral standard and a moral quality. Clinton said that he was truthful and honest. That is a moral statement, Made by an amoral creature. That is an example of hypocrisy. 3316. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:24:55 PM Yes, Bill is slick, no question about that. Ever try to handle a snake in the wet grass of sleaze? 3317. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 2:25:34 PM You mean, Jade, that Clinton "didn't get away with" anything concerning Monica, for example? Are you saying that the guy has done NO WRONGDOING basically, and that ALL voices to the contrary were wrong? 3318. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 2:25:39 PM How much do you drink each day, tommydemoron? 3319. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:26:20 PM When Bill admits guilt this afternoon and regrets his guilt in a written statement, every little puppet manipulated into denying the alleged charges against him must shiver in his/her boots. 3320. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 2:27:35 PM KtH, 3321. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:27:44 PM This deal between Ray and Clinton is negotiated to avoid the political fooforaw resulting from a pardon. 3322. bubbaette - 1/19/2001 2:28:21 PM The thing that most highly recommends Clinton, in my opinion, is the type of enemies he has. With buffoons like TommyD for sworn enemies, the guy can't be all bad. 3323. jexster - 1/19/2001 2:28:25 PM Pharacitical pharce 3324. KuligintheHooligan - 1/19/2001 2:28:54 PM So then, Jade, when Clinton himself admits to wrong doing, you are going to stand there and say he didn't really do anything wrong, correct? 3325. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:29:07 PM Re. 3312 - 3326. janjon - 1/19/2001 2:29:17 PM Clinton is being disqualified to practice law for five years? Big fucking deal. One of the last things he would want to do at this point is tie himself into some kind of deal with one of the major firms. 3327. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:29:49 PM 'off' for 'of' in my last 3328. jexster - 1/19/2001 2:29:58 PM And if Domino plays moral theologian one more time I may have to resort to e-terrorism 3329. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:31:44 PM Re. 3322 - 3330. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:33:28 PM Clinton says he was guilty and did the things charged to him but he is not a criminal. 3331. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:34:04 PM Will Clinton resign in time for Algore to be President for a few hours? 3332. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:34:17 PM Amorality is the absence of any moral principles. That's Clinton. 3333. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:34:47 PM Re. 3330 - 3334. bubbaette - 1/19/2001 2:35:13 PM Tommy 3335. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:35:42 PM But it is clever. Bill avoids a pardon by accepting this deal. 3336. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:37:00 PM Clinton Admits False Statements 3337. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 2:37:22 PM I doubt that Clinton was ever interested in hooking up with a law firm. 3338. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 2:37:35 PM Wonkers - I wonder where all this concern over racism is coming from anyway from all these Mote Republicans 3339. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 2:38:36 PM CalGal - When asked to act as a moral adviser to Clinton, he said, "Naw. I'm really in no position to judge the guy." 3340. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:38:37 PM "I am not a crook" says Bill on January 19, 2001. 3341. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:38:54 PM ''I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,'' the president said in a statement read by White House press secretary Jake Siewert. 3342. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 2:39:39 PM The most odious act of American politics will take place next week when Ashcroft is given a pass to become attorney general of a country whose government he does not recognize as legitimate. 3343. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:39:56 PM Re. 3334 - 3344. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:41:20 PM Or, just to be a bit more explicit, "I am not a crook," says Bill on January 19, 2001 "although I admit that I lied and misled investigators, judge and jury." 3345. janjon - 1/19/2001 2:42:54 PM Jade - well, it would be a bit awkward for most law firms to hire someone, even as "counsel", if he or she wasn't admitted to the bar at the time. (Although, come to think of it, some of the DC based firms do have their lobbying arms etc. where big shot non-lawyers [like Bill Paxton who isn't a lawyer if I recall correctly] hang their non-shingle. 3346. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:43:07 PM >''I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely..." 3347. bubbaette - 1/19/2001 2:44:25 PM I'm kinda looking forward to the inaugeration of yer coke-sniffin hard-drinking frat boy -- President Laughingstock. 3348. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:44:58 PM http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/index.html 3349. Indiana Jones - 1/19/2001 2:45:33 PM The most odious act of American politics will take place next week when Ashcroft is given a pass to become attorney general of a country whose government he does not recognize as legitimate. 3350. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:45:57 PM I will admit that Clowntoon in many ways 'slicked' the country. This, however, was only possible thanks to many de-facto accomplices in his schemes and coverups who often willingly sacrified their honor, careers, etc. 3351. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:45:58 PM Bill has been thinking pardon since Monday (Jan 15). This admission of guilt prevents the gluing the nasty label of "pardoned criminal" to his posterior. 3352. bubbaette - 1/19/2001 2:46:01 PM Who knows, Saturday Night might even become worth watching again with President CokeHead. 3353. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:46:10 PM Admission from Clinton 3354. janjon - 1/19/2001 2:46:36 PM concerned, Biener, others of the same stripe - the silence over these ad nauseum comments being made about how Clinton was the worst this, the most disgusting that, etc. should not be taken as any form of acquiesence. 3355. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:48:50 PM However, Bill failed to realize that it was Boots Randolph who played saxophone, not Johnny Cash. 3356. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:49:17 PM Re. 3354 - 3357. janjon - 1/19/2001 2:49:29 PM For some reason the reference to President Cokehead brought back to memory the reaction I had to the recent photo that made the rounds (well, it was in The New York Times at least) taken at the "ranch" recently. It was of W and Laura. He had on what I guess is a cowboy shirt. He was grinning. My immediate reaction was My God, he reminds me of Howdy Doody. 3358. bubbaette - 1/19/2001 2:50:46 PM Four years of that deer-in-the-headlights look when poor W. is forced to speak in public -- four years of that clueless panic whenever the Presidunce wanders off script. Should make for great entertainment. 3359. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:51:15 PM Only Clowntoon can lay claim to being 'President Cokehead'. 3360. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 2:52:15 PM Janjon, 3361. janjon - 1/19/2001 2:52:32 PM My daughter HAS been in a room alone with Clinton. 3362. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:53:18 PM So Clinton was REALLY REALLY scared of Ray's indictment! 3363. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:54:09 PM Will the final degradation of the Disgraceful Clowntoon Reign of Error be a raft of politically or bribery motivated pardons? 3364. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:54:32 PM Not only slick, but petty. Witness Linda Tripp. 3365. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 2:54:36 PM Medical histories, tommydemoron? 3366. bubbaette - 1/19/2001 2:55:25 PM I wonder if we'll be able to see Powell and Cheney with their hands up President Sockpuppet's ass during the State of the Union? 3367. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:56:30 PM http://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?14@75.1AoldLdXASH^0@.eeb4330/10174 3368. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:56:32 PM You are correct that Clinton won't settle for the mere $3M annually that a law firm might provide. He's got his eye on generating double digits annually. 3369. Domino - 1/19/2001 2:57:18 PM Clinton knew that Ray had him by the balls. 3370. concerned - 1/19/2001 2:57:31 PM Re. 3365 - 3371. janjon - 1/19/2001 2:58:33 PM This deal Clinton struck is a cakewalk victory for him. The American public long ago realized that he stretched the truth here and there re Lewinsky and has said so what. His reputation won't be sullied any more than it already has been. And, knowing that there are a lot of GOPers out there just itching to get at him (the WSJournal recently devoted its entire editorial "slot" to some ridiculous arguments as to why he should be indicted after leaving office), he now avoids the considerable waste of time and expense of having to defend himself against such efforts. 3372. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 2:58:36 PM Bubbaette - The thing that most highly recommends Clinton, in my opinion, is the type of enemies he has. 3373. bbb - 1/19/2001 2:59:21 PM 3374. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:00:56 PM ''I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,'' the president said in a statement read by White House press secretary Jake Siewert. 3375. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:01:10 PM However, Bushie must be relieved. Bushie won't have to pardon Bill. Now, Bushie owes Bill a favor. 3376. janjon - 1/19/2001 3:01:35 PM concerned. Considering the track record of so many people currently in the news (W, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, etc.) who made millions off their (or their father's in one notable instance) government service "aura", it hardly is becoming to react so vehemently at the prospects of Big Bill getting his share. 3377. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:03:37 PM The thing that most highly recommends Clinton, in my opinion, is the type of enemies he has. 3378. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 3:04:24 PM He is still the worst person ever to be president, absolutely corrupted, a psychopath, a crook, a liar, a traitor to his country, a hypocrite, and so on. 3379. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:04:32 PM No doubt about it. Everybody except parsing shysters knows Bill's confession is a plea bargain equivalent to pleading guilty to an indictment only threatened to be made. 3380. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 3:05:01 PM Domino - Secretly, Bill always wanted to be Johnny Cash. 3381. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 3:06:04 PM Bubbaette - I'm kinda looking forward to the inaugeration of yer coke-sniffin hard-drinking frat boy -- President Laughingstock. 3382. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:06:06 PM Get this, Bill pays another fine (a petty 25 thou) and forfeits any reimbursement for the expenses occurred during his seven month long obstruction of justice. 3383. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 3:07:27 PM Janjon is correct. This is a near cleansweep victory for Clinton. 3384. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:08:45 PM So, why shouldn't he forfeit any reimbursement for legal expenses? WTF, he has suckers in line ready to donate money to his legal defense fund. Barnum was wrong. There is more than one born every minute. 3385. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:09:35 PM >Actually, I think he wanted to be Elvis. 3386. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 3:09:38 PM janjon - It is recognized that people like you hated him. 3387. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:12:22 PM Re. 3374 - 3388. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:12:51 PM Shysters are already busily spinning this admission of perjury and obstruction of justice into a victory for Bill. 3389. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 3:13:44 PM Bubbaette - I wonder if we'll be able to see Powell and Cheney with their hands up President Sockpuppet's ass during the State of the Union? 3390. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:13:46 PM Ray had his way. 3391. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 3:13:49 PM So much effort, so little to show for it. 3392. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:15:25 PM Oops...Through the Looking Glass.... 3393. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:16:37 PM Re. 3391 - 3394. Indiana Jones - 1/19/2001 3:17:19 PM I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false. 3395. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:17:46 PM I suppose (or imagine) that there must be some shame to a professional criminal in admitting to the commission of a petty crime rather than a major crime. 3396. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 3:18:14 PM Jade - Janjon is correct. This is a near cleansweep victory for Clinton. 3397. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:19:09 PM Re. 3390 - 3398. Indiana Jones - 1/19/2001 3:20:53 PM I heard Saddam just celebrated the 10th anniversary of his "great victory." 3399. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:21:11 PM So little to show for it? 3400. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:21:16 PM Re. 3389 - 3401. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:22:11 PM The confession is just as good as a conviction of charges upon which indicted. 3402. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:22:16 PM You two go together like franks and beans. 3403. janjon - 1/19/2001 3:23:00 PM Biener. As usual, your penchant for laying down what you think to be pithy little rejoinders shows how shallow your logic is. 3404. bubbaette - 1/19/2001 3:25:23 PM What's the matter? Didn't you get your bran flakes this morning? A few more of these posts and we can call you 'Unconcerned'. 3405. janjon - 1/19/2001 3:28:16 PM Bubba - I heard a rumor today that some of the boys and girls who are just taking office today won't be too disappointed if W in fact does turn out to be a one-term bust. It will get them to the feeding trough that much quicker. 3406. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:30:46 PM I have to admit that I wish that Ray hadn't gone in for 'dealmaking'. He should have indicted the fucker and let GWB pardon him. I don't like this 'under the table' shit. 3407. bbb - 1/19/2001 3:32:42 PM 3408. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:33:07 PM Re. 3404 - 3409. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 3:34:10 PM 3410. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:38:17 PM Re. 3407 3411. janjon - 1/19/2001 3:38:37 PM re 3409. As I said, Judith - truth can indeed sometimes be humorous. 3412. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:41:39 PM Re. 3409 - 3413. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 3:41:53 PM janjon - As usual, your penchant for laying down what you think to be pithy little rejoinders shows how shallow your logic is. 3414. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 3:42:44 PM Tommy - You two go together like franks and beans. 3415. janjon - 1/19/2001 3:43:38 PM Yes, Biener. It makes perfect sense to me. 3416. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 3:45:11 PM Bubbaette - Just trying my hand at the Republican rhetoric style. 3417. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 3:47:07 PM 3418. concerned - 1/19/2001 3:53:42 PM Re. 3416 - 3419. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:55:23 PM ....I "knowingly" lied...Bill Clinton, Jan 19, 2001 3420. Domino - 1/19/2001 3:58:27 PM Nobody wanted to see an ex-president of this country in jail. 3421. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 3:58:45 PM Judith - Do you have a mouse in your pocket? 3422. rubberducky - 1/19/2001 3:59:24 PM 3423. robertjayb - 1/19/2001 4:00:16 PM . 3424. rubberducky - 1/19/2001 4:01:48 PM 3425. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 4:03:20 PM 3426. concerned - 1/19/2001 4:08:20 PM Re. 3424 - 3427. Domino - 1/19/2001 4:09:19 PM Ray believes that President Clinton admitted that be broke the law. He knowingly lied to the judge and he knowingly obstructed justice. 3428. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 4:12:40 PM Judith - I'm assuming you actually got the joke... 3429. concerned - 1/19/2001 4:13:31 PM re. 3427 - 3430. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 4:15:21 PM Tommy - But, whatever you do, don't post like Biener, ok? 3431. Jenerator - 1/19/2001 4:21:07 PM CalGal, 3432. bbb - 1/19/2001 4:21:39 PM To the Washington D.C. residents and tourists : 3433. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 5:05:13 PM Chinese New Year isn't on Sunday this year. 3434. bbb - 1/19/2001 5:06:31 PM Clinton Admits False Statements 3435. bbb - 1/19/2001 5:08:16 PM Special "live" celebration programs on Sunday in the Lake Forest Mall. 3436. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 5:10:57 PM Special "tourist" entertainment for those who don't know better. 3437. Indiana Jones - 1/19/2001 5:11:54 PM bbb: Why don't you straighten the "China expert" out? Then you and Jade/Cazart can post screenfuls of "off topic" at each other like in the good old days... 3438. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 5:12:54 PM Jade - "authentic" sweet and sour 3439. janjon - 1/19/2001 5:13:22 PM one has to assume that bbb has some sort of vested interest in the success of this event. In a mall in Maryland no less. 3440. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 5:14:52 PM I think bbb has a Hunan Pretzel stand there. 3441. janjon - 1/19/2001 5:15:07 PM well, it looks like Ashcroft will be confirmed. 3442. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 5:17:49 PM Wiener, 3443. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 5:21:14 PM The Ashcroft confirmation was always a forgone conclusion. 3444. CalGal - 1/19/2001 5:23:31 PM The first inkling I ever had that JadeGold was Chinese was when she said she ate Cantonese several times a week. 3445. janjon - 1/19/2001 5:28:02 PM Jade - Although I agree, I think this is in many ways a no-lose situation for the Dems. 3446. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 5:34:26 PM Jade - It always amuses me to see my friends who profess to love Chinese food order sweet and sour pork. 3447. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 5:35:29 PM You are correct, Janjon. 3448. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 5:40:03 PM It is going to be fun watching you guys try to battle Ashcroft with no ammunition. 3449. JudithAtHome - 1/19/2001 5:41:41 PM 3450. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 5:43:48 PM I have no idea what a crab rangoon is. 3451. janjon - 1/19/2001 5:44:07 PM No ammunition? Wanna bet? It is true that it is difficult to be able to point clearly to the harm being done when it stems from inaction as opposed to doing something (and, indeed, much of the potential harm will lie in the types of enforcement that Ashcroft and the W administration will decide not to pursue.) 3452. seadate - 1/19/2001 5:51:12 PM Of course, white Amaerican males are the most prone to be: racist, sexist, anti-gay, the most oppressive in the workplace, republican, polluters, entirely unaccepting of another opinion or culture, in favor of the greatest evil: prayer in public schools. 3453. seadate - 1/19/2001 5:52:10 PM ...ahem .... American. 3454. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 5:52:13 PM THE TRUTH AT LAST! 3455. seadate - 1/19/2001 5:53:13 PM I feel better now ..... carry on. 3456. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 5:53:26 PM Don't mess with Jade Gold. 3457. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 5:56:00 PM 3458. bbb - 1/19/2001 5:56:21 PM Everyone is invited to a wonderful and rich Chinese New Year celebration performance in the Lake Forest Mall(Gaithersburg,MD) at 4 PM on 1/21/01 (Sunday). The cultural performance includes Dragon Dance,Martial Arts,Chinese Yo-Yo,Folks Dance,and classic music instruments. Exihibits of Chinese painting,caligraphy, and posters are also displayed in the Mall. 3459. labwabbit - 1/19/2001 5:57:58 PM seadate 3460. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 5:59:32 PM You'd have thought that any cultural event of any importance would be hosted by a better mall. Maybe White Flint. 3461. bbb - 1/19/2001 5:59:45 PM " Not now " is the mirror-image of "Won ton" . 3462. labwabbit - 1/19/2001 6:02:39 PM Prejudice against malls?? 3463. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 6:03:01 PM Lab - I am a white American and I must say, I am not..I repeat...am NOT racist. 3464. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:03:07 PM 3460, 3465. janjon - 1/19/2001 6:03:51 PM even though the topicality is now in shreds (since you've eliminated the header to D.C. residents AND visitors), pray tell us bbb - what is your specific interest in this event? 3466. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 6:04:21 PM Certainly. Some malls are subhuman. 3467. janjon - 1/19/2001 6:05:03 PM laugh of the day - W tagging along with Laura to a function honoring authors. Yesterday it was honoring reading. 3468. janjon - 1/19/2001 6:05:34 PM never been to a mall that I didn't find banal. 3469. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 6:05:47 PM Jade - I have no idea what a crab rangoon is. 3470. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:06:28 PM 3465, 3471. CalGal - 1/19/2001 6:06:57 PM Oh, they're yummy. They're just not Chinese. 3472. janjon - 1/19/2001 6:06:59 PM what, exactly, is crab flavoring? 3473. janjon - 1/19/2001 6:08:27 PM Gee - W isn't even in office yet and here we are now talking about fake crab and other culinary tidbits. What a dumb ride this is going to be. 3474. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 6:08:57 PM I found Laura Bush promoting reading very amusing. 3475. AceofSpades - 1/19/2001 6:09:04 PM "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false." -- Resident Clinton 3476. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:09:20 PM Elaine Chao has been invited to the Lake Forest Mall event too. 3477. concerned - 1/19/2001 6:09:36 PM His sense of righteousness will get the best of him. 3478. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 6:10:01 PM janjon - what, exactly, is crab flavoring? 3479. seadate - 1/19/2001 6:11:18 PM LabWab, I too am a white male. Care to meet at the club for a drink (g)? 3480. janjon - 1/19/2001 6:14:25 PM I dispute your characterization of Reno, but whatever she was she didn't start out with the unctuousness and senses of certainty about one's beliefs (and the wrongness of those who disagree with them) and rectitute that someone with Ashcroft's views does. 3481. concerned - 1/19/2001 6:14:52 PM Re. 3452 - 3482. janjon - 1/19/2001 6:16:47 PM Jade - oh yes, Laura's cause is going to be reading. (Not necessarily literacy - that might be going too far and get into some troublesome areas.) I don't know whether rolling bandages for the Red Cross is in the cards too, but I wouldn't bet against it. 3483. seadate - 1/19/2001 6:17:02 PM Concerned, no kiddin'. 3484. seadate - 1/19/2001 6:20:01 PM Concerned, 3485. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:20:11 PM Deal Showcases Mar of Clinton Legacy 3486. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:21:47 PM On Capitol Hill, the House members who led the impeachment proceedings against Clinton saw the deal as vindication of their efforts. Rep. Henry Hyde, the lead manager, said it reaffirmed ''that our actions were in defense of the rule of law rather than merely a political initiative.'' 3487. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:23:03 PM It was a turnabout for a president who a month ago had defiantly declared, ''I'll be happy to stand and fight'' any legal charges. That dissolved Friday into an acknowledgment that he had made false statements when he testified in 1998 that he didn't remember being alone with Lewinsky and had had no sexual relations with her. 3488. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:24:06 PM Why spin Clinton's guilt pleading ? 3489. CalGal - 1/19/2001 6:25:16 PM The First Lady to be also said that she didn't want Roe vs. Wade to be overturned. 3490. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:26:00 PM The agreement stole attention from President-elect Bush on the eve of his inauguration and the celebrations of his new administration. Yet, historians said Bush should welcome being spared the wrenching ordeal of a former president being prosecuted, indicted and tried. 3491. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:33:56 PM Every Bush nominees will be confirmed,including Ashcroft and Norton. 3492. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:37:06 PM 3493. bbb - 1/19/2001 6:41:56 PM Mom of Jackson's Child Paid by Board 3494. concerned - 1/19/2001 6:44:56 PM Re. 3487 - 3495. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 6:46:01 PM "Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen." 3496. concerned - 1/19/2001 6:46:40 PM Re. 3493 - 3497. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 6:48:21 PM "I trust that the decision made today meets the expectations of the American people, who deserve a resolution that acknowledges the president's conduct, respects America's institutions, and demonstrates sensitivity to our constitutional system of government." 3498. concerned - 1/19/2001 6:49:29 PM Disbar. 3499. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 6:51:22 PM What was that again, connie? 3500. Andy F - 1/19/2001 7:23:42 PM You realize of course that W is due to testify in several months in the Texas Funeralgate matter. He will be asked to explain his previous contradictions. 3501. concerned - 1/19/2001 7:47:11 PM Re. 3500 - 3502. concerned - 1/19/2001 7:49:01 PM He's actually Ang Lee (the world's most stylistically prolific film director.) 3503. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 7:55:15 PM Why are in SUCH a bad mood, connie? Hasn't the virtue of the republic been saved? Don't we have the best possible person about the assume the mantle of greatest leader on the planet? Hasn't Ricky Martin taught him how to shake his bon-bon? 3504. dusty - 1/19/2001 8:00:47 PM What's the deal with Kendall claiming that Clinton didn't lie? Has he no shame? 3505. concerned - 1/19/2001 8:00:52 PM Re. 3503 - 3506. concerned - 1/19/2001 8:04:37 PM Re. 3504 - 3507. concerned - 1/19/2001 8:09:35 PM 3508. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 8:11:16 PM Chinese? Hell, Jade Gold is a man! 3509. Cellar Door - 1/19/2001 8:12:50 PM No he has no shame. Aren't you happy we've got people with shame? 3510. concerned - 1/19/2001 8:14:34 PM Re. 3508 - 3511. dusty - 1/19/2001 8:15:40 PM I've never heard that. Why? 3512. concerned - 1/19/2001 8:16:19 PM Bend over America. Here it comes, again. 3513. concerned - 1/19/2001 8:19:07 PM If Sphincter is a man, any residual guilt I might have had in kicking ass is removed. 3514. robertjayb - 1/19/2001 8:28:37 PM . 3515. Autodaffy - 1/19/2001 9:53:14 PM I just cannot express my delight that Clinton has decided to put the fact that he copped a plea on his last day in office in the history books. He can pardon all of his co conspirators including Hillary, as far as I'm concerned. No one could have ruined his place in history better than he did today. 3516. jexster - 1/19/2001 10:20:08 PM Do you approve or disapprove of the way Hillary Rodham Clinton has handled her role as first lady over the last eight years? 3517. jexster - 1/19/2001 10:29:12 PM I just cannot express my delight that Clinton has decided to put the fact that he copped a plea on his last day in office in the history books. He can pardon all of his co conspirators including Hillary, as far as I'm concerned. No one could have ruined his place in history better than he did today. 3518. jexster - 1/19/2001 10:30:23 PM Once again, living proof - the ignorant are truly blissful 3519. concerned - 1/19/2001 10:39:18 PM Jexster - 3520. jexster - 1/19/2001 10:43:55 PM 3521. Autodaffy - 1/19/2001 10:46:40 PM Jexter, 3522. jexster - 1/19/2001 10:49:25 PM Yea concerned, and he admitted to licking the First Bitch to be's snatch while ole dumbfuck was chowin down on PB&J's 3523. Autodaffy - 1/19/2001 10:49:31 PM Or, of course, you can believe that Clinton just didn't want to have his law license for the next four years. 3524. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 10:51:20 PM Some conclusions after watching several hours of the Ashcroft hearings: (1) Ashcroft's views are far to the right of the mainstream of either party; (2) Ashcroft is not a very bright guy to put it mildly; (3) Ashcroft is not very honest; (3)Bush can't have been aware of some of Ashcroft's looney-tunes views and extremist record before nominating him, and he'll rue the day that he did. So much for Ashcroft. 3525. jexster - 1/19/2001 10:55:20 PM Look shit for brains, if you want to disprove what I say just go to the god damned link.... 3526. Autodaffy - 1/19/2001 10:59:42 PM Calm down Jexter. It looks like we are both pleased with what happened today. Don't get your crinolines in an uproar. 3527. concerned - 1/19/2001 11:02:29 PM No. Clowntoon's going to stay in his doghouse like the good little puppy he is because he knows Bush can open a can of whupass on him by appointing a SC to look into the 1996 campaign finance wrongdoing. 3528. jexster - 1/19/2001 11:03:18 PM Clinton has never practiced law....one year teaching in law school, even that does not require a license.... 3529. jexster - 1/19/2001 11:05:10 PM Yea right concerned...and lemme tell ya a secret, he fucked lyn cheney while Nanny Warbucks was in the hospital and he got Reagan to give him a BJ...the poor bastard thought it was his baby bottle 3530. jexster - 1/19/2001 11:06:47 PM I'm not pleased about anything...i don't think anything happened of any consequence..not pissed nor pleased, just crushingly indifferent 3531. jexster - 1/19/2001 11:12:32 PM wonk...the Dead Man's Punk is total slime...lyin through his teeth...gonna enforce the law? Only concerned could swallow that load and if he does what of his vaunted principles all the Bush crap about Ashcroft's integrity, his heart. 3532. concerned - 1/19/2001 11:13:42 PM Re. 3530 - 3533. jexster - 1/19/2001 11:14:45 PM Called saving face 3534. jexster - 1/19/2001 11:20:02 PM The Senate for good or ill has a double standard when it comes to dealing with its own. It also has a looser standard for political nominees than for judicial ones. 3535. jexster - 1/19/2001 11:22:15 PM BTW, the only cabinet choice to fail confirmation in recent times.. 3536. Autodaffy - 1/19/2001 11:32:27 PM Jexster 3525: "There was no plea because 3537. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 11:33:10 PM ON DAVID DUKE AS REPUBLONAZI 3538. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 11:37:38 PM GEORGE BUSH AT THE MARTIN 3539. Autodaffy - 1/19/2001 11:38:43 PM Tower's rejection resulted in Gingrich's ascendency and the '94 debacle for dems. Keep up the tries. 3540. concerned - 1/19/2001 11:41:25 PM Fun factoid: 3541. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 11:43:41 PM BAKER, BAKER, MIRACLE MAKER 3542. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 11:47:22 PM BAKER, BAKER, MIRACLE MAKER 3543. Stumbo - 1/19/2001 11:53:12 PM Wonkers: 3544. JJBiener - 1/19/2001 11:55:32 PM Wonkers - You are amazingly gullible. 3545. wonkers2 - 1/19/2001 11:56:35 PM You may have tried, but you obviously didn't succeed. Trillin is the country's foremost political poet. Perhaps the only one. I have two books full of his poems, but it's getting past my bedtime. Cheers. 3546. Autodaffy - 1/20/2001 12:02:00 AM The only thing that makes Trillin a poet is his food prose. From Wonkers' posts, he should stick to it. 3547. Stumbo - 1/20/2001 12:12:50 AM "Trillin is the country's foremost political poet." 3548. Stumbo - 1/20/2001 12:16:49 AM Can 3549. robertjayb - 1/20/2001 12:21:32 AM . 3550. robertjayb - 1/20/2001 12:23:28 AM . 3551. Stumbo - 1/20/2001 12:23:56 AM Your epigrams miss by a mile, and 3552. jexster - 1/20/2001 12:33:10 AM Reality Check 3553. robertjayb - 1/20/2001 12:57:51 AM . 3554. AceofSpades - 1/20/2001 1:02:34 AM 3555. concerned - 1/20/2001 4:35:08 AM With all his flaws, Bill Clinton as president was a bigger man, a more generous man, than those who hated him. 3556. concerned - 1/20/2001 4:48:15 AM Anthony Lewis clearly adores Clowntoon, so it's at least understandable that he cannot avoid assigning the worst motives to those who abhore the damage and degradation to those around him that so often accompany Clowntoon. 3557. concerned - 1/20/2001 5:10:34 AM It's interesting that I've seen Clowntoon described as being expected to be the undisputed 'leader' of the Democrat Party. IOW, that his political stature is regarded as being so much greater than any other Democrat in the country, even though he will imminently be unemployed. 3558. Greystoke - 1/20/2001 8:22:04 AM "But, if Bush thinks he might feel enough pressure from Clowntoon-instigated partisan harassment to create problems for his administration, he might be more inclined to turn John Ashcroft (who has nothing to lose in popularity among those in the political Left) loose on Clowntoon." 3559. Greystoke - 1/20/2001 8:26:38 AM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3560. Dusty - 1/20/2001 9:05:40 AM Stumbo Message # 3547 3561. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 9:20:15 AM 3562. wonkers2 - 1/20/2001 9:34:54 AM Stumbo, #3547. Not bad. With a little practice you could become a right-wing Trillin. 3563. wonkers2 - 1/20/2001 9:39:57 AM Tripp fired. Justice done. Maybe Bush will bring her back to the White House?? Somehow I doubt it. She'd probably keep a record of his waking hours in the oval office with footnotes on time spent reading the sports page versus world news. 3564. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 10:07:58 AM 3565. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 11:08:35 AM 3566. Stumbo - 1/20/2001 11:20:48 AM Heh. Thanks, all. (Though I thought #3548 and #3551 were better than #3547.) 3567. Stumbo - 1/20/2001 11:25:06 AM Is pardoning one's brother a first, BTW? 3568. jexster - 1/20/2001 11:27:40 AM Why Stumbie, you're so damned profound. 3569. jexster - 1/20/2001 11:27:59 AM 3570. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 11:28:27 AM 3571. jexster - 1/20/2001 11:35:18 AM 3572. jexster - 1/20/2001 12:07:08 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Thousands of demonstrators booed 3573. jexster - 1/20/2001 12:18:53 PM Don't Worry America, Help Is On The Way! 3574. jexster - 1/20/2001 12:34:46 PM Bastard of the United States is accurate, POTUS a lie for the simple-minded 3575. Francis Urquhart - 1/20/2001 12:36:04 PM Buck up, Cindy. There's no law that says you can't still blow Clinton and Gore, and 8 years can go by like that. 3576. Dusty - 1/20/2001 12:36:39 PM jexster 3577. Francis Urquhart - 1/20/2001 12:40:20 PM Dusty 3578. jexster - 1/20/2001 12:44:21 PM God Bless the Swiss who are able to descriminate between the significant and the trivial 3579. CalGal - 1/20/2001 12:45:18 PM Well, it's not like California voted for Bush, Jex. Just a way of saying, "Fuck you, folks" from our President. 3580. robertjayb - 1/20/2001 12:49:10 PM . 3581. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 12:50:21 PM 3582. robertjayb - 1/20/2001 12:52:58 PM . 3583. CalGal - 1/20/2001 12:54:41 PM That's our Willie! 3584. jexster - 1/20/2001 1:10:45 PM FU... 3585. jexster - 1/20/2001 1:18:30 PM FU has left the building 3586. Cellar Door - 1/20/2001 1:30:46 PM "8 years can go by like that." 3587. lemwalker - 1/20/2001 1:32:52 PM Now we will see. Is it pay back time for dubya's supporters? Will the energy crisis worsen as the citizenry is bled white? Will those who are not white, and have no desire to be so, riot when power use is beyond their means to pay? 3588. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 1:37:21 PM 3589. wonkers2 - 1/20/2001 1:45:37 PM Stumbo, #3548 and #3551 were excellent also. By the way what do you have against rogering? Anyway, evidence indicates Clinton eschewed rogering. He did not have sex with that woman. Women? 3590. robertjayb - 1/20/2001 1:49:44 PM . 3591. Cellar Door - 1/20/2001 1:57:04 PM Actually our enemies ARE in America. Remember Oklahoma City? 3592. Cellar Door - 1/20/2001 1:59:49 PM Bush Appoints Ricky Martin to Newly-Created Cabinet Post! 3593. robertjayb - 1/20/2001 2:05:59 PM . 3594. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 2:09:18 PM 3595. Indiana Jones - 1/20/2001 2:19:22 PM Good speech by Dubya...didn't think he had it in him. 3596. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 2:22:09 PM 3597. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 2:25:27 PM 3598. Indiana Jones - 1/20/2001 2:28:43 PM Judith: Your side of the fence ought to be happy. He really only threw two applause lines to his supporters. If not for the vow to cut taxes and strengthen the military, Gore could have read from the same text. 3599. Cellar Door - 1/20/2001 2:38:48 PM Will the "Star Wars" shield be able to protect us from Osana Ben Laden? That's the $64,000 questions folks. 3600. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 2:48:51 PM 3601. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 2:52:21 PM 3602. JJBiener - 1/20/2001 3:24:10 PM Judith - Just because we are vulnerable to a slap in the face, that doesn't mean we leave our balls dangling in the breeze . . . 3603. robertjayb - 1/20/2001 4:05:34 PM . 3604. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 4:14:43 PM 3605. Cellar Door - 1/20/2001 4:24:18 PM Judith, Osana Ben Laden is a C.I.A.-manufactured boogeyman. The people who attacked that ship were "said to be linked" to Ben Laden. He's the propaganda target of choice because fears designed to be promulgated through the masses must have a single,easily identifiable source: Ben Laden, Saddam, Bill Clinton. Get it? 3606. AceofSpades - 1/20/2001 4:35:21 PM 3607. Cellar Door - 1/20/2001 6:21:48 PM Of course I remember Waco. Your point, o pointy-headed one? 3608. wonkers2 - 1/20/2001 6:45:14 PM He must be referring to the World Court, the World Trade Organization and other commy international organizations that Clinton, with the support of big business, got the country further involved in. And he forgets who the pussies were on Bosnia and Kosovo. Clue: It wasn't the Democrats if that's what he means by the "Lefties." Actually the "Lefties" in the Democratic Party are vanishing like the passenger pigeon. 3609. CalGal - 1/20/2001 8:47:30 PM Did anyone think it was funny that Bush's raised hand kept jerking in time with what he was saying? Geeeeeeek. 3610. Cellar Door - 1/20/2001 8:51:51 PM They never lost their love of foregn money! They were getting TONS of it all through their phony complaints about Clinton giving nuclear "secrets" to the Chinese! 3611. Al D - 1/20/2001 9:01:34 PM Wow, what a terribly important point to notice, the man's hand moved. I wonder if Mensa members would have been smart enough to notice that. I doubt it; they're not quite up to Mote standards of intelligence. 3612. CalGal - 1/20/2001 9:04:29 PM Heavens. Such an ass you are. Any number of clever remarks to make and that's all you're capable of. 3613. Autodaffy - 1/20/2001 9:11:10 PM And like bin Laden cares whether there is a missle shield, unlike the Chinese or Koreans that Albright dances with. 3614. Al D - 1/20/2001 9:18:35 PM CalGal 3615. Al D - 1/20/2001 9:20:41 PM I have copied down Such an ass you are and will refer to it when I really want to send a zinger. Great stuff! 3616. jexster - 1/20/2001 9:31:04 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s motorcade lurched through the largest inaugural protests since Richard Nixon on Saturday, enduring thousands of protesters who hurled insults at the newly installed president. 3617. jexster - 1/20/2001 9:34:33 PM 3618. Al D - 1/20/2001 9:38:19 PM jexster 3619. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 9:54:45 PM 3620. jexster - 1/20/2001 9:58:54 PM AlD - Cause you said I should call you at that Restaurant in martinez...did twice and they didn't know Al Davis 3621. Al D - 1/20/2001 9:59:58 PM Judith 3622. jexster - 1/20/2001 10:01:11 PM JAH...I tried to avoid all today's illegitimate event coverage but I did catch Howdy Doody jerkin his hand as that freak in Gilbert & Sullivan garb administered the so-called Oath of Office 3623. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 10:03:53 PM 3624. Al D - 1/20/2001 10:12:25 PM Judith 3625. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 10:15:53 PM 3626. Al D - 1/20/2001 10:18:17 PM Judith 3627. jexster - 1/20/2001 10:21:20 PM Behold A Child Is Born 3628. jexster - 1/20/2001 10:23:44 PM There is no reason to have a serious discussion of Bush's proposals as they are going nowhere. 3629. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 10:24:56 PM 3631. Al D - 1/20/2001 10:26:29 PM jexster 3632. jexster - 1/20/2001 10:39:02 PM Last weekend's news...not included about 300 net gain for Gore - the net of ballots punched with stylus without insertion of card into machine...results in a pinhole which the automated counters cannot read... 3633. Al D - 1/20/2001 10:50:24 PM jexster 3634. JudithAtHome - 1/20/2001 10:50:30 PM 3635. Autodaffy - 1/20/2001 11:09:36 PM I think it is wonderful that Bush has opponents who waste energy on impotent protests, claims of illegitimacy, etc. Their efforts should ensure that there is no effective argument to oppose him over the next eight years. Keep posting the cartoons and dismissals, all you good and ineffective folks! Marginalize yourselves to your heart's content. 3636. arkymalarky - 1/20/2001 11:14:44 PM Hahahaha! Eight years is a joke of a dream. It's going to be four difficult ones for the poor sap. 3637. jexster - 1/20/2001 11:23:05 PM Two words 3638. jexster - 1/20/2001 11:35:12 PM Keep posting.... 3639. Autodaffy - 1/20/2001 11:45:30 PM Jexter, 3640. jexster - 1/20/2001 11:49:44 PM Open wide Auto, open wide 3641. Stumbo - 1/21/2001 1:26:21 AM Wonkers, #3589: 3642. concerned - 1/21/2001 3:27:04 AM Now that he's outta office, it will be interesting to see who Clinton's* friends in the Democrat Party really are. Or aren't. 3643. ycmeehan - 1/21/2001 5:04:38 AM From UK Electric Telegraph: 3644. ycmeehan - 1/21/2001 5:16:33 AM I just couldn't link it but it's here: www.telegraph.co.uk 3645. KuligintheHooligan - 1/21/2001 8:50:45 AM "President Clinton ended his tenure Saturday by pardoning 140 Americans, erasing the criminal records of his brother Roger and Whitewater business partner Susan McDougal" 3646. KuligintheHooligan - 1/21/2001 8:54:59 AM "Roger Clinton, Bill Clinton's under-achieving half brother, was sentenced to two years in prison after pleading guilty in 1985 to conspiring to distribute cocaine. He cooperated with authorities and testified against other drug defendants. He has since focused on an entertainment career." 3647. wabbit - 1/21/2001 9:26:28 AM Jexster, 3648. Rosetta Stone - 1/21/2001 9:28:47 AM Bill Clinton has always felt guilty about his brother going to jail for things they both did. 3649. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 10:13:17 AM 3650. Indiana Jones - 1/21/2001 11:16:03 AM I made a great sacrifice and listened to the speech again and he DID say "enemies...IN our country". I'm sure it was supposed to be OF. No biggie. 3651. azazel - 1/21/2001 11:17:27 AM In re 3645: Reported in the history books - do you mean just like GHWB pardoning his cronies in the last hours of his administration? 3652. KuligintheHooligan - 1/21/2001 11:38:50 AM azazel 3653. Greystoke - 1/21/2001 12:11:26 PM Rehnquist rationalizes. 3654. Greystoke - 1/21/2001 12:12:18 PM Oh, I didn't realize that there is a rich tradition of Republican Supreme Court justices helping to steal an election for the Republican candidate. I guess that makes what happened in 2000 A-OK then. Just following judicial precendent. 3655. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 12:25:08 PM 3656. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 12:28:39 PM 3657. KuligintheHooligan - 1/21/2001 12:45:19 PM My goodness, Bush got a word wrong in his speach! The world is coming to an end! What other horrors await us in this administration? 3658. KuligintheHooligan - 1/21/2001 12:47:10 PM Is it just me, or do others find it "odd" that the very same people that excused Clinton's adultery and perjury find Bush's mistakes with mispronunciation such an abomination? 3659. Cellar Door - 1/21/2001 12:47:23 PM Quite true. 3660. KuligintheHooligan - 1/21/2001 12:48:10 PM Actually, what we need is for Bush to get caught with his pants down in the white house with some intern, perjury himself in a court of law, and lie to the American people about it. Then I fully expect the Democrats in this thread to wholeheartedly support him. 3661. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 12:59:44 PM 3662. jexster - 1/21/2001 1:00:41 PM 3663. jexster - 1/21/2001 1:03:16 PM Greystoke....an admission of guilt if I do say so myself! 3664. jexster - 1/21/2001 1:06:28 PM Thanks Wabbit....I wouldn't have posted had we not had such trouble connecting...who knows maybe I'll be able to convert a republican for Christ! 3665. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 1:08:11 PM 3666. jexster - 1/21/2001 1:10:53 PM Rehnquist's vaunting pride knows no bounds. A GrandOldPig without shame 3667. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 1:12:28 PM 3668. jexster - 1/21/2001 1:17:32 PM My goodness, Bush got a word wrong in his speach! 3669. jexster - 1/21/2001 1:22:05 PM 3670. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 1:25:58 PM 3671. jexster - 1/21/2001 1:28:10 PM And looming over it all was Bill Clinton, 3672. jexster - 1/21/2001 1:29:45 PM JAH - Perhaps the Yeats quote was better suited to the Limbaugh LugHeads but I think it applies quite nicely to Rove and any to number of wingnuts round these here parts 3673. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 1:37:47 PM 3674. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 1:45:45 PM Rosie Red, you'd better take care or some of your fellow Moties may blow your cover and subject you to a suit from Clinton for libel for your latest lies about his use of cocaine. Your malice toward him is amply documented here in the Mote with a whole succession of similar lies. 3675. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 1:53:31 PM THE SUPREMES 3676. jexster - 1/21/2001 1:54:21 PM JAH...worked for me 3677. jexster - 1/21/2001 1:56:04 PM U wouldn't be tryin to provoke another pissin contest betw. me and the Duck... you're too sweet for that Judith! 3678. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 1:58:37 PM THE EIGHTIES REXAMINED 3679. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 2:01:16 PM 3680. jexster - 1/21/2001 2:03:53 PM "You see that sign that says `Please Don't Go?' " Mr. Clinton said,laughing and pointing into the crowd. "Well, I left the White House, but I'm still here." 3681. robertjayb - 1/21/2001 2:18:09 PM . 3682. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 2:39:36 PM 3683. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/21/2001 3:34:16 PM 3684. Francis Urquhart - 1/21/2001 4:03:19 PM There once was a man named jex 3685. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 4:06:29 PM 3686. CalGal - 1/21/2001 4:10:48 PM Scan, sir, scan. 3687. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 4:11:20 PM Not bad. Wish I could rhyme a reply. Niner, you remind me of the smart ass editor of the National Review that has been appearing as a talking head lately on CNN--quite glib but mostly misguided. 3688. Francis Urquhart - 1/21/2001 4:13:05 PM Uncle Wonkers 3689. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 4:18:18 PM Buddies... 3690. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 4:18:32 PM 3691. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 4:19:23 PM Not sure if I get your drift. He is quite genial and articulate, a good spokesman for the forces of evil, a good antidote to Trent Lott and Phil Gramm and Ashcroft. Beyond that you'll have to consult Cellar or Jex. By the way, recommend that you read Time every week and pay off your ENTIRE credit card bill every month. Uncle Wonk (Passing on my advice from my Uncle Ed as I went off to college.) 3692. CalGal - 1/21/2001 4:20:02 PM Ace, 3693. Francis Urquhart - 1/21/2001 4:22:40 PM Ace, Cal 3694. CalGal - 1/21/2001 4:23:48 PM They were cute; I intended no serious criticism. 3695. bubbaette - 1/21/2001 4:24:03 PM There was a young lawyer named Francis 3696. jexster - 1/21/2001 4:30:37 PM What's up with The Lebanon? 3697. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 4:36:02 PM 3698. CalGal - 1/21/2001 4:37:47 PM I can't believe that asswipe reneged on his promise to get the fuck out of Dodge for a while. 3699. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 4:40:28 PM I'm not a fan of Jesse Jackson, but I don't think he's any more obligated than Clinton to quit doing what he was doing before the scandal broke. 3700. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 4:43:30 PM Arky...I don't give a damn what he does...nor will I listen to what he sez...he is naked before the world. 3701. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 4:46:05 PM My fav line from the Jackson link... 3702. CalGal - 1/21/2001 4:46:59 PM He's not obligated. He made the promise himself. It's the reneging that pukes me out--as well as the promise to start with. I mean, it's not like he just learned about the kid, so why didn't he remove himself from public life back then? It's not shame--it's embarrassment and the perceived need to make a gesture. 3703. jexster - 1/21/2001 4:47:14 PM MotePoll 3704. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 4:47:16 PM I say I'm not a fan, but I've always liked hearing what he's had to say, and I think he's had an important impact in putting more national focus on class and racial issues. He's shown moral failings to some degree in the past, and I don't think that's important to his political life. If this scandal makes him less efficient in the future, so be it, but it's not enough reason to lie down and quit. 3705. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 4:50:29 PM And I agree with 3702, Cal, but don't see it as much more despicable than what Clinton did when the Lewinsky scandal broke and then how he behaved when he finally had to admit it. Clinton didn't ever even intimate that he might bow out over it, but I don't know if that makes him any more respectable in his handling of his scandal. 3706. OhioSTOPAS - 1/21/2001 4:56:26 PM Committing adultery forfeits one's right to speak on public issues? That'll be news to Gingrich, Hyde, Guiliani, Dole (Bob, that is), and of course the ex-Philanderer-in-Chief, not to mention heroes of the past like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. At least Jesse Jackson hasn't hypocritically been publicly condemning adultery while he privately practices it. 3707. OhioSTOPAS - 1/21/2001 4:57:43 PM I've been out of town for a few days (college trip with The Princess of Ohio). Anything happen in politics since Thursday? 3708. jexster - 1/21/2001 4:57:53 PM Hopefuller and Hopefuller 3709. glendajean - 1/21/2001 4:58:16 PM Or our Indiana congressman, Dan Burton. 3710. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 4:58:55 PM Ohio...it is not the adultery. You know that. It is the simple fact that one cannot believe what he sez. 3711. jexster - 1/21/2001 4:59:01 PM But Boffo in Beruit 3712. OhioSTOPAS - 1/21/2001 5:00:04 PM How could I have forgotten "Scumbag" Dan? 3713. jexster - 1/21/2001 5:00:21 PM Yea Ohio thousands of demonstrators booed the Presidunce of the US and looming over it all was Bill Clinton.... 3714. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:02:06 PM Why not, Prof? Why do people expect that those who have illicit affairs can't be trusted in anything? That is convoluted reasoning, imo. Would it be better if they just had open marriages? 3715. CalGal - 1/21/2001 5:02:37 PM I don't think there's any comparison between Clinton and Jackson, on any scale--the two acts aren't the same. 3716. CalGal - 1/21/2001 5:04:13 PM Now, if Jackson completely abandons his religious mantle, drops the "Reverend", and goes all out to the political side of things, then that's just fine. We'll call him Al Sharpton the Second. 3717. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:04:14 PM 3718. jexster - 1/21/2001 5:04:44 PM Count me out Cal (unless I can laugh at you and vice versa) 3719. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:05:37 PM The two acts don't have to be the same for the behavior to be compared. They both did things with women other than their wives and both reacted certain ways when it was discovered. And I totally agree about Jackson's hypocrisy, but I still don't see how he has any less moral standing than Clinton looking the cameras in the eye and saying the words for which he'll be more remembered than for any of the other great speeches he's made in his tenure as president. 3720. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:05:58 PM 3721. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:06:44 PM Arky...do you read posts? I said...it's not the adultery..IT IS the fact that he behaves in opposition to the life he preaches...the fact that he is returning to public life so quickly(he is the one who removed himself) is a an excellent measure of his hypocrisy and complete lack of character...why should anyone believe anything he sez. 3722. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 5:08:12 PM What if Jackson had persuaded his girl friend to have an abortion as many have done? He acknowledged the baby and is supporting it and the mother. From the perspective of the right it seems to me he deserves some respect. 3723. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:08:43 PM 3724. CalGal - 1/21/2001 5:09:08 PM Ace, 3725. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:09:36 PM PP, 3726. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:09:54 PM 3727. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:10:15 PM Perhaps the legacy of Clinton will be deregulation of confabulation... 3728. CalGal - 1/21/2001 5:11:20 PM Arky, 3729. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:11:21 PM I give up. 3730. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:12:06 PM "Let us not forget the Democrats spread rumors of GWHB's supposed marital infidelity." 3731. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:12:07 PM 3732. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:13:17 PM 3733. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:13:59 PM And...if he has been sucking at the teat of civil rights funds... 3734. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:14:27 PM There is a difference between individual actions and political actions. That Jackson had an affair is unrelated to the social causes he's promoted, imo. Clinton has fought for the same things here in AR way before he got noticed nationally, and all that time he was unfaithful to his wife. In a small state like ours that was fairly common knowledge. I don't think it's relevant to his moral views on social issues. 3735. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:15:46 PM 3736. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:16:09 PM But all in the context of social issues, Ace, not whether they're adulterous, unless, of course, they're trying to make someone else's adultery an issue at the same time. 3737. CalGal - 1/21/2001 5:17:16 PM Ace, 3738. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:20:06 PM 3739. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:20:21 PM Arky...let me put it this way...he has sacrificed his ability to promote a social agenda, and in return he got to fuck. His trade, his legacy... 3740. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:25:50 PM That's where I disagree with you, PP. I don't believe he's "sacrificed his ability to promote a social agenda" and I find it disconcerting that we've become so preoccupied with people's personal failings that we're willing to consider them useless once they've been brought to light. I will be very glad when we quit concerning ourselves with that sort of thing. 3741. CalGal - 1/21/2001 5:26:43 PM "Family values" was simply shorthand for: 3742. CalGal - 1/21/2001 5:27:29 PM Grover Cleveland. 3743. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:30:51 PM 3744. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:30:55 PM That was the name in my head, but it didn't seem right somehow. I had that stupid little jingle in there, "Ma, ma, where's my pa..." and couldn't think. 3745. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:30:57 PM And furthermore, on that score, I would say this: Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. 3746. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:31:28 PM 1) The fact that inner-city dysfunction was largely caused by rampant bastardy and irresponsible parenting, or bastarding, and that the cure was stable families and responsible fathers, not bigger welfare checks...." 3747. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:32:11 PM Well Arky, behavior has implications and he chose to ignore such...he got his cake, but... 3748. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 5:33:48 PM Maybe Henry Hyde should resign from the Senate? 3749. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:34:46 PM Jackson is now just another politician. 3750. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:35:21 PM 3751. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:37:12 PM 3752. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:38:04 PM What bothers me is that Jackson has a "moral" platform to promote a social agenda I feel close to...and he sold it away for fucking. 3753. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:41:09 PM His moral platform is not sold away because he had an affair, PP. You need to pan out your lens there and get this into a broader perspective, imo. 3754. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:41:43 PM 3755. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:42:17 PM We'll see Arky...there are plenty that were fed up with him before this... 3756. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:43:12 PM 3757. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:44:44 PM Actually, I agree almost completely, word for word, with Ace's 3754. But as I said, he has been a significant and useful voice, and I don't think, especially in light of past failings that Ace points out, that this scandal means the end of his ability to have a meaningful influence on the political environment. 3758. Indiana Jones - 1/21/2001 5:45:09 PM Ace (3754): Pretty much my opinion. 3759. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:45:24 PM Oh so what, Ace. They had no business going there in the first place, and you and I both know it. 3760. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:46:20 PM Good God Arky...all the posts that have been written here, all the points that have been made, and you think that I (people) will be "mad" only because he had an "affair"...do you read what others say here? 3761. Indiana Jones - 1/21/2001 5:48:15 PM What's the story with Jenna Bush? 3762. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:49:23 PM I understand what you're saying, PP--it's not that he boinked someone, it's that he lied and got caught and bowed out of public existence and changed his mind. None of that seems to be a big enough offense in the grand scheme of things to keep him out of public life forever. 3763. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:50:29 PM 3764. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:51:07 PM Arky...he will indeed continue to seek the spotlight...it will no longer shine true for him, if it ever did. The loss is all of ours, and he has let many down. 3765. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 5:52:41 PM 3766. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:53:22 PM Ace, you're a psychotic idiot. 3767. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:54:20 PM And it'll be a cold day in hell before any pathetic little rant of yours will shut me up. You'd better pull out more than that if you're serious. 3768. CalGal - 1/21/2001 5:55:15 PM All talk of "helping the poor" is talk of morality. 3769. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:56:32 PM PP, 3770. CalGal - 1/21/2001 5:56:40 PM I am repulsed by the "I'm going into seclusion/What, the liberal media are going to give me a pass?/Okay, I'm back after 48 hours" bullshit. 3771. Cellar Door - 1/21/2001 5:56:50 PM "You'd better pull out more than that if you're serious." 3772. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 5:58:11 PM I was just contemplating whether scrotum and penis sizes are inversely proportional. 3773. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 5:59:52 PM Ace...Arky could not be a psychotic idiot...idiot is historically established on the basis of IQ(Arky is quite bright), and the latest DSM-IV no longer recognizes a categoty for "Psychosis"... 3774. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 6:00:57 PM Hahaha. Thanks PP, but I was the one who issued the on-the-fly diagnosis to Ace. 3775. PsychProf - 1/21/2001 6:01:56 PM I gotta start reading posts better. 3776. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 6:06:17 PM Hmmm. And who was accusing whom of post-reading comprehension problems? ;-> 3777. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 6:07:45 PM I'm going to fix a cup of coffee and sit on the porch, then try to make myself useful. Ace got my blood pressure up to the point I might be able to move from my seat and actually get something accomplished. 3778. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 6:14:34 PM 3779. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 6:20:12 PM It's not just Arky, of course. Every liberal here, and every liberal talking head on TV, speaks about how outrageous it is to ask Ex-Impeached-President Bill about previous affairs, blithely unaware that hundreds, if not thousands, of men are being asked the same questions in the same sexual harassment suits (many, though not all, bogus), and yet no one suggests we change the law on this point; oh no, it's only Ex-Impeached-Rapist-President Bill who should be spared these indignities. 3780. Indiana Jones - 1/21/2001 6:21:14 PM To lighten the mood a little, here's a post from TableTalk with a question: Guess when it was posted. 3781. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 6:25:21 PM 3782. CalGal - 1/21/2001 6:30:38 PM Ace, 3783. Indiana Jones - 1/21/2001 6:36:41 PM Answer to question in post 3780: 3784. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 6:40:32 PM "Rather, what if there were a law that said you couldn't question or examine any consensual relationships in a sexual harassment case?" 3785. CalGal - 1/21/2001 6:44:33 PM Ace, 3786. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 6:44:55 PM 3787. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 6:47:15 PM "in any event, my proposal is more likely to happen than yours." 3788. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 6:49:59 PM 3789. CalGal - 1/21/2001 6:52:02 PM "Have you ever sexually harassed before?" 3790. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 6:54:46 PM 3791. CalGal - 1/21/2001 6:56:21 PM Now, if a person is a manager and has promoted many women, it is entirely reasonable (if incredibly unpleasant) to question those women who were direct reports and ask them if their promotions were conditional upon giving the guy a blowjob. Or they could ask if the guy was always making sexually explicit comments or whatever nonsense was needed in order to establish that it was a harassing environment. 3792. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 6:57:08 PM 3793. CalGal - 1/21/2001 6:59:06 PM You mean you'd only let in evidence documented in previous lawsuits? 3794. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 6:59:45 PM 3795. CalGal - 1/21/2001 7:00:25 PM Monica got incredible promotions. 3796. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 7:03:52 PM 3797. CalGal - 1/21/2001 7:04:09 PM You're trying to come up with a way to allow *almost every other sexual harassment lawsuit, complete with questions about prior sexual conquests* while trying to come up with some ludicrous reason why "monica is different." 3798. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 7:05:14 PM 3799. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 7:05:50 PM 3800. Indiana Jones - 1/21/2001 7:14:00 PM Judith: Dash it all. 3801. CalGal - 1/21/2001 7:15:26 PM The President can do anyone a favor, including an intern who works directly under him. 3802. CalGal - 1/21/2001 7:16:28 PM She quickly got a PAYING JOB at the Department of Defense. 3803. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 7:27:13 PM 3804. Indiana Jones - 1/21/2001 7:28:58 PM Judith: I think he knows that. 3805. jexster - 1/21/2001 7:36:01 PM 3806. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 7:36:13 PM Well, thanks to Ace the Christmas tree is now out of here and so are most of the pine needles. 3807. concerned - 1/21/2001 7:38:02 PM From a WCBS online poll: 3808. jexster - 1/21/2001 7:38:26 PM Did anyone else see Susan McDougal on Greta Van Susteren's show? 3809. concerned - 1/21/2001 7:42:40 PM Re. 3782 - 3810. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 7:44:08 PM She's been something, I must say. She's more than redeemed herself for those obnoxious commercials that she used to be in, trying to sell that infamous land, when I was a teen. I despised those commercials and would run from the room whenever one came on. 3811. concerned - 1/21/2001 7:44:10 PM The criminal element is very popular among lefties nowadays, it seems, what with Clowntoon, Soozie MacDoogie etal. 3812. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 7:46:22 PM She being Susan McDougal, of course. 3813. arkymalarky - 1/21/2001 7:47:18 PM Is this the same guy who's jumping up and down because two convicted drunks are occupying positions 1 and 2 in the nation? 3814. mgleason - 1/21/2001 7:47:58 PM Someone asked about this earlier: 3815. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 7:48:52 PM 3816. jexster - 1/21/2001 7:59:10 PM 3817. jexster - 1/21/2001 8:11:07 PM The Tribune de Geneve did not even mention the Bush so-called inauguration.... 3818. Cellar Door - 1/21/2001 8:28:27 PM Looks like Bush is after Jenna's bush! 3819. jexster - 1/21/2001 8:54:37 PM 3820. jexster - 1/21/2001 8:57:22 PM errata "inaugural[sic]" 3821. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 9:43:22 PM Seems to me a case could be made that Monica harrassed the President. Some think she was paid to do so by Richard Scaife Mellon and encouraged to do so by her mother. 3822. Al D - 1/21/2001 9:50:55 PM As long as someone thinks something, it is certainly worth considering. 3823. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 10:13:45 PM Al, glad to see you're open minded on the theory. 3824. Al D - 1/21/2001 10:20:48 PM wonkers2 3825. Al D - 1/21/2001 10:21:39 PM I would also suggest Bush try to interest Ted Turner in investing $1,000,000,000 in the inner cities in for profit businesses, with the full realization that several years might pass before a profit were shown. These businesses would be run as much as possible by Blacks 3826. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 10:24:58 PM Well, there is clearly support in the inner cities for vouchers. But not much for privatizing Social Security. I would say that a joint announcement with Jesse Jackson that he is withdrawing Ashcroft's nomination would have a quicker and more dramatic effect. He has to think outside the box. 3827. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 10:25:14 PM 3828. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 10:26:42 PM I think Bill Gates gave a billion or so for minority scholarships. Turner is sending money to Africa. 3829. Al D - 1/21/2001 10:31:23 PM Judith 3830. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 10:34:31 PM 3831. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 10:36:19 PM 3832. CalGal - 1/21/2001 10:37:20 PM There is no doubt that the Blacks in the last election were W's strongest and most virulent enemies. 3833. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 10:38:07 PM Several commentators whom I respect have said that the administrative cost for individual accounts would be prohibitive, let alone the folly of opening up financially unsophisticated people to become the prey of the vultures in the investment management industry. The best proposal I have seen is to provide a layer similar to the 401k program for federal government employees which has options for investments in stock and bond index funds. 3834. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 10:45:34 PM 3835. jexster - 1/21/2001 10:45:51 PM Black communities correctly could mollify their view of him. 3836. jexster - 1/21/2001 10:47:47 PM JAH --- a little patronizing...nothin new around here 3837. JudithAtHome - 1/21/2001 10:49:52 PM 3838. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 10:54:38 PM "I would say that a joint announcement with Jesse Jackson that he is withdrawing Ashcroft's nomination would have a quicker and more dramatic effect." 3839. jexster - 1/21/2001 10:57:37 PM Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will throw down the gauntlet today to President Bush and Republican congressional leaders on campaign finance reform with reintroduction of legislation to reduce the flow of special-interest cash into political campaigns. 3840. wonkers2 - 1/21/2001 10:59:58 PM Judith, my comment about financially unsophisticated people was not addressed to minorities but to 95% of Americans who are covered by Social Security. Most people are best off investing in stocks through index mutual funds through Vanguard or similar vehicles, not in individual stocks through brokerages. I certainly did not intend to cast aspersions on anyone's intelligence level. Anyway, what I was saying in response to Al was mostly tongue in cheek. There is nothing Bush could do, short of a brain transplant, to attract African American voters, precisely because they are plenty smart enough to know who has been screwing them for the past 40 years or so--the GOP. 3841. Al D - 1/21/2001 11:10:18 PM CalGal 3842. Al D - 1/21/2001 11:14:44 PM womkers2 3843. azazel - 1/21/2001 11:18:36 PM However, since Wall Street has been salivating at the thought of getting some of that SS income stream, AND because GWB owes the moneyed interests BIGTIME for bankrolling his...er, umm, ascendency, you can bet the farm that we're gonna see a huge push for a privatization scheme. OF course, although George "trusts" people with their own money, there is the matter of the management fees, etc. that "all investors" pay to invest. Thems the rules - and if you invest poorly, well, hey, George trusted you with your money, but you can't expect him to educate you on investing too, now can you? 3844. CalGal - 1/21/2001 11:19:30 PM There are two huge canards that plaque the Republican party: one is that they are harmful to the rights of Blacks and Latinos, and that they will overturn RoevWade and take away a woman's right to choose. 3845. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 11:23:59 PM azazel: 3846. Al D - 1/21/2001 11:29:37 PM Don't be absurd. They weren't "virulent enemies". They opposed him. 3847. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 11:31:12 PM You n' me, Al. We'll shows 'em. 3848. Al D - 1/21/2001 11:31:29 PM CalGal 3849. CalGal - 1/21/2001 11:40:37 PM Davis, 3850. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 11:50:38 PM CLINTON'S POLTICAL OBITUARY 3851. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 11:51:24 PM It is hard to take seriously a man who ruts in the Oval Office, let alone revises history to describe his swiving as the democratic version of Horatius at the bridge. But that is what we get with William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. We have a fellow who is part hick, part scholar; a guy with Astroturf in the bed of his El Camino and a Rhodes Scholarship on his resume; a poor li'l ol' country boy and the master of his many demesnes. In short, we have a man of jagged and staggering contradictions: Huckleberry Gandhi. 3852. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 11:51:43 PM And that's the story of this campaign. For eight years, Bill Clinton aimed too low. He entered office with the intention of hogging the spotlight and cheating the gendarmes, and he did both. In so doing, he has cheated the hangman -- but not the historian. 3853. AceofSpades - 1/21/2001 11:51:52 PM 3854. CalGal - 1/21/2001 11:52:54 PM What the hell is this? When did you stop linking? 3855. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 12:00:48 AM 3856. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 12:07:24 AM 3857. jonesatlaw - 1/22/2001 12:07:27 AM Of all the things that Bush is proposing, privatizing part of social security is the least radical and the most likely to have some success. Bob Kerry, Pat Moynihan and others will give him plenty of bipartisan cover and a load of sound bites to support such a plan from past statements alone. The devil is in the details, and so exactly how this will pan out is anyones guess. I would bet that we end up with a higher effective rate of social security tax, with all of the increase going to the privately directed investment, coupled with some portion of the previous rate going into the account as well. So long as the "insurance" portion of the fund is fully funded, I think everyone reasonable can get on board. 3858. jonesatlaw - 1/22/2001 12:07:58 AM The real sticking point will be the elimination of the estate tax. So far the GOP has been very successful in framing this in terms of Ma Kettle having to sell the home place to pay off the IRS vultures who are already pulling the gold fillings out of Pa's teeth before he's cold. Aside from the fairness issues, which I feel are bogus, though many many others buy the party line, the unintended consequences of such a move are huge. As small as the number of taxpayers whose estates will face any significant federal estate tax, the economic impact on churches, hospitals, universities and other charities who are quite reliant on donations tailored to avoid estate tax is huge. If the GOP is smart, they will co-opt these folks by offering instead even sweeter treatment of estate gifts to charity. If they don't head this off, the estate tax repeal is dead. Yes, I know the house voted for it this year, but those were votes knowing that the senate votes were not there. A quiet but sustained attack by charities coupled with a populist attack by the democrats will kill it. Look for an adjustment of the tax credit to move the lower limit closer to what it was when last truly adjusted for inflation. 3859. CalGal - 1/22/2001 12:09:40 AM Ace, 3860. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 12:09:55 AM 3861. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 12:12:30 AM 3862. jonesatlaw - 1/22/2001 12:13:47 AM Ace- the piece was good. It was worth extended cut and paste, but I still prefer the teaser and link approach. 3863. CalGal - 1/22/2001 12:15:01 AM Jones, 3864. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 12:15:35 AM 3865. jonesatlaw - 1/22/2001 12:18:21 AM Ace- no, I didn't say that Bush's plan was reasonable, I said that a reasonable one is likely to come out of the sausage factory on the Hill. It will start with the Bush plan, but much more will go into it (and perhaps out) before its stuffed in the casing. But given the essential me tooism of the campaign, with emphasis on the differences rather than the broad agreements, its not surprising that enough senators will be found for approval of some reform. 3866. CalGal - 1/22/2001 12:20:01 AM My bitch about Bush's SocSec privatization is that it's too little. Turn it back into true insurance, rather than a fucking entitlement. 3867. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 12:20:42 AM 3868. jonesatlaw - 1/22/2001 12:21:05 AM "Huckleberry Gandhi" is rather good writing. 3869. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 12:21:16 AM It's FASCINATING, I meant. 3870. Autodaffy - 1/22/2001 12:29:54 AM Jones, 3871. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 12:31:05 AM Auto-- 3872. CalGal - 1/22/2001 12:31:35 AM Because Clinton's veto was protection for a good number of Dems. They'd received assurance that he was going to veto it. 3873. OhioSTOPAS - 1/22/2001 4:43:15 AM Message # 3852: (quoting Tony Snow): "Clinton never tried to rally Americans behind a great cause. He never took . . . risk . . . . He didn't have to. Times were good." 3874. PsychProf - 1/22/2001 6:42:11 AM 21 RULES FOR BEING A GOOD REPUBLICAN IN 21st CENTURY AMERICA 3875. PsychProf - 1/22/2001 6:42:15 AM 12) You have to believe that a waiting period for purchasing a handgun is bad because quick access to a new firearm is an important concern for all Americans. 3876. azazel - 1/22/2001 8:06:04 AM In re 3845: 3877. azazel - 1/22/2001 8:31:27 AM Ni! 3878. wonkers2 - 1/22/2001 8:34:46 AM PP, Great list. 3879. pseudoerasmus - 1/22/2001 8:50:55 AM I have a few questions about the Yankistani gun control debate. 3880. iiibbb - 1/22/2001 9:30:28 AM Message # 3879 3881. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:53:24 AM PE, 3882. rubberducky - 1/22/2001 10:36:21 AM there's a longish article (might be a temp link) from the USAT today that talks about the aftermath of it's recent decision on the 2000 election that's worth reading: 3884. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:10:15 AM So what is a BOTUS? Which does 3885. OhioSTOPAS - 1/22/2001 11:10:17 AM Go to Message # 3549, where robertjayb provides a link to an article by Vincent Bugliosi. It's the most thorough ass-kicking of the Bush v. Gore majority opinions that I've seen yet. 3886. rubberducky - 1/22/2001 11:12:47 AM 3887. OhioSTOPAS - 1/22/2001 11:14:08 AM Regarding gun control: For most things in a democracy, the majority rules. Why shouldn't the majority rule on the subject of gun ownership? 3888. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:15:34 AM Great Article thanks to Robt! 3889. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 11:20:09 AM 1 RULE FOR BEING A GOOD DEMOCRAT IN 21st CENTURY AMERICA 3890. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:21:26 AM Tnx RD...showed up for me....think I know why.... 3891. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 11:22:55 AM Jex - Me, naif that I am, I'll go for the principle 3892. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 11:25:48 AM Ohio - It is a shame that Bugliosi would taint his reputation by offering such a bogus argument. 3893. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:27:11 AM OUCH! 3894. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:28:17 AM Tell us Biener precisely in what respects the argument is "bogus" 3895. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:29:51 AM OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3896. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:31:29 AM AAAAHHH 3897. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:32:35 AM If a first-year law student ever cited completely inapplicable authority like this, any thoughtful professor would encourage him not to waste two more years trying to become a lawyer. As Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar noted, the five conservative Justices "failed to cite a single case that, on its facts, comes close to supporting its analysis and result." 3898. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:32:56 AM Ready yet? I'm turning blue 3899. OhioSTOPAS - 1/22/2001 11:33:05 AM Jex: Your breath is "bated", not "baited". 3900. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:35:24 AM Round March or so expect this thread to fill with law review articles that, because I cannot link to Lexis, I may decide to post in full (only from the leading journals) 3901. Francis Urquhart - 1/22/2001 11:35:27 AM "The Rehnquist Court almost never uses equal protection jurisprudence" 3902. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:36:00 AM Thanks Ohio.....yuk yuk yuk... 3903. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:37:28 AM maybe FU will help U Biener...finished yet? 3904. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:39:33 AM time for a picture! 3905. Francis Urquhart - 1/22/2001 11:40:32 AM Time for a sedative may be more apt. 3906. iiibbb - 1/22/2001 11:41:15 AM Message # 3885 3907. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:41:43 AM The only problem I have with these critics is that they have merely lost respect for and confidence in the Court. 3908. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:42:33 AM The stark reality, and I say this with every fiber of my being, is that the institution Americans trust the most to protect its freedoms and principles committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes this nation has ever seen--pure and simple, the theft of the presidency 3909. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:43:39 AM Now precisely how is Bugiolosi's argument bogus? 3910. Francis Urquhart - 1/22/2001 11:44:20 AM Nurse . . . Room 11, please. 3911. iiibbb - 1/22/2001 11:44:25 AM A 250 lb person...who knows how to fight... AND that my life or someone elses is in peril. 3912. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:47:18 AM Terrance Sandalow, former dean of the University of Michigan\ Law School and a judicial conservative who opposed Roe v. Wade and supported the nomination to the Court of right-wing icon Robert Bork, said that "the balance of harms so unmistakably were on the side of Gore" that the granting of the stay was "incomprehensible," going on to call the stay "an unmistakably partisan decision without any foundation in law." 3913. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:47:59 AM Any of those arguments "bogus" biener? 3914. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:49:50 AM Its fucking appalling...the United States no longer can lay claim to being a democracy under the rule of law.... 3915. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 11:50:33 AM Jexster - From the article: 3916. ycmeehan - 1/22/2001 11:51:21 AM Jexster, 3917. Francis Urquhart - 1/22/2001 11:52:21 AM "Its fucking appalling...the United States no longer can lay claim to being a democracy under the rule of law...." 3918. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:52:38 AM Not according to the Washingotn Post...McCain is going to introduce M/F this week and stop all floor activity until he gets the up or down vote that Lott and McConnell worked so hard to block 3919. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:53:56 AM Beaten by a chimp? 3920. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:55:04 AM You've not tackled ONE of his arguments Biener...why don't you try? 3921. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:56:45 AM If none of the undervotes were counted because of the various standards to count them, then to be completely consistent the Court would have had no choice but to invalidate the entire Florida election, since there is no question that votes lost in some counties because of the method of voting would have been recorded in others utilizing a different method.1 [Footnotes on page 7] 3922. rubberducky - 1/22/2001 11:57:46 AM Jex: 3923. jexster - 1/22/2001 11:58:52 AM If the Court majority had been truly concerned about the equal protection of all voters, the real equal protection violation, of course, took place when they cut off the counting of the undervotes. As indicated, that very act denied the 50 million Americans who voted for Gore the right to have their votes count at all. 3924. Francis Urquhart - 1/22/2001 11:59:02 AM jexster 3925. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 11:59:15 AM Jexster - The stark reality, and I say this with every fiber of my being, is that the institution Americans trust the most to protect its freedoms and principles committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes this nation has ever seen--pure and simple, the theft of the presidency 3926. Cellar Door - 1/22/2001 12:00:58 PM "A Moral Dilemma 3927. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:02:31 PM RD...This is his argument 3928. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:03:47 PM The Sct decision is so bereft of legal foundation and so damages the fabric of a democratic society that in effect there should be a law 3929. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:05:33 PM There's simply no way anyone can support that decision without looking absurd. That being the case, there is no way anyone can support the outcome of the decision without being a total intellectual and moral whore. 3930. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:06:23 PM Nor can anyone claim that this country is a democracy under the rule of law without having to answer for Bush v. Gore 3931. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:07:02 PM an answer that cannot be given.... 3932. rubberducky - 1/22/2001 12:08:09 PM Jex: 3933. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 12:09:30 PM Jex - If none of the undervotes were counted because of the various standards to count them, then to be completely consistent the Court would have had no choice but to invalidate the entire Florida election, since there is no question that votes lost in some counties because of the method of voting would have been recorded in others utilizing a different method. 3934. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:10:42 PM Having admitted that the rule of law is a sham, what we really need in this country is a Star Chamber which would then hang the whole lot of em, their simian "president" included.... 3935. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:12:43 PM Nowhere is there any obligation for the voter to vote so that a votomatic machine can count it biener. 3936. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 12:13:25 PM Ducky - Don't let Jex fool you. It is hyperbole. He has his mind made up and he is not about to let the facts get in his way. 3937. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 12:14:22 PM Jex - There's simply no way anyone can support that decision without looking absurd. 3938. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:18:08 PM The examination of the undervote was giving them consideration not given to 100 million other voters and violated the Equal Protection Clause 3939. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:20:48 PM The undervotes were counted by the same mechanism that all other 3940. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:21:30 PM everything else is just a rehash of that garbage. 3941. rubberducky - 1/22/2001 12:22:25 PM Re: Message # 3933, JJBiener. 3942. iiibbb - 1/22/2001 12:22:47 PM A gun-rights position essay. 3943. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:23:32 PM Bottom line - Gore now up 620 and if Bush and the Supreme Bozos hadn't tried to pervert the electoral process that result would have been known within 2 weeks of the election - at the latest 3944. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:24:59 PM some people voted by sticking the ballot card with the stylus without putting it in the machine first...that resulted in a pin hole not a punch out..those votes were not counted...hundreds of them in Miami Dade alone net to Gore... 3945. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:26:05 PM Some people in Lake County put their ballots in the machine and also wrote the same candidate's name in the write-in box 3946. Francis Urquhart - 1/22/2001 12:28:36 PM Some people went fishing. 3947. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:30:14 PM Again, on the run and in a guilty state of mind, none of the five Justices, even the brazenly shameless Scalia, wanted to sign their same to a majority opinion of the Court reversing the Florida Supreme 3948. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:32:39 PM No Niner, I've used that one before...we figured when Johnston lost the governor's race to Edwards by 4488 votes that the result would have been different if not for the fact that deer season had opened in North LA but not in the South....it doesn't get you very far...only voters who vote have their votes counted until recently that is.. 3949. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:33:21 PM Now it doesn't matter either way does it? 3950. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:34:35 PM If you've ever been in the LA woods on the first day of deer season and survived you'd know what I mean 3951. Francis Urquhart - 1/22/2001 12:35:00 PM jexster 3952. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:36:37 PM 3. The proof that the Court itself knew its equal protection argument had no merit whatsoever is that when Bush first asked the Court, on November 22, to consider three objections of his to the earlier, more limited Florida recount then taking place, the Court only denied review on his third objection--yeah, you guessed it, that the lack of a uniform standard to determine the voter's intent violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the Court, on November 22, felt that this objection was so devoid of merit that it was unworthy of even being considered by it, what did these learned Justices subsequently learn about the equal protection clause they apparently did not know in November that caused them just three weeks later, on December 12, to embrace and endorse it so enthusiastically? 3953. CalGal - 1/22/2001 12:38:15 PM Ducky's article about the Supreme Court was interesting. It also suggests that O'Connor and others really did want their replacements named by a Republican and that this could have played into their decisions. 3954. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 12:40:26 PM Jex - Counting the undervotes is some sort of special consideration? 3955. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:41:06 PM . The votes had been counted just had all of the other 3956. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 12:42:55 PM 3957. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:46:36 PM Unbelievably, the Court wrote that its ruling was " limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." (That's pure, unadulterated moonshine. The ruling sets forth a very simple, noncomplex proposition--that if there are varying standards to count votes, this violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.) In other words, the Court, in effect, was saying its ruling "only applied to those future cases captioned Bush v. Gore. 3958. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 12:47:05 PM Jex - to apply the equal protection ruling of Bush v. Gore would necessarily invalidate virtually all elections throughout the country. 3959. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:48:21 PM They were counted by votomatic machines twice but they weren't counted now were they. 3960. rubberducky - 1/22/2001 12:48:24 PM 3961. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 12:48:57 PM Jex - So was Gore beaten by a chimp or by the chimp's handlers? 3962. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:49:31 PM machines don't discriminate 3963. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:51:44 PM 1.there is no law, statutory nor decisional which says that the only valid vote is one that a votomatic can count - not even the Fraudulent 5 dared say that 3964. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 12:52:16 PM Jex - They were counted by votomatic machines twice but they weren't counted now were they. 3965. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:55:49 PM The method of elections was establish in each of these 3966. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 12:56:16 PM Jex - there is no law, statutory nor decisional which says that the only valid vote is one that a votomatic can count 3967. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:57:09 PM machines count some votes but not other votes Biener they discriminate 3968. jexster - 1/22/2001 12:57:48 PM There is not law that says a dimpled chad is a vote. They shouldn't be counted. 3969. OhioSTOPAS - 1/22/2001 12:59:29 PM I believe the Massachusetts Supreme Court also recognized dimpled chads as votes in the Delahunt case. 3970. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:01:00 PM That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country. 3971. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 1:01:05 PM Jex - Makin this one up as we go along? 3972. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 1:04:00 PM Jex - machines count some votes but not other votes Biener they discriminate 3973. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:04:02 PM So if Texas counts dimpled chads but FL doesn't (can't) haven't diffferent standards been applied to FL voters than to TX voters? 3974. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:05:44 PM By your understanding of "discrimination" an employer would not be discriminating if he hired only blondes but not brunettes if he did so uniformly.... 3975. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:06:42 PM so machines count some votes but they don't count other votes and that is discrimination biener... 3976. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 1:07:16 PM Jex - So if Texas counts dimpled chads but FL doesn't (can't) haven't diffferent standards been applied to FL voters than to TX voters? 3977. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:07:48 PM discrimination -1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently 3978. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:10:22 PM You can take this to the bank...nowhere has the Biener "standard" ever been applied..not ever.... 3979. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 1:11:02 PM Jex - By your understanding of "discrimination" an employer would not be discriminating if he hired only blondes but not brunettes if he did so uniformly.... 3980. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:12:07 PM 3981. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:14:01 PM f he hired blondes and not brunettes because they are blondes, 3982. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 1:16:06 PM Jex - the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently 3983. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:17:28 PM These five Justices, by their conduct, have forfeited the right to be respected, and only by treating them the way they deserve to be treated can we demonstrate our respect for the rule of law they defiled, and insure that their successors will not engage in similarly criminal conduct. 3984. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:19:17 PM Gee Biener I thought you understood....my bad. 3985. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:22:40 PM Biener proved the eternal truth of the fools rush in maxim... 3986. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:26:35 PM Bush Sworn in But Clinton Steals The Show! 3987. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:29:18 PM Bush signs order blocking funds for International family planning 3988. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:30:47 PM Bush to re-examine RU486 3989. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:31:45 PM Wignut payback time! 3990. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:35:36 PM Post 4000 coming? 3991. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:36:21 PM 3992. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:36:29 PM Hello,citizen Clinton. 3993. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:37:36 PM Have you reviewed Clinton's pardon list? 3994. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 1:38:59 PM bbb - How many Presidents have had to pardon their own brother? 3995. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:39:38 PM Knee Jerk Conservatives Jerking the Other Knee [Krugman] 3996. wonkers2 - 1/22/2001 1:40:01 PM JJ, I thought you supported family values. 3997. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:40:25 PM Hello,citizen Clinton. 3998. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:41:08 PM Leading Indicators Drop 0.6 Percent 3999. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:41:31 PM Moron Stay Out of California 4000. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 1:41:39 PM Jex - You apparently don't understand what "the rule of law" means either, do you? Just as with Roe v Wade if 5 justices vote for it, it is the law of the land whether you like it or not. I disagree with Roe v Wade but I don't advocate personal attacks on those who voted for it. Apparently even that level of civil discourse is beyond your meager abilities. 4001. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:42:25 PM bbb - How many Presidents have had to pardon their own brother? 4002. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:46:05 PM Bush To Visit Mexico Next Month 4003. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:46:12 PM CNN: McCain renews promise that there will be Bush blood on the floor if he doesn't get up or down M/F vote... 4004. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:46:32 PM They taste just like chicken! 4005. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:51:28 PM You talk too much to yourself,jexster. 4006. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:51:45 PM So in case you imagined that given the fact that the other guy got half a million more votes something bipartisan might be about to happen, forget it. Even before taking office Mr. Bush has made a number of policy decisions, and on not one of them has he deviated an inch from a knee-jerk conservative position. Were you expecting something different? 4007. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:52:19 PM I'm talkin to you bbb... 4008. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:52:42 PM How bout one of dem wingnuts...batter coated! 4009. marshame - 1/22/2001 1:55:28 PM Bush is right about the California energy crisis: it was fostered by California environmentalists who blocked any new generation, while demand continued to escalate. Now, California must import energy, and those terrible generators outside of California let the market set the price (that was the idea of deregulation, remember) and now we've got whiney butts complaining that they're not being fairly treated. Well, start building your OWN generation, instead of importing it from other states like, say, Alaska. 4010. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:55:35 PM The Roe opinion was signed and it had something called precedent to back it up.... 4011. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:56:34 PM http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27273-2001Jan21.html 4012. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:56:38 PM That's total crap marshme....but believe what you will... 4013. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:57:53 PM Bush is right so far on the California energy crisis. 4014. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:58:33 PM The truth is that Reliant Energy and Eron both Houston based are making a 20,000% profit on energy sold to California... 4015. bbb - 1/22/2001 1:59:24 PM Clinton turned loose at least a dozen low-level drug defendants who had been given long sentences with mandatory minimums. He commuted the death sentence of David Ronald Chandler, a federal prisoner convicted of plotting the murder of a police informer. Chandler's principal accuser later confessed to committing the murder himself. 4016. jexster - 1/22/2001 1:59:38 PM Now what is apparent is that Bush will say anything however unsupportable to gut environmental regulations... 4017. jexster - 1/22/2001 2:00:20 PM and Bush spit in the face of a UNANIMOUS California congressional delegation which asked for a temporary price cap... 4018. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:00:46 PM Clinton pardoned his brother Roger, guilty of distributing cocaine in the 1980s. He pardoned Richard Riley Jr., the son of his education secretary, who conspired to sell cocaine and marijuana. He pardoned Stuart Harris Cohn, brother-in-law of former Connecticut congressman Sam Gejdensen (D). 4019. marshame - 1/22/2001 2:00:52 PM 4020. jexster - 1/22/2001 2:00:58 PM he lost California by 12% in '00, try 24% in 04 4021. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:03:05 PM At least 10 Arkansans received pardons, including Clinton's close-lipped former business partner, Susan H. McDougal. Four of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's New York constituents also saw their sentences for fraud commuted. The men, all Hasidic Jews, were convicted in 1999 of embezzling millions of dollars from the federal government by financing a fictitious yeshiva, or religious school. 4022. marshame - 1/22/2001 2:03:19 PM PG&E and the other Calif power company are about to go bankrupt because of the price cap on consumers. Why in the world should the government intervene? 4023. jexster - 1/22/2001 2:03:56 PM Electricity Deregulation - One Trend Sure NOT to Catch On 4024. jexster - 1/22/2001 2:05:02 PM I assure you Jexter, if the people of California had to pay the actual cost of power, there would be a tremendous push to build generation plants in the state and solve their own problem. 4025. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:05:22 PM 4020, 4026. Fielding - 1/22/2001 2:05:55 PM 4027. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:07:17 PM The most recent batch of forgiveness was greeted lovingly by friends and advocates of those who received the benefits -- and with frustration and anger by many who had worked hard to build winning criminal cases against them. Morris Weinberg Jr., who prosecuted Rich and his similarly pardoned former partner Green, said he was "astounded." 4028. jexster - 1/22/2001 2:07:53 PM Texas Pigs Slop At CA Trough 4029. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:09:20 PM Another decision that drew ire was Clinton's pardon of former Washington lawyer William Arthur Borders Jr. A jury convicted Borders of bribery after he promised an undercover FBI agent that he could fix a case in front of U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings. In 1983, a Miami jury acquitted Hastings, but the Senate later removed him from office after convicting him of bribery conspiracy and lying on the witness stand. Hastings is now a Florida congressman. 4030. jexster - 1/22/2001 2:10:12 PM I assure that what IS going to happen is that municipalities will take over the generation business and quite possibly by eminent domain the entire power grid so that the people don't get screwed by a bunch of yahoos in Tony Lamas 4031. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:10:14 PM California should pay some prices for its NIMBY syndrome! 4032. CalGal - 1/22/2001 2:12:02 PM Bush is right about the California energy crisis: it was fostered by California environmentalists who blocked any new generation, while demand continued to escalate. 4033. marshame - 1/22/2001 2:12:59 PM jexter 4034. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:14:12 PM For those liberals in California who criticize the Texas/Houston air pollution problems ,I suggest them to produce its own plastics,petroleum products and derivatives,chemical products,natural gas,and electricity. 4035. jexster - 1/22/2001 2:14:14 PM I assure that what IS going to happen is that municipalities will take over the generation business and quite possibly by eminent domain the entire power grid so that the people don't get screwed by a bunch of yahoos in Tony Lamas 4036. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:15:57 PM Borders went to jail rather than testify to a Florida grand jury about a matter involving South Florida mobster Santo Trafficante, who also had a case in front of Hastings. The lawyer went to jail again rather than talk to a House impeachment committee. 4037. CalGal - 1/22/2001 2:16:59 PM Yes, I think the solution is to assert eminent domain and take back the companies. Stop this fake deregulation. 4038. jexster - 1/22/2001 2:17:02 PM Marshme has an amazing capacity to swallow BushSHit 4039. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:18:09 PM Among the other beneficiaries of Clinton's last-minute largess was Charles D. "Pug" Ravenel, a South Carolina Democrat and longtime friend of Clinton. The 62-year-old former politician was sentenced in 1996 to 11 1/2 months behind bars for a bank fraud conspiracy. He admitted his guilt and served his time, then began seeking a pardon through friends in both parties. 4040. CalGal - 1/22/2001 2:22:29 PM 4041. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:22:31 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27342-2001Jan21.html 4042. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:24:25 PM Blackouts rolled through towns and cities. Utilities teetered on bankruptcy. Industrial plants were idled. The state's main gasoline pipeline slowed to a trickle for want of pumping power and elected officials were reduced to begging for electricity from Canadian dams. 4043. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:25:31 PM The result was a Rube Goldberg structure -- half free-market, half regulation -- that new U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has called "lunacy." 4044. marshame - 1/22/2001 2:27:22 PM Oh Jexter, this is soyou: 4045. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:29:34 PM jexter is all wet on the California energy crisis vis-a-vis California's 2000 votes and the Houston connection. 4046. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:31:20 PM The pigs, jexter, are the unrelenting consumers who want someone else to meet their vociforous demands. 4047. CalGal - 1/22/2001 2:32:02 PM But it was ultimately laced with price caps and controls -- such as a requirement that power be bought when needed, not in advance -- demanded by lawmakers who did not trust the energy industry. 4048. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:32:41 PM But by last summer, California was facing power shortages and the situation has become a chronic crisis. Planners failed to anticipate how fast electricity demand would grow in California's Internet-fed economy. Power plant construction stopped because of strict environmental restrictions and uncertainty about how deregulation would work. Power imports from outside the state, on which California depended, shrank as its neighbors' economies flourished. 4049. CalGal - 1/22/2001 2:33:02 PM BBB, 4050. marshame - 1/22/2001 2:33:35 PM jex 4051. marshame - 1/22/2001 2:34:03 PM The fallacy is that deregulation is good for the average residential consumer. 4052. CalGal - 1/22/2001 2:36:15 PM Marsha, 4053. marshame - 1/22/2001 2:36:59 PM CalGal 4054. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:37:29 PM California is 47th in per capita energy consumption 4055. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:40:20 PM California Faces More Power Shortages 4056. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 2:42:35 PM 4057. CalGal - 1/22/2001 2:42:45 PM Marsha, 4058. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 2:44:23 PM 4059. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:49:19 PM I doubt very much California is 47th in per capita energy consumption. 4060. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:51:26 PM Treasury Reports $32.7B Surplus 4061. CalGal - 1/22/2001 2:53:30 PM bbb, 4062. bbb - 1/22/2001 2:56:29 PM In December, spending totaled $167.8 billion and revenues came to $200.5 billion. 4063. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 2:58:13 PM Cal - Believe it. It has been much reported. 4064. KuligintheHooligan - 1/22/2001 2:59:44 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, vowing to protect ``every person at every stage and season of life,'' said Monday he will take swift action to restrict U.S. funds to international family-planning groups involved in abortion. 4065. bbb - 1/22/2001 3:00:39 PM 4061, 4066. CalGal - 1/22/2001 3:00:40 PM Facts are generally true, JJ. That said, Elliot posted a link to the government table. 4067. CalGal - 1/22/2001 3:02:07 PM Facts are generally true, JJ. 4068. CalGal - 1/22/2001 3:02:56 PM bbb, 4069. mgleason - 1/22/2001 3:07:10 PM I don't have Elliott's table, but I do have a link to the US Census Bureau's general profile of California from the Statistical Abstact, which ranks the state 48th in per capita energy consumption in 1996 as opposed to 43rd in 1990. California's per capita consumption has been dropping throughout the '90s. 4070. CalGal - 1/22/2001 3:09:39 PM I think that was the same table--thanks, Maria! 4071. mgleason - 1/22/2001 3:13:40 PM Any time. Florida's right there with California: 44th in 1990 and 46th in 1996. 4072. CalGal - 1/22/2001 3:14:53 PM Let us pause for a moment in appreciation of our virtuous behavior. 4073. bbb - 1/22/2001 3:16:13 PM Alaska ranked # 1 in energy consumption per capita based on that stasitical treatment. Very misleading to include INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING activitites in the PER CAPITA calculations. 4074. CalGal - 1/22/2001 3:19:46 PM No, it isn't misleading at all. It would be misleading to say that we are 48th in personal use. Unless it were true, which it may be for all I know. 4075. mgleason - 1/22/2001 3:23:49 PM Here are the state rankings for energy consumption per person. 4076. bbb - 1/22/2001 3:29:02 PM 4075, 4077. bbb - 1/22/2001 3:31:09 PM 2075, 4078. mgleason - 1/22/2001 3:32:55 PM Here's a link to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, which you can download as Adobe PDF files. You might find your answer there. 4079. bbb - 1/22/2001 3:49:39 PM 4080. bbb - 1/22/2001 3:59:28 PM Senators Introduce Bush Tax Cut 4081. ElliottRW - 1/22/2001 4:04:24 PM Re: Califonia Energy Use Actually, the 1997 figures put California residential per capita energy consumption lower than any other state but Hawaii. Which actually makes sense to me, for the following reasons: 4082. bbb - 1/22/2001 4:05:41 PM Europe's Favorite Banana Under Fire 4083. CalGal - 1/22/2001 4:07:30 PM Ha. See, bbb? We're fucking awesome consumers here in California. 4084. bbb - 1/22/2001 4:07:57 PM European officials counter that the Americans seek to bully small Caribbean and African producers out of business by pushing the interests of giant conglomerates that have cut costs by riding roughshod over workers' rights and environmental concerns. 4085. mgleason - 1/22/2001 4:09:19 PM Thanks, Elliott; very useful stuff. 4086. OhioSTOPAS - 1/22/2001 4:12:08 PM We're reduced to talking about bananas and energy consumption? 4087. Wombat - 1/22/2001 4:12:18 PM Hopefully b3 will have something to say about how misplaced his skepticism on California's energy consumption was. 4088. bbb - 1/22/2001 4:22:11 PM http://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?14@41.2DcWdUbtBby^0@.eee54e4/1014 4089. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 4:22:37 PM 4090. bbb - 1/22/2001 4:23:20 PM 4091. azazel - 1/22/2001 4:32:42 PM California energy crisis - european banana tariff - aren't these events part of that seventh sign/apocalypse/rapture thing that the churchies are always noodling on about? 4092. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 4:35:17 PM 4093. bbb - 1/22/2001 4:39:19 PM 4094. bbb - 1/22/2001 4:43:31 PM 4095. jexster - 1/22/2001 4:47:44 PM Just got back from grocery shopping...eavesdropped on no fewer than 3 outraged conversations about the abortion abortion..but into one just to throw some more gasoline on the fire...the tax bailout for the wealthy also figured in 4096. jexster - 1/22/2001 4:48:37 PM The Scalia Scam proceeds apace and I TOLD YOU SO>>>>>>> 4097. bbb - 1/22/2001 4:54:02 PM 4098. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 4:59:10 PM 4099. bbb - 1/22/2001 4:59:34 PM A note to California 4100. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 5:01:59 PM 4101. janjon - 1/22/2001 5:09:27 PM I have been told that Ashcroft was on Larry King live late last week and that for whatever reason the discussion was about how our government was a Republic, not a monarchy. My source (quite reliable sort) insists that Ashcroft commented words along the lines that "this country has only one king, Jesus Christ." 4102. janjon - 1/22/2001 5:11:41 PM True story. A good friend of mine has a neighbor who has a cage of parakeets in his kitchen. He came over to my friend's house yesterday and asked for the first section of the NY Times. My friend asked why, since he knows that the neighbor also gets the Times delivered. The response was that he wanted to stock up on pictures of Bush taking the oath because he looked forward to using same for his birdcage liners. 4103. bbb - 1/22/2001 5:12:42 PM 4104. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 5:13:22 PM 4105. bbb - 1/22/2001 5:14:06 PM Ashcroft will do just fine with 65-70 votes. 4106. wonkers2 - 1/22/2001 5:15:06 PM Ashcroft said it in his speech at BJ "University." 4107. bbb - 1/22/2001 5:15:40 PM Senators Introduce Bush Tax Cut 4108. mgleason - 1/22/2001 5:18:37 PM Janjon, I think you're talking about the show where Bob Jones was the guest, and he tried to explain Ashcroft's remarks when he received his honorary degree in '99. From the video of Ashcroft's speech: 4109. OhioSTOPAS - 1/22/2001 5:21:27 PM janjon (Message # 4101): In his speech a year or two ago at Bob Jones University, Ashcroft maintained that "We have no king but Jesus" was a slogan of the American Revolution, often stated by colonists in refusing to pay taxes to royal tax collectors. 4110. janjon - 1/22/2001 5:21:53 PM since I don't usually pay much attention to bbb, I didn't notice. 4111. OhioSTOPAS - 1/22/2001 5:23:47 PM " . . . the first I had EVER heard of this slogan . . ." 4112. wonkers2 - 1/22/2001 5:25:18 PM Prediction: Bush will rue the day he nominated Ashcroft. Not very bright, not very honest and way far out. 4113. bbb - 1/22/2001 5:27:13 PM 4114. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 5:30:06 PM We have no king but Jesus 4115. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 5:31:54 PM BBB - Cut the spam shit already. That will only get you bounced out of here. If you can't post something new, shut the fuck up. We already have Jex shit, we don't need BBB shit as well. 4116. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 5:31:57 PM 4117. janjon - 1/22/2001 5:37:15 PM well, as I have said before, I've come to the conclusion that having a guy like Ashcroft whose every act will scrutinized is probably better than having someone less visible but of the same mentality in the office of A.G. 4118. JJBiener - 1/22/2001 5:40:12 PM janjon - . . . Ashcroft whose every act will scrutinized . . . 4119. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 5:43:02 PM 4120. bbb - 1/22/2001 5:43:10 PM Bush Calls Jesse Jackson 4121. bbb - 1/22/2001 5:44:32 PM Did Clinton call Jesse Jackson after Bush did? 4122. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:05:11 PM I agree with it 100% 4123. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:06:45 PM "Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment."--Interview with the New York Times, Jan. 14, 2001 4124. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 6:07:50 PM 4125. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:07:52 PM Signs of Change in US Foreign Policy 4126. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:08:15 PM t's not like every other day will be a call for his 4127. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:09:55 PM Makes sense for the Moron to let the Mideast go up in flames. 4128. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:10:02 PM 4129. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:11:00 PM "That is what U.S. elections are all about,'' 4130. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:12:00 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush named Curt Hebert, who has argued against federal involvement in the California electricity crisis, as chairman of the agency that regulates wholesale power markets. 4131. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:12:31 PM Fried wingnuts anyone? 4132. janjon - 1/22/2001 6:12:35 PM jex - they are actually going to convince themselves that they have mandates. 4133. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:13:09 PM Bush will have to deal quickly with a wide range of issues involving Russia, including its arms sales to Iran and the question of Russian help on inspection of suspected weapons sites in Iraq, Cordesman said. 4134. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:14:07 PM Trouble is the Taiwanese don't even like the Moron. The Taipei english language newspapers been bbq'ing his ass for a week. 4135. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:14:39 PM Curt Hebert is another good appointment! 4136. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:15:42 PM I'm not even gonna give it a few months. 4137. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:15:56 PM 4134, 4138. CalGal - 1/22/2001 6:16:37 PM Jex, 4139. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:16:47 PM try abrogate the treaty in the face of howls from Allies and erstwhile foes alike.... 4140. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:18:00 PM How do you read between this line 4141. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:18:04 PM http://chinatimes.com/ 4142. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:19:28 PM 4134, 4143. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:23:08 PM As I said before, Bush spent 12 million bucks in one month saturating the airwaves of this state with his "Uniter, Not Divider" "Don't Worry America" sucker shit and got his ass kicked losing by 12%. 4144. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:24:16 PM Taiwan is very upbeat and positive with the new Administration 4145. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:24:34 PM "Don't Worry America....?" 4146. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:26:42 PM Right you read Chinese do you? 4147. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:31:22 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Anti-abortion activists, hopeful of a more sympathetic ear from President* George W. Bush (news - web sites), held protest marches on Monday to mark the 28th anniversary of a Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion. 4148. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:32:17 PM 4146, 4149. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:32:44 PM Cal.. 4150. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:33:27 PM BBB- Like hell I do! 4151. jexster - 1/22/2001 6:34:47 PM ¤ýª÷¥¡G¬ü·s¬F©²©M¥xÆWÃö«Y±N§ó¬°²`«p (23:28) 4152. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 6:36:08 PM 4153. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:38:36 PM More News from Taiwan on Bush's Administration 4154. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:40:17 PM 4151, 4155. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 6:40:48 PM 49% of the Vote, 100% of the Presidency (and Congress!) 4156. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:42:01 PM Ace, 4157. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:42:53 PM Ace, 4158. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:47:15 PM 4151, 4159. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 6:47:26 PM 4160. bbb - 1/22/2001 6:48:10 PM Mandelbaum, in an interview, also predicted a collision course with Russia as the three Baltic States -- Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania -- are invited to join the expanded NATO military alliance. 4161. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 6:49:04 PM 4162. Rosetta Stone - 1/22/2001 6:54:40 PM C's school demonstrated today in DC at the pro-life march--and Bush comes through. 4163. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 6:59:34 PM 4164. bbb - 1/22/2001 7:03:40 PM 4151 jexter, 4165. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 7:05:35 PM 4166. cmboyce - 1/22/2001 7:09:04 PM And fix that margin, while you're at it! 4167. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 7:10:07 PM 4168. jexster - 1/22/2001 7:15:03 PM A battle royal is shaping up between George Bush and the State over the electricity crisis 4169. jexster - 1/22/2001 7:16:44 PM thanks for screwing up the page bbb... 4170. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 7:18:08 PM 4171. jexster - 1/22/2001 7:18:36 PM 4172. jexster - 1/22/2001 7:19:38 PM Hasn't got a good god damned thing to do with YOUR money Ace. No one has asked for it. No one will 4173. jexster - 1/22/2001 7:20:53 PM Every republican member of congress joined in a letter asking bush for a temporary price cap to stop price gouging by energy companies, 3 of which are from Texas. 4174. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 7:21:14 PM "A battle royal is shaping up between George Bush and the State over the electricity crisis" 4175. jexster - 1/22/2001 7:22:20 PM Now you have at least a little idea of what the issue is about, but a caution - as you so often demonstrate, a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing 4176. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 7:22:37 PM "Do you have any idea what this issue is about?" 4177. JudithAtHome - 1/22/2001 7:23:26 PM 4178. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 7:23:41 PM 4179. jexster - 1/22/2001 7:24:25 PM Giggle. 4180. jexster - 1/22/2001 7:25:52 PM Californians ARE paying market prices - rigged market prices which are 20,000% higher on the margin than the cost of production... 4181. jexster - 1/22/2001 7:27:27 PM Now as a good citizen I am goin to save electricity...god knows the continuing education of the Ace Moron - its not worth another kw 4182. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 7:29:39 PM 4183. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 7:35:55 PM 4184. Cellar Door - 1/22/2001 7:37:31 PM The only electrical expense I'm interested in Ace, is for a chair -- with you in it. 4185. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 7:39:04 PM 4186. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 7:40:43 PM 4187. CalGal - 1/22/2001 8:10:28 PM Californians apparently want power without power plants, and they furthermore have voted themselves a cap as to how much they'll pay for this "Magic Power." 4188. CalGal - 1/22/2001 8:11:34 PM I've voted all sorts of price-caps so that I don't have to pay market-price for it, while simultaneously voting for generator restrictions that make power cost more than my other law allows me to pay. 4189. cmboyce - 1/22/2001 8:16:08 PM Agreed, Cal, at least as far as I can make out. 4190. CalGal - 1/22/2001 8:16:45 PM As far as it being the state's fuckup, I agree. The reason Bush should realize that it's not "just" a state's problem is because it is unwise to allow the sixth largest economy in the world, one that pays for Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennesee with its first quarter tax payments, to run into problems. 4191. concerned - 1/22/2001 8:19:25 PM Who screwed up the margins? 4192. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:20:25 PM 4193. concerned - 1/22/2001 8:22:58 PM A cursory glance at the last 75 posts of this thread showed Lefties wishing death on non LW posters on two separate occasions. 4194. CalGal - 1/22/2001 8:23:30 PM Ace, 4195. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:23:41 PM 4196. CalGal - 1/22/2001 8:26:36 PM Ace, 4197. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:27:28 PM 4198. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:28:56 PM "It's not that I think Bush should bail us out, but for him to shrug his shoulders is just stupid." 4199. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:31:23 PM 4200. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:36:07 PM 4201. mgleason - 1/22/2001 8:38:03 PM My favorite headline of all time - The New York Post: 4202. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:38:58 PM 4203. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:39:48 PM 4204. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:43:05 PM 4205. mgleason - 1/22/2001 8:45:37 PM Yes. The City was a mess; looking into the abyss was just the motivator the administration needed to turn things around. 4206. concerned - 1/22/2001 8:49:53 PM Hey, CalGal - 4207. CalGal - 1/22/2001 8:50:56 PM think you suggested that the federal government impose caps on OTHER STATES' power prices, so that what california offers will be acceptable. 4208. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:51:33 PM 4209. jexster - 1/22/2001 8:51:55 PM What W. Deserves - Loser Take All? 4210. jexster - 1/22/2001 8:55:34 PM Cal is correct...the utilities figured at the time of deregulation that with a rate freeze they would make out like bandits because at the time the Edison Institute estimated a 30% surplus of power... 4211. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 8:57:05 PM "The problem is that the utility companies should pay for it, and they are refusing to. It was their poor business decisions. They are responsible for providing power, they committed to doing it, and they demanded price freezes. Their responsibility." 4212. CalGal - 1/22/2001 8:57:15 PM Ace, 4213. jexster - 1/22/2001 8:58:17 PM Everyone's tryin to get into the Great CA Rip Off including the Sec Treas* former co. Alcoa.... 4214. concerned - 1/22/2001 8:58:36 PM 4215. CalGal - 1/22/2001 8:59:39 PM Well, Cal, if you're saying "They should pay $6.00 per kw and sell it to me for $5.00 per kw," then hardy-har-har. They will simply go bankrupt. And you'll have really "shown them." 4216. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:02:24 PM "The problem is bad business decisions by the utilities." 4217. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:04:12 PM "But you are missing the point. They demanded the price freezes. Is that sinking in yet? Do you have that yet? They demanded the price freezes. Please acknowledge that and fit that into your world view." 4218. concerned - 1/22/2001 9:05:29 PM "In any event, it is the utility companies that are fucking up, here. They demanded the price freezes, they made the bad decisions, and as far as I'm concerned, they can go bankrupt." 4219. concerned - 1/22/2001 9:05:37 PM "In any event, it is the utility companies that are fucking up, here. They demanded the price freezes, they made the bad decisions, and as far as I'm concerned, they can go bankrupt." 4220. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:08:20 PM When they all go bankrupt, the state can take over power production. Problem solved. 4221. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:09:21 PM 4222. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:09:38 PM No, I get that. And now the price of power must be unfrozen. 4223. concerned - 1/22/2001 9:10:05 PM Btw, I notice that TT's WH thread sysop says they're planning to prune their threads back to 25 on a regular basis. Nice to know that RS's(?) and my Inaugural Weekend Bash made a difference there. 4224. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:10:43 PM Why would California utility companies 'demand price freezes'? Why wouldn't they, instead, set their price limits voluntarily? 4225. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:11:40 PM I'm writing up how this all happened in the Slow Thread, but it will take a while. I'm off to a movie right now. 4226. concerned - 1/22/2001 9:11:53 PM CalGal fails to explain why California utilities 'demanded' that their rates be frozen. I strongly doubt that, if anything of the sort happened at all, that it could be realistically described so simplistically. 4227. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:13:43 PM "No. WE CAN'T pay more. There are price freezes. Demanded by the utility companies." 4228. concerned - 1/22/2001 9:14:01 PM Re. 4226 - 4229. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:14:04 PM Concerned, 4230. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:17:27 PM Of course they are. 4231. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:18:14 PM 4232. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:19:19 PM Now, it may very well be the responsibility of the state to pay for their bad decision and bad law. Which is what will happen eventually. 4233. concerned - 1/22/2001 9:20:00 PM Re. 4230 - 4234. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:21:36 PM 4235. concerned - 1/22/2001 9:22:17 PM Off grid power to the rescue! 4236. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:22:30 PM I will sell you my motorcycle, but I DEMAND a price-freeze, and I will not allow you to pay more than $5000 for it. 4237. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:22:57 PM The energy companies did not demand price freezes. Californians demanded set prices. The energy companies merely negotiated that price up the point where they thought it could be profitable. 4238. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:23:19 PM "But it is not the responsibility of the consumer. Make it the taxpayer's problem." 4239. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:23:24 PM I wonder how large a part California regulatory and environmental legislation played in all of this foolishness. 4240. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:24:32 PM Ace, 4241. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:26:35 PM 4242. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:30:51 PM Ace, 4243. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:31:35 PM And no, the McDonald's analogy isn't relevant. We can't opt out of power. We can't go to a new power company without paying a ton of money that the utility companies demanded. 4244. concerned - 1/22/2001 9:33:42 PM 4245. CalGal - 1/22/2001 9:37:07 PM Concerned, 4246. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:40:39 PM 4247. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:43:40 PM 4248. concerned - 1/22/2001 9:48:32 PM Somehow, I have trouble believing that California Utility companies were solely responsible for AB1890 being enacted, judging from some of the antitrust provisions in it. 4249. mgleason - 1/22/2001 9:50:39 PM This is what the LA Times says: 4250. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 9:59:34 PM 4251. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:00:20 PM 4252. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:00:34 PM 4253. lemwalker - 1/22/2001 10:01:45 PM We don't need electricity. When it gets dark we will just burn a building. Of course it wont be our own. 4254. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:04:01 PM 4255. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:06:47 PM 4256. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:08:56 PM 4257. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:12:34 PM 4258. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:13:29 PM Ooops. 4259. lemwalker - 1/22/2001 10:18:01 PM Salmon are impacting our lives already. As for the revolution, well I was thinking more along the lines of the "3 free shopping days" that occur whenever the lower echelon of the economy get upset. The troops refers to restoring order. I had friends in the Cal National Guard who went to Watts in '65. They were rural white boys, and they shot at urban black boys. 35 years later there are more weapons and rhetoric. 4260. cmboyce - 1/22/2001 10:19:04 PM Who'se surprised? 4261. Rosetta Stone - 1/22/2001 10:20:05 PM Watch California become Republican again, considering how poorly the Democrats are governing. 4262. lemwalker - 1/22/2001 10:22:19 PM A good bet there RS. 4263. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:24:22 PM "The point to the whole matter is what effect this fiasco has on society." 4264. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:28:36 PM 4265. lemwalker - 1/22/2001 10:36:29 PM The Feds have declared many runs of Salmon as threatened and endangered. This means the Feds get to tell people in detail what they can and cannot do. Have you ever dealt with a Fed agency ? 4266. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:41:45 PM 4267. AceofSpades - 1/22/2001 10:42:43 PM 4268. lemwalker - 1/22/2001 10:54:21 PM Ah, ace your so dynamic. I don't live in Cal. The Republicans I voted for lost. Enjoy while it while you can, because this shit is going to hit us all. 4269. Indiana Jones - 1/22/2001 10:59:07 PM jexster: Do you have any idea what this issue is about? 4270. sakonige - 1/22/2001 11:41:30 PM 4258 4271. jexster - 1/23/2001 12:06:03 AM CA Assembly Plan to Buy Massive Utility Hydro Network LAT 4272. jexster - 1/23/2001 12:08:10 AM CA Can Expect Blackouts for 2 Years 4273. jexster - 1/23/2001 12:08:38 AM That oughta get us to the mid-term elections right nicely. 4274. jexster - 1/23/2001 12:10:23 AM WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft (news - web sites), who would likely help make judicial selections if confirmed, complained in a 1997 lecture that there were too many ``renegade judges'' who imposed their personal will on the people. 4275. jexster - 1/23/2001 12:13:00 AM Full Scale Bush Assualt on Roe Not Ruled Out 4276. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 12:57:21 AM Why Do Blacks Hate Dubya? 4277. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 12:57:54 AM First thing to remember: despite all the moral glamour that our society invests in "civil rights leaders" like Jesse Jackson, African-Americans are neither a fast-growing group nor even a terribly large one. No pundit should be allowed to expound on election strategy without first proving he knows the answer to this simple question: 4278. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 12:58:23 AM 4279. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 1:01:15 AM Riots provide an acid test of assumptions about minority solidarity. [Article recounts various Hispanic vs. Black riots to suggest tension between the minority groups-- edited out.] 4280. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 1:01:31 AM On the other hand, it's possible that Texas' Mexican-Americans differ culturally and even racially from California's Mexican-Americans. The Texans tend to be from the same Northeastern Mexico culture that provides the main constituency of Vincente Fox's GOP-like PAN party. In contrast, California's immigrants increasingly come from the center of Mexico, where the corrupt PRI and the leftist PRD dominate, and the far South, where Subcommandante Marcos' Marxist guerillas control part of Chiapas. 4281. Stumbo - 1/23/2001 1:21:05 AM "Is it possible that on average blacks tend to have slightly smaller estates than the subscribers to the Wall Street Journal?" 4282. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 1:29:09 AM 4283. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 1:42:14 AM 4284. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 2:13:41 AM 4285. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 2:13:59 AM The Rich pardon is not the only one of the president's 176 parting clemency actions that raises questions. Mr. Clinton commuted the sentences of three Hasidic Jews in New York, convicted of defrauding the federal government of millions by setting up a phony Yeshiva and garnering tuition grants. They come from a community important now to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Was there a better reason for mercy? Whitewater felon Susan McDougal, who became a celebrity for thumbing her nose at Kenneth Starr's grand jury and refusing to answer its legitimate questions, won a last-minute pardon. So did William Borders Jr., who went to jail rather than testify about a bribery scheme for which then-Judge Alcee Hastings, who later became a congressman, was acquitted. Precisely what message were these meant to send about a citizen's duty to give relevant evidence? 4286. CalGal - 1/23/2001 2:43:27 AM Ace, 4287. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 2:46:03 AM Cal, 4288. CalGal - 1/23/2001 2:47:55 AM It says that the legislature mandated a 10% price ROLLBACK from previous rates (which were higher) to make the entire deregulation package "politically palatable." 4289. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 2:50:31 AM 4290. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 2:51:54 AM 4291. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 2:53:44 AM "Also, it was the Republicans who did this, not the Democrats." 4292. CalGal - 1/23/2001 2:54:39 AM Your position-- that the legislature and voters really wanted the power companies to charge as much as they'd like, as much as the market would bear, but the power companies -- giggle -- insisted on a price freeze at sub-market-price levels. 4293. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 2:55:08 AM I mean, they didn't have a parade in favor of the bill. All they did was vote for it, you see. 4294. CalGal - 1/23/2001 2:58:13 AM PG&E Price Freeze: Plan proposed to keep rates steady 4295. CalGal - 1/23/2001 2:59:33 AM Ace, 4296. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:01:39 AM 4297. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:02:46 AM Now, here is the legislature's response to the demand for the price freeze: 4298. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:04:03 AM 4299. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:05:04 AM 4300. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:05:24 AM the legislature, not the power companies, insisted on capping the price the power co's could charge for electricity (a big DUHHHH! on that one); 4301. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:06:22 AM 4302. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:06:31 AM Ace, 4303. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:07:13 AM No, I'm not wrong, Ace. You don't understand a fucking thing you're talking about. 4304. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:11:42 AM 4305. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:12:30 AM And another article: 4306. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:13:00 AM 4307. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:15:32 AM Ace, 4308. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:19:02 AM Ace, 4309. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:19:40 AM 4310. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:22:38 AM 4311. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:24:09 AM I meant that as: Vote Republican if you want help from a Republican President. I do not care a whit about California politics. 4312. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:24:52 AM 4313. Stumbo - 1/23/2001 3:25:48 AM The moral: nothing that involves price controls should ever be referred to as "deregulation," regardless of which party's baby it is. 4314. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:28:45 AM Yes, I see now that the utilities wanted an artificially high market price for the first few years, because they were afraid of the immediate competition. You were right... sort of. 4315. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:29:54 AM 4316. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:34:35 AM 4317. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 3:36:25 AM 4318. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:37:31 AM The power companies wanted the second part. You are now insisting on the first. 4319. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:37:48 AM The real joke is that some of the power companies that are gouging the utility companes are owned.....by the utility companies. Which means that the utilities parent companies are making a ton of profit by charging themselves a fortune and paying another wholly owned subsidiary. 4320. CalGal - 1/23/2001 3:43:41 AM The utlities wanted PROTECTION for five years, not a price cap. 4321. JudithAtHome - 1/23/2001 9:47:51 AM 4322. don s. - 1/23/2001 10:33:28 AM Oh no! Al Gore and the DNC have gotten to those stooges at the AP's Shanghai bureau! 4323. bbb - 1/23/2001 10:42:39 AM It's sad that Algore stole so many votes from Ralph Nader to deprive him of 4324. bbb - 1/23/2001 10:44:47 AM Has jester figured out how to translate his Chinese citation article yet? 4325. bbb - 1/23/2001 10:46:18 AM 4322, 4326. greystoke - 1/23/2001 12:04:00 PM Clinton wins again. 4327. JudithAtHome - 1/23/2001 12:05:51 PM 4328. DaveM - 1/23/2001 12:39:47 PM Ace and Cal - 4329. CalGal - 1/23/2001 12:48:30 PM Dave, 4330. jexster - 1/23/2001 12:50:18 PM Wingnut Right to Lifers Froth and Drool over BOTUS 4331. jexster - 1/23/2001 12:53:39 PM 4332. jexster - 1/23/2001 1:09:04 PM The little old lady who strolled into Eden Liquor and 4333. robertjayb - 1/23/2001 1:13:56 PM . 4334. JudithAtHome - 1/23/2001 1:24:59 PM Maybe Enron used these same methods: 4335. bbb - 1/23/2001 1:26:23 PM 4326, 4336. jexster - 1/23/2001 1:39:21 PM BOTUS Education Package: A Copy of Lieberman/Bayh Legislation PLUS Vouchers 4337. jexster - 1/23/2001 1:47:23 PM Die Strom Die! 4338. jexster - 1/23/2001 2:32:11 PM CA Electricity Crisis: Bush Faces Mounting Pressure 4339. jexster - 1/23/2001 2:38:10 PM A Billion Here, A Billion There, Bush Tax Scam Cost Mounts 4340. iiibbb - 1/23/2001 2:57:28 PM Pretty Childish 4341. concerned - 1/23/2001 3:59:20 PM Re. 4321 - 4342. concerned - 1/23/2001 4:02:45 PM Re. 4337 - 4343. concerned - 1/23/2001 4:06:52 PM What if some right winger posted something like 'Die, {obnoxious lying Lefty bastard of your choice}, die!'. He would be slammed for hate speech. But Lefties get a pass. This is because the shared implicit assumption is: 4344. OhioSTOPAS - 1/23/2001 4:07:38 PM Since Strom Thurmond's son is only 28, he couldn't have resulted from a "youthful" indiscretion by Strom. (Even by Henry Hyde's definition.) 4345. janjon - 1/23/2001 4:09:54 PM Republicans=Adults equates to OXYMORON. 4346. janjon - 1/23/2001 4:11:44 PM no no no. The Jr. is a product of the most recent marriage of Sr. to Nancy. About 50 years younger than he. They split in 1991 or so. A fact Sr. forgot a year or so ago when he was ruminating that he would resign "in favor of his wife". 4347. JudithAtHome - 1/23/2001 4:12:58 PM 4348. concerned - 1/23/2001 4:17:57 PM Re. 4344 - 4349. concerned - 1/23/2001 4:24:47 PM 4350. azazel - 1/23/2001 4:25:46 PM Republicans should take global warming seriously - its going to be their beach houses that are undre water! 4351. concerned - 1/23/2001 5:26:45 PM 4352. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 5:54:59 PM 4353. JudithAtHome - 1/23/2001 6:00:43 PM 4354. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 6:06:08 PM 4355. JudithAtHome - 1/23/2001 6:08:58 PM 4356. Raskolnikov - 1/23/2001 6:09:39 PM Ace: You confuse the "evidence" provided by knee-jerk environmentalists with evidence provided by scientists. There is quite a bit of hard evidence that anthropogenic global warming is real, and that evidence goes well beyond the fact that a given summer is warm. Legitimate skeptics are getting harder and harder to find. 4357. JudithAtHome - 1/23/2001 6:10:35 PM 4358. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 6:12:48 PM 4359. JudithAtHome - 1/23/2001 6:15:54 PM 4360. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 6:16:32 PM 4361. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 6:18:03 PM 4362. Raskolnikov - 1/23/2001 6:19:18 PM Ace: you are setting up a straw man again. I certainly agree with you that only an idiot would claim that a given season's average temperature provides significant evidence for or against global warming. But no reputable scientist is doing that. Basically, there are a couple different predictions of global warming that are falsifiable: 4363. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 6:20:59 PM 4364. Raskolnikov - 1/23/2001 6:26:59 PM Ace: "I'd be mightilly curious how "anthropological evidence" can prove the existance of a phenomenon which has only existed (hypothetically) for the past hundred years." 4365. Raskolnikov - 1/23/2001 6:31:38 PM Anyways, I don't have time to get into this more right now. But if you actually wish to demonstrate any real knowledge of scientific arguments for global warming, and your critiques thereof, I'll get around to responding in the next few days. Post them in the Slow Thread. 4366. cmboyce - 1/23/2001 6:32:09 PM 4367. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 6:34:01 PM "You need a lot more data points to be sure." 4368. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 6:37:41 PM 4369. Raskolnikov - 1/23/2001 6:39:12 PM Ace: quick question. You are right about the difficulties in making accurate predictions about Global Warming. But here is the problem. These measurement difficulties exist whether or not global warming is a real phenomenom. Basically, you have no choice but to weigh the probability and costs of being wrong against the probability and costs of being right. 4370. Raskolnikov - 1/23/2001 6:40:08 PM anyways, take it Slow Thread if you have actual arguments. 4371. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 6:44:13 PM Not Cycle 8 -- "Century VIII." 4372. concerned - 1/23/2001 6:47:46 PM Europeans have their panties in crunchy bunches over the fear that global warming might cause the Gulf Stream warming effect to diminish or stop. So, they're whining up a gale force storm over 'global warming'. 4373. iiibbb - 1/23/2001 6:47:56 PM There is a century of evidence that global warming _is_ happening. Coincidentally or not, it coincides with the industrial revolution and the population growth of the past 100 years. 4374. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 6:51:23 PM 4375. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 6:53:55 PM 4376. concerned - 1/23/2001 6:56:05 PM Also, it must be kept in mind that the average global temperature during the interglacial optimum was about 2.5 degrees C higher than today for a period lasting at least several hundred years without the least evidence of any sudden cooling in Western Europe. 4377. concerned - 1/23/2001 7:08:51 PM Build a house (and take carbon out of the environment). Really! 4378. iiibbb - 1/23/2001 7:16:33 PM Message # 4375 4379. concerned - 1/23/2001 7:19:52 PM Well, I am doing something. I just don't buy obvious bullshit. A house I've had built was just completed with a geothermal heat pump (no emissions) and well and septic, and when time and finances allow, I'm planning to introduce solar and wind power generators with the ultimate goal of going off grid. 4380. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 7:22:20 PM "I will say I don't agree with your position that the changes of the past 100 years mean nothing." 4381. Cellar Door - 1/23/2001 7:26:25 PM Ace can ignore whatever he wants to ignore iiibbb. So can connie. They're know-it-alls. 4382. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 7:28:14 PM 4383. concerned - 1/23/2001 7:29:25 PM Re. 4381 - 4384. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 7:32:46 PM Fox News Trounces the Cable Competition on Inauguration Saturday 4385. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 7:33:41 PM 4386. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 7:50:24 PM ALWAYS A FRESH HELL AND NEVER A BOTTOM: Saw George Stephanopoulos on Sunday at the ABC News Brunch. I've always liked him, despite our differences. He's never obnoxious, often smart, and he sure looks better than he did when he was flacking for Bill. So he deserves some credit for stating the obvious on television yesterday: "He [Clinton] pardoned a man named Marc Rich. You may not remember Marc Rich but he was a banker, a commodities trader, who was trading with Iran when they were holding terrorists and trading with South Africa under the Apartheid regime, indicted by Rudy Giuliani, instead of facing trial he went on the lam, lived in Switzerland for 17 years. His ex-wife has given $600,000 almost, over $500,000 to the Democratic Party over the last two years. This is outrageous." Yes, George. But so was almost everything else. Rich's ex-wife says she's appalled and never asked for it. But Clinton's not after her money; he's after his. Who's gonna bankroll a Hillary campaign? The Big Creep went out as he came in - hustling for cash. Here's what the man deputed to process pardons at the Justice Department said about Clinton's shameless abuse of his office even in its final hours: "I've never seen anything like this. We were up literally all night as the White House continued to add names. Many people on the list didn't even apply for pardons." No, but did they offer the Democrats half a million? 4387. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 7:50:33 PM 4388. iiibbb - 1/23/2001 8:07:12 PM 4389. Cellar Door - 1/23/2001 8:15:00 PM "At least I form my own thoughts. I'm not dependent on others putting them ready-made into my head like you doctrinaire types." 4390. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 8:16:20 PM 4391. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 8:18:43 PM 4392. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 8:24:32 PM 4393. Fielding - 1/23/2001 8:38:16 PM 4394. iiibbb - 1/23/2001 8:46:12 PM Message # 4390 4395. iiibbb - 1/23/2001 8:46:36 PM Message # 4392 4396. jexster - 1/23/2001 9:06:53 PM WASHINGTON, DC--Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the dooron eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured thenation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare ofpeace and prosperity is finally over." 4397. jexster - 1/23/2001 9:08:53 PM Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought byClinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street. 4398. jexster - 1/23/2001 9:22:59 PM Whitewashing The History of the Confederacy - the Southern Patriot and other Crypto-racists [Slate} 4399. jexster - 1/23/2001 9:23:54 PM How did defending Dixie suddenly become fashionable? Is this the onset of reactionary chic? 4400. wonkers2 - 1/23/2001 9:27:46 PM Time for a joke (Cartoon): 4401. jexster - 1/23/2001 9:28:51 PM As I said folks 4402. jexster - 1/23/2001 9:29:48 PM good one Wonk ...fits my theory that wignuts are basically dickless wonders 4403. jexster - 1/23/2001 9:34:09 PM V.O Key has long been one of my favorite analysts of Southern History and politics 4404. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 10:33:42 PM Joseph Perkins 4405. jonesatlaw - 1/23/2001 10:43:51 PM There were certain political differences between the Confederate States of America and the USA. However, their constitution and system of government was very much like the Union's. If the issue was in reality something more related to a differing view of the nature of central government, one would expect greater differences in the alternative they set up. Chatel slavery was the hub of the difference between the Confederacy and the Union, all other differences revolved around the instution of slavery. While abolition was a factor in the northern equation, it was not the central issue for the north. It was whether the US Constition created a new nation or whether it was an extension of the Articles of Confederation between separate and sovereign States. 4406. iiibbb - 1/23/2001 10:48:28 PM Message # 4404 4407. jonesatlaw - 1/23/2001 10:50:07 PM Consider the recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climate Data Center. It notes that in 2000 the United States experienced its coldest November and December on record, with an average national temperature of 33.8 degrees Fahrenheit 4408. JudithAtHome - 1/23/2001 11:27:33 PM 4409. AceofSpades - 1/23/2001 11:27:38 PM 4410. JudithAtHome - 1/23/2001 11:28:34 PM 4411. jonesatlaw - 1/24/2001 12:08:38 AM 4412. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 12:13:40 AM 4413. jonesatlaw - 1/24/2001 12:25:36 AM No, the trenchcoat next to her. 4414. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/24/2001 12:31:59 AM 4415. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 12:56:22 AM "Who do you think had a better evening?" 4416. CalGal - 1/24/2001 12:59:24 AM Ha! 4417. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 1:02:04 AM While abolition was a factor in the northern equation, it was not the central issue for the north. It was whether the US Constition created a new nation or whether it was an extension of the Articles of Confederation between separate and sovereign States. 4418. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 1:02:10 AM (cont.) 4419. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 1:02:19 AM Finally, as far as the North goes, just look at what the Republican Party was all about before the war and what occurred immediately after the war regarding the Constitutional amendments and Reconstruction. During the conduct of the war, Lincoln was somewhat limited by the fact that he wanted to keep the slaveholding border states from going over to the Confederacy. But even then, you have the Emancipation Proclamation and what the Gettysburg Address really says. 4420. DaveM - 1/24/2001 1:09:29 AM "The Civil War was a fight over whether the central federal government or the individual state governments were going to have ultimate say-so." 4421. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 1:28:45 AM Dave: Whatever you say. 4422. DaveM - 1/24/2001 1:48:17 AM Indiana - 4423. jonesatlaw - 1/24/2001 2:09:02 AM Some of the differences between the US and CSA constitutions are substantive, and interesting. Taxation outside of that requested by the President, the Cabinet or claims against the federal government had to be approved by a 2/3s majority of the congress and the President had a line item veto. Taxation on the states was to be porportionate to representation in congress. Finally negro slavery was enshrined in the constitution, though the slave trade was banned. 4424. jonesatlaw - 1/24/2001 2:13:23 AM further from the CSA Constitution- Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. 4425. jonesatlaw - 1/24/2001 2:15:34 AM They also headed off any future Dred Scott cases by insuring that freedom of transit between the Confederate States was free and that property, specifically including slaves was to be protected and its ownership or status on affected by such transit. 4426. jonesatlaw - 1/24/2001 2:16:28 AM please ignore "was free" in last post. thank you. 4427. Wombat - 1/24/2001 8:48:02 AM Upon reading the Georgia secession act, several things about it struck me. By any standard, the chief quarrels with their Northern "confederates" concerned aspects of slavery, be it expansion into territories captured from Mexico, to the refusal of states to comply with federal laws concerning the return of fugitive "labor" (slaves). 4428. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 9:14:11 AM DaveM: Generally, I think you're a rather sophomoric thinker. That's pretty evident when I write several lengthy and sourced posts and you respond in approximately seven minutes with incoherent slapdash that the timing of which obviously indicates you did not bother to read what the Southern states actually said about why they were seceding. (Of course, I remember well that you also weren't interested in statements by Engels and Marx that contradicted your own theories about the relationship of Marx's thought with that of Darwin.) Moreover, you have apparently read very little of Lincoln because at least for the first part of the war, he tried very hard to say it wasn't about slavery either. 4429. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 9:14:16 AM (cont. and this in response to Wombat as well): 4430. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 9:15:49 AM Incidentally, I don't think WWI was fought entirely over the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, either. 4431. rubberducky - 1/24/2001 9:23:27 AM 4432. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 9:28:13 AM Suits me, Ducky. 4433. rubberducky - 1/24/2001 9:31:38 AM IJ: 4434. cmboyce - 1/24/2001 9:43:26 AM Well, politics in the the old millenium may be better than no politics at all. In fact, it may be better than politics in the new millenium... 4435. cmboyce - 1/24/2001 9:45:56 AM I seem to recall a story about how the Quayle staffers trashed the Veep's offices before Gore came in. Undubyaing seems pretty mild—nay, witty—by comparison. 4436. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 11:20:18 AM 4437. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 11:21:33 AM 4438. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 11:22:28 AM 4439. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 11:23:25 AM 4440. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 11:30:15 AM 4441. janjon - 1/24/2001 11:34:42 AM Judith - the delay on Ashcroft is to try to make sure he responds in writing to a number of questions that he was given so as to respond in writing. 4442. Fielding - 1/24/2001 11:36:52 AM I have a question about ethics. 4443. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 11:37:37 AM 4444. janjon - 1/24/2001 11:38:47 AM No, he no doubt still considers himself a centrist. After all, look at the loonybin not-so-much-of-a-fringe types in the GOP. 4445. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 11:39:38 AM 4446. janjon - 1/24/2001 11:40:04 AM And, at any rate, no comparison with Clinton ala Lewinsky (and that is NOT a condemnation of Clinton ala Lewinsky - just a view that your posit isn't really a meaningful posit.) 4447. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 11:40:05 AM 4448. Wombat - 1/24/2001 11:43:11 AM Fielding: 4449. joezan - 1/24/2001 11:44:52 AM 4450. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 11:47:00 AM 4451. janjon - 1/24/2001 11:47:16 AM Cabinet nominees by tradition are given a lot of slack. And, this is probably the best way for the system to work. 4452. rubberducky - 1/24/2001 11:49:56 AM Re: Message # 4442, Fielding. 4453. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 11:51:56 AM 4454. rubberducky - 1/24/2001 11:53:26 AM J@H: 4455. Fielding - 1/24/2001 11:53:43 AM 4456. Fielding - 1/24/2001 11:59:29 AM 4457. concerned - 1/24/2001 12:02:27 PM 4432. Indiana Jones - 1/24/01 2:28:13 PM 4458. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 12:04:06 PM Judith - They've all breezed through because the Dems are trying to be Uniters. 4459. rubberducky - 1/24/2001 12:06:14 PM Re: Message # 4456, Fielding. 4460. Wombat - 1/24/2001 12:06:55 PM Gee JJ, two of President* Bush's nominees are getting a deservedly hard time before they are confirmed, and one was a victim of the politics of personal self-destruction. I don't think you have much to complain about. 4461. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 12:07:11 PM 4462. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 12:15:21 PM Fielding - There are several assumptions in your question which are invalid. 4463. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 12:19:12 PM 4464. jexster - 1/24/2001 12:21:35 PM I noted the other day that the AceOfWaste had taken to giggling... 4465. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 12:22:44 PM Wombat - two of President* Bush's nominees are getting a deservedly hard time before they are confirmed 4466. jexster - 1/24/2001 12:24:37 PM But please, no more giggling. 4467. rubberducky - 1/24/2001 12:25:33 PM can anyone tell me what the hell jexster's #4464 means? 4468. jexster - 1/24/2001 12:26:04 PM Good Biener very good. 4469. joezan - 1/24/2001 12:26:23 PM 4470. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 12:29:44 PM Judith - I know you realize I was in sarcasm mode, right? 4471. jexster - 1/24/2001 12:32:22 PM But Message # 4464 still suffers from the mental disease with which Biener seems congenitally afflicted 4472. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 12:34:55 PM "Ashcroft's view can only be seen as extreme if you consider a very 4473. wonkers2 - 1/24/2001 12:35:48 PM JJ, Ashcroft is the one who has been lying about his recore. In my opinion, he isn't very honest, he isn't very bright and he's a far-out extremist. 4474. joezan - 1/24/2001 12:36:16 PM 4475. jexster - 1/24/2001 12:37:31 PM Rask... 4476. jexster - 1/24/2001 12:38:38 PM Thesaurus MY ASS...that was Lenin the Master of the Poison pen.... 4477. jexster - 1/24/2001 12:39:24 PM Like a little girl ( wingnut castrati) 4478. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 12:40:03 PM Jex - But Message # 4464 still suffers from the mental disease . . . 4479. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 12:42:10 PM Wonkers - In my opinion, he isn't very honest, he isn't very bright and he's a far-out extremist. 4480. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 12:44:09 PM Rask - "Ashcroft: Further to the center than Lavrenti Beria!" 4481. joezan - 1/24/2001 12:45:50 PM 4482. wonkers2 - 1/24/2001 12:47:22 PM JJ, I watched most of the hearings. I don't need your "facts." 4483. jexster - 1/24/2001 12:48:08 PM you got me Biener... 4484. bbb - 1/24/2001 12:49:00 PM Who is in charge of the Justice Department? 4485. bbb - 1/24/2001 12:49:59 PM Will Norman Mineta be confirmed? 4486. bbb - 1/24/2001 12:52:10 PM GWB is moving fast and effective on his education and tax-cut agenda... 4487. Fielding - 1/24/2001 12:52:23 PM 4488. bbb - 1/24/2001 12:55:36 PM Senate Committee Endorses Norton 4489. Fielding - 1/24/2001 12:56:14 PM 4490. wonkers2 - 1/24/2001 12:56:44 PM ditto on gun control, desegregation, gay rights. 4491. wonkers2 - 1/24/2001 12:57:51 PM ...and separation of church and state 4492. jexster - 1/24/2001 12:58:09 PM Who is in charge of the Justice Department? 4493. bbb - 1/24/2001 12:59:05 PM Senate OKs Thompson as HHS Secretary 4494. Fielding - 1/24/2001 1:00:37 PM 4495. bbb - 1/24/2001 1:01:57 PM Bush Meets With Democrats 4496. joezan - 1/24/2001 1:03:00 PM 4497. Fielding - 1/24/2001 1:03:02 PM 4498. Fielding - 1/24/2001 1:05:08 PM 4499. jexster - 1/24/2001 1:05:41 PM 4500. jexster - 1/24/2001 1:11:35 PM Oppose the Ashcroft Nomination - New York Times 4501. OhioSTOPAS - 1/24/2001 1:13:05 PM "The issue isn't what John Ashcroft feels deep inside, it's his two-decade record of public opposition to virtually every effort at achieving racial justice." 4502. jexster - 1/24/2001 1:13:26 PM Given this newspaper's long history of defending civil liberties, reproductive freedom, gay rights and racial justice, we cannot endorse Mr. Ashcroft as an appropriate candidate to lead a department charged with providing justice for all Americans 4503. jexster - 1/24/2001 1:14:17 PM He's a two bit demagogue and character assassin - perfect reflection of his Master the Moron 4504. joezan - 1/24/2001 1:17:20 PM 4505. OhioSTOPAS - 1/24/2001 1:18:33 PM Misrepresenting is not "speaking out". 4506. joezan - 1/24/2001 1:23:26 PM 4507. Fielding - 1/24/2001 1:24:02 PM 4508. labwabbit - 1/24/2001 1:24:21 PM ...not only Demos. 4509. bbb - 1/24/2001 1:26:09 PM Lucent Plans To Cut 10,000 Jobs 4510. bbb - 1/24/2001 1:26:46 PM AOL Time Warner To Cut 2,000 Jobs 4511. OhioSTOPAS - 1/24/2001 1:27:57 PM Joezan: Your #4506 is partisan nonsense. Legal journalist Stuart Taylor is only one non-partisan who has demonstrated how then-Senator Ashcroft misrepresented Justice White's record. 4512. cmboyce - 1/24/2001 1:27:59 PM Fwiw, which is probably very little, one can sign this petition opposing Ashcroft. 4513. Fielding - 1/24/2001 1:29:26 PM 4514. Fielding - 1/24/2001 1:29:54 PM toys 4515. cmboyce - 1/24/2001 1:29:57 PM toys? 4516. concerned - 1/24/2001 1:36:45 PM Since being elected, Bush has not been a centrist. He has chosen a polarizing cabinet. 4517. joezan - 1/24/2001 1:38:36 PM 4518. concerned - 1/24/2001 1:45:05 PM Speaking of that lying weasel, Eric Holder: 4519. concerned - 1/24/2001 1:51:23 PM It was a 'black day' for Alphalfa Bore's presidential prospects when Stooge Reno had INS agenst seize Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint. 4520. jexster - 1/24/2001 1:55:19 PM One repeat pic deserves another....ELIAN B FREE! 4521. jexster - 1/24/2001 1:59:38 PM or maybe even a new one... 4522. jexster - 1/24/2001 2:00:49 PM concerned....you really should not be so stuck in the past....a bright new Imbecilic Dawn as burst over AmeriKa! 4523. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 2:04:01 PM 4524. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 2:10:37 PM 4525. bbb - 1/24/2001 2:30:55 PM Year of Snake May Be Good For Bush 4526. bbb - 1/24/2001 2:32:16 PM However, other factors must be considered for a more accurate prediction for Bush's first year in office, some Taiwanese soothsayers said. 4527. bbb - 1/24/2001 2:33:25 PM Thoughts also turned to what the new year will bring and many looked for lucky signs. 4528. janjon - 1/24/2001 2:46:23 PM W was asked the other day what he thought Roe versus Wade meant. He pondered more than one would expect, then got one of those little smirk/grins that come so easily to him, and said "I've got it! That was the decision George Washington had to make when he crossed the Trenton at Delaware!!!!" 4529. janjon - 1/24/2001 2:48:24 PM Most people in America agree with Ashcroft that abortion is wrong. They only differ in what the see the role of government is in protecting the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the mother. 4530. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 3:01:07 PM Fielding - Ashcroft believes that abortion is murder. Most Americans disagree. 4531. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 3:13:58 PM bbb - The Year of the Snake, under the Chinese lunar calendar, is a time some soothsayers say brings upheaval, disasters and revolution. 4532. jexster - 1/24/2001 4:33:48 PM Ashcroft: The Clear and Present Danger 4533. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 4:33:50 PM 4534. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 4:34:07 PM 4535. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 4:36:00 PM I was mocking JJ's logic. I see no straw man. 4536. jexster - 1/24/2001 4:37:12 PM The year of the snake(Scalia, not the voter) has brought us 4537. jexster - 1/24/2001 4:38:24 PM 4538. Rosetta Stone - 1/24/2001 4:38:43 PM Clinton doesn't allow Gore to Speak on Inauguration Day Democratic bash at Andrews Air Force Base 4539. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 4:40:56 PM 4540. jexster - 1/24/2001 4:41:30 PM Dubya [has] just reversed over seven years of progress, 4541. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 4:42:10 PM 4542. joezan - 1/24/2001 4:44:13 PM 4543. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 4:44:35 PM "And of course I'm never "mocking your logic" when I 4544. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 4:46:41 PM 4545. joezan - 1/24/2001 4:46:45 PM 4546. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 4:48:06 PM 4547. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 4:49:35 PM Dubya [has] just reversed over seven years of progress 4548. jexster - 1/24/2001 4:52:23 PM The Clueless Inauguration - Ariana Huffington 4549. jexster - 1/24/2001 4:53:37 PM Yes you should. It is morally reprehensible that thousands will starve because George W. has to pay back a bunch of rednecks.... 4550. jexster - 1/24/2001 4:55:55 PM But hey, what's a moral imperative to you nativist nut cases anyway? 4551. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 4:58:48 PM Ace: Whay are you asking me this question? I haven't said a word about Bush's abortion decisions. You are also implying, with your quotes, that I said the words you are quoting. I didn't. 4552. janjon - 1/24/2001 4:59:40 PM Fascinating how the boys are just falling all over themselves to convince themselves that Americans realllly don't like abortion. Nosiree!!! 4553. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 5:00:12 PM Ace (4539): Since the thread host has asked we not discuss the Civil War anymore, I'll not go into all the detail again, but I think what you're saying is pretty much what I said in 4429. 4554. joezan - 1/24/2001 5:01:27 PM 4555. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 5:04:52 PM Indy: 4556. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 5:07:43 PM "Fascinating how the boys are just falling all over themselves to convince themselves that Americans realllly don't like abortion. Nosiree!!!" 4557. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 5:09:52 PM Ace: should people also get to vote on free speech issues? 4558. janjon - 1/24/2001 5:11:17 PM well, actually, talking about pro- or anti-abortion per se is indeed getting off the point. 4559. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 5:11:43 PM My point being if you want to make a Constitutional argument that Roe has no basis in sound law, go for it. But if you do believe that it is a fundamental right, there is no contradiction in not wanting to let individual state legislators vote on it. 4560. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 5:14:25 PM 4561. Fielding - 1/24/2001 5:16:26 PM 4562. janjon - 1/24/2001 5:19:03 PM oh sure, fielding, so am I. But, you can be pro-choice and still opt not to choose for yourself. 4563. Fielding - 1/24/2001 5:20:21 PM 4564. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 5:20:47 PM Ace: Because I think he (Dave) was trying to say that slavery was the exclusive cause. And I think if you read Lincoln--who made it clear for the longest time that he wasn't fighting to end slavery--it's hard to draw that conclusion. 4565. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 5:21:20 PM As far as the Civil War (quotation from Dept. of State link above). 4566. jexster - 1/24/2001 5:23:52 PM Nobody to the right of Ralph Nader denies that prices have to be allowed to serve a role as "signals" of shortage or abundance, that the profit motive is what makes our economy run. But even now the public rightfully draws a line, fuzzy but real, between profits and profiteering. 4567. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 5:24:06 PM 4568. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 5:27:11 PM 4569. Fielding - 1/24/2001 5:27:12 PM 4570. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 5:29:12 PM 4571. jexster - 1/24/2001 5:33:25 PM Names for Bush 4572. Fielding - 1/24/2001 5:34:23 PM 4573. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 5:34:44 PM 4574. Fielding - 1/24/2001 5:38:37 PM Ace: 4575. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 5:38:50 PM Ace: the point is that if FDR ever said he wasn't fighting the war to save the jews, he wasn't lying. 4576. JJBiener - 1/24/2001 5:39:51 PM janjon - (psst. - they aren't babies. They are fetuses.) 4577. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 5:40:40 PM 4578. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 5:41:39 PM "Ask the next pregnant woman you see if she is carrying a baby or a 4579. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 5:42:30 PM "WE DIDN'T FIGHT WORLD WAR II TO SAVE THE JEWS!!" 4580. Fielding - 1/24/2001 5:43:21 PM 4581. Fielding - 1/24/2001 5:44:25 PM 4582. Indiana Jones - 1/24/2001 5:44:36 PM Ace: I think in any political maneuver--including war--the stated reason has to be given some credence as a cause, as well as any unstated reason, if the stated reason is what motivates the populace. 4583. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 5:45:10 PM "Did you feel that way 6 months ago?" 4584. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 5:48:11 PM "It was certainly a consideration. Hitler was a threat because he had 4585. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 5:48:31 PM 4586. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 5:54:39 PM Hitler was a huge security threat. You don't think the US noticed what he was doing to his neighbors? 4587. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 6:07:26 PM 4588. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 6:14:32 PM 4589. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 6:20:31 PM 4590. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 6:24:16 PM 4591. JudithAtHome - 1/24/2001 6:25:30 PM 4592. concerned - 1/24/2001 6:34:15 PM Re. 4579 - 4593. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 6:42:27 PM 4594. robertjayb - 1/24/2001 7:00:26 PM . 4595. jexster - 1/24/2001 7:13:18 PM AP 4596. jexster - 1/24/2001 7:19:23 PM 4597. jexster - 1/24/2001 7:19:47 PM asscroft 4598. jexster - 1/24/2001 7:20:08 PM asscroft 4599. jexster - 1/24/2001 7:20:48 PM 4600. jexster - 1/24/2001 7:24:54 PM 4601. jexster - 1/24/2001 7:27:06 PM When Senator John Ashcroft opposed Bill Lann Lee’s nomination to head the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, he argued that Lee was “an advocate who is willing to pursue an objective and to carry it with the kind of intensity that belongs to advocacy, but not with the kind of balance that belongs to administration ... his pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him limit his capacity to have the balanced view of making the judgments that will be necessary for the person who runs [the Civil Rights] Division.” 4602. wonkers2 - 1/24/2001 7:35:17 PM Great link. Peter Beinart's TNR article confirms my conclusion from watching most of the hearings that Ashcroft is a liar. He lied about Ronnie White; he lied about why he opposed Hormel; he lied about his shameful role in fighting desegregation of St Louis schools; and I have no doubt he had his fingers crossed when he made solemn commitments to enforce the law and not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade in his effort to pass himself off as a moderate extremist rather than an extreme extremist. 4603. jexster - 1/24/2001 7:48:14 PM DiFi's little compare and contrast number on the bastard shows the same thing Wonk 4604. jexster - 1/24/2001 7:48:28 PM wignut, wingnut whatever 4605. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 7:50:48 PM Re: Global Warming 4606. concerned - 1/24/2001 7:52:08 PM Speaking of wingnuts and whackjobs, how about the widespread vandalism and theft committed by exiting Clowntoon staffers in the WH? 4607. concerned - 1/24/2001 8:06:10 PM Proof that GWB is a moderate: his proposed tax cut: 4608. concerned - 1/24/2001 8:06:25 PM -- The Bush proposal would reduce the federal government's total revenues by no more than 6.2 percent per year (not accounting for offsetting economic benefits due to the tax cuts). Reagan's tax bill reduced the total federal bite by 18.7 percent, while Kennedy's plan proposed an overall cut of 12.6 percent. 4609. Fielding - 1/24/2001 8:12:03 PM 4610. wonkers2 - 1/24/2001 8:22:52 PM They are all politicians. What Kennedy did or didn't do compared to Bush doesn't impress me one way or the other. I'm more impressed by Greenspan's and Rubin's and Paul Krugman's position that paying down the deficit is preferable to a huge tax cut. As I recall Bush's father called it "voodoo economics." On that I can agree. 4611. jexster - 1/24/2001 8:24:03 PM 4612. jexster - 1/24/2001 8:27:36 PM Did someone mention GOD? 4613. jexster - 1/24/2001 8:30:34 PM Thanks Concerned for 4614. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 8:33:20 PM 4615. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 8:34:26 PM 4616. jexster - 1/24/2001 8:51:47 PM Now if you think for a minute that Bush will move to lower gasoline prices any more than he moved against his Texas electricity pirates, think again.... 4617. jexster - 1/24/2001 8:53:00 PM Second time ace...obviously you do not wish to join in a substantive debate no matter how many times I try to rattle your cage... 4618. jexster - 1/24/2001 8:53:31 PM I should be flattered that Ace pays such close attention to my posts but some how I'm not. 4619. jexster - 1/24/2001 8:56:08 PM I wanna get fiscal, fiscal... 4620. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 8:57:02 PM Ace: 4621. Fielding - 1/24/2001 8:59:47 PM 4622. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:04:28 PM 4623. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:06:58 PM 4624. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:11:24 PM Ace: 4625. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:11:51 PM 4626. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:14:44 PM "You and Jade have in common that you only accept as "legitimate" those organs/propaganda outfits which repeat to you that which you already believe is true." 4627. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:15:44 PM 4628. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:17:55 PM Ace: I am not launching an ad hominem attack on the National Review. I am instead attacking *you* for seeking your scientific information from political journalists rather than from scientific sources. This is partly why you are a hack. 4629. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:19:32 PM 4630. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:20:24 PM No Ace, I am fully aware that some respected climatologists are not yet convinced of global warming. Some respected physicists are also not convinced of the big bang. But when it comes to policy action, what do you do, wait for unanimity? 4631. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:21:38 PM 4632. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:22:59 PM 4633. concerned - 1/24/2001 9:24:23 PM The UN has done nothing but discredited itself with its climatic globaloney (and scared a few chicken littles on the Leftist Plantation). 4634. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:24:41 PM ". I am instead attacking *you* for seeking your scientific information from political journalists rather than from scientific sources." 4635. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:24:56 PM "You are perhaps claiming that you yourself read original scientific studies on global warming -- peer-reviewed source articles -- rather than less scholarly works which merely digest the real science for a lay audience. " 4636. Rosetta Stone - 1/24/2001 9:26:54 PM Hundreds of WH/Old Executive Building computer keyboards destroyed. Now this... 4637. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:27:58 PM "Just start rattling off the titles of these "scientific sources" you're so familiar with. The way you speak, I'm sure you have the significant data all memorized." 4638. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:28:50 PM 4639. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:29:39 PM "I don't claim anything, except that you're an ignorant, self-satisfied little intellectual poseur who's fond of pointing out "logical fallacies" in others that you happily engage in yourself. " 4640. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:29:53 PM 4641. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:32:02 PM 4642. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:33:04 PM If you really want to get involved in a scientific global warming discussion, let's move it to the Slow Thread, where it will be easier to follow, and less likely to get lost in the morass here. 4643. concerned - 1/24/2001 9:34:10 PM "I took several environmental policy courses in grad school, where peer reviewed scientific papers on global warming were required reading." 4644. Rosetta Stone - 1/24/2001 9:34:41 PM Whenever the NYTimes does an environmental story, you can be sure to see Corrections a week later. (After they've been shamed into putting them in.) 4645. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:35:12 PM 4646. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:37:00 PM "And I took economics in law school. I do not have the pretense, however, of being an economist." 4647. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:37:21 PM 4648. concerned - 1/24/2001 9:38:05 PM Re. 4644 - 4649. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:39:50 PM 4650. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:44:23 PM 4651. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:47:40 PM 4652. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:49:30 PM 4653. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:49:31 PM Another standard Ace move: make up lies about a debating opponent (that I cite liberal mouthpieces on political issues and that I have never read a peer reviewed article), and insist that the onus is on him to prove those lies wrong. 4654. Uzmakk - 1/24/2001 9:50:51 PM Has any one mentioned McCain's support for low power FM broadcasting? Is this an issue that anyone could get behind? 4655. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:53:11 PM This is the Ace we know and love, creating more straw men. Please state where I claimed expertise in any of the subjects you claim that I did? 4656. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:54:35 PM 4657. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:55:33 PM And that I do understand the science behind global warming, and have taken a college level atmospheric physics class. Not that these make me an expert, but they do make you full of shit. 4658. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 9:57:44 PM 4659. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 9:58:11 PM "Nor does the fact that a scientist's opinion is quoted in the NR make it untrue. " 4660. concerned - 1/24/2001 9:58:52 PM That's not a hard quantitative scientific discipline. One of the biggest mistakes the Left continually makes is to practice such equivalency wrt scientific authority, or even more depressingly, point to anybody with a post-graduate degree in humanities as having special technical credibility. 4661. concerned - 1/24/2001 9:59:46 PM My last is re. 4655. 4662. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 10:00:16 PM "You did so implicitly, by denigrating a scientist's opinion merely because I found it in a political venue, rather than in an original "scientific source." " 4663. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 10:00:27 PM 4664. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 10:03:00 PM "That's not a hard quantitative scientific discipline." 4665. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 10:04:05 PM 4666. Uzmakk - 1/24/2001 10:05:03 PM Oh goodness! I didn't realize that I had stepped into the middle of something. Carry on. 4667. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 10:06:16 PM 4668. concerned - 1/24/2001 10:08:33 PM Trying to deny legitimacy to me what you claim for yourself, I see, Raskol. My educational grounding is much more technically applicable to the science behind global warming than policy analysis could ever be, regardless. 4669. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 10:09:08 PM "Neither is the UN's panel on Global Warming, dipshit. " 4670. jexster - 1/24/2001 10:11:01 PM Bush A Centrist? My Right Foot! 4671. jexster - 1/24/2001 10:12:12 PM Trying to deny legitimacy to me what you claim for yourself, I see, 4672. concerned - 1/24/2001 10:12:20 PM Re. 4669 - 4673. jexster - 1/24/2001 10:13:01 PM I'm gonna go ground myself in the MAN Thread 4674. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 10:13:04 PM "You claimed that only "scientific sources" were acceptable." 4675. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 10:13:48 PM 4676. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 10:14:06 PM Anyway, I am done for the evening. We can continue this tomorrow in the Slow Thread. 4677. concerned - 1/24/2001 10:14:56 PM Re. 4671 - 4678. Raskolnikov - 1/24/2001 10:17:14 PM "What does it matter, dope? A quote from a respected scientist is a quote from a respected scientist, whether I quote it, Jex quotes it, Madonna quotes it, or Julius Fucking Erving quotes it. " 4679. concerned - 1/24/2001 10:20:26 PM The overwhelming majority of real, working scientists look askance on the UN globaloney. 15,000 of them signed a petition disavowing the bad science, myths and distortions that the floundering Kyoto treaty was based on. 4680. jexster - 1/24/2001 10:30:21 PM Four days into the Bush era, the religious right is ecstatic, mainstream Democrats are alarmed, and the liberal interest groups are in high dudgeon. 4681. jexster - 1/24/2001 10:31:35 PM Did my Miki Sawaguchi shot come out? 4682. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 11:04:07 PM Rask, 4683. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 11:04:19 PM 4684. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 11:26:34 PM 4685. iiibbb - 1/24/2001 11:41:14 PM From a Global Warming skepticism site, 4686. AceofSpades - 1/24/2001 11:47:27 PM 4687. iiibbb - 1/24/2001 11:54:57 PM More neat-o sites... 4688. iiibbb - 1/25/2001 12:01:01 AM Golly...someone who agrees with me... 4689. iiibbb - 1/25/2001 12:02:27 AM Golly...someone who agrees with me... 4690. joezan - 1/25/2001 1:17:36 AM 4691. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 2:58:41 AM 4692. jexster - 1/25/2001 3:02:13 AM 4693. jexster - 1/25/2001 3:05:03 AM I remember lots and lots of respected scientists telling us all about "Nuclear Winter." There was a "scientific consensus" about it. 4694. jexster - 1/25/2001 3:51:48 AM Witness: Ashcroft Lied in Senate Testimony 4695. jexster - 1/25/2001 3:56:34 AM most rikki-tik. 4696. jonesatlaw - 1/25/2001 4:36:58 AM Even if we knew that human activities were in fact pushing climate equilibrium towards warming, without knowing more of the other mechanisms which set global temperature we don't know what, if anything we should do about it. If we are pushing towards warming while other factors are pushing towards cooling, it might be a good thing that we are "warming" the atmosphere. If, OTOH we are doing so while the natural mechanisms are pushing towards warming, we are accelerating an unfavorable outcome. Also, without knowing more of the buffering factors in the enviroment, the decision is complicated further. 4697. jonesatlaw - 1/25/2001 4:37:55 AM toys! 4698. arkymalarky - 1/25/2001 5:43:25 AM Actually, a pattern of extremes in the weather doesn't ease my mind about global warming, from what little I've read about it. 4699. wonkers2 - 1/25/2001 7:56:02 AM Ashcroft brow broke into a sweat and was fidgety when he was asked about why he blocked Hormel's confirmation. Especially when he said he "didn't recall" putting a hold on the confirmation. Leahy replied "feel free to correct that statement later if you wish," dripping with sarcasm. 4700. Indiana Jones - 1/25/2001 9:52:32 AM Greenspan to back tax cut 4701. glendajean - 1/25/2001 10:00:04 AM 4702. Fielding - 1/25/2001 11:27:25 AM 4703. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2001 11:30:30 AM What? Someone involved in arms sales to Iran got a Presidential pardon?? 4704. Indiana Jones - 1/25/2001 11:35:37 AM Where is the outrage over the Marc Rich pardon? 4705. Francis Urquhart - 1/25/2001 11:36:36 AM Last night on MSNBC, even Paul Begala (who makes Jexster look like a Blue Dog) refused to defend the Rich pardon, though in typical Clinton facilitator method, he stated that Jack Quinn had a lot of explaining to do (as opposed to the man child who granted the pardon). 4706. jexster - 1/25/2001 11:38:06 AM Boooo-hooo! 4707. janjon - 1/25/2001 11:38:43 AM Won't be long before we hear about Gore's sister again. 4708. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2001 11:39:16 AM Just trying to teach Fielding a little history, Francis. 4709. janjon - 1/25/2001 11:39:51 AM Ari Fleisher is a bit too partisan sounding for his current job. Just wait -he'll start toning it down a bit soon. 4710. jexster - 1/25/2001 11:40:11 AM 4711. Francis Urquhart - 1/25/2001 11:40:41 AM janjon 4712. Fielding - 1/25/2001 11:40:55 AM 4713. jexster - 1/25/2001 11:41:00 AM wagin war on fags 4714. Indiana Jones - 1/25/2001 11:41:41 AM jexster has a bot that warns him when he any lucid discussion may be beginning in this thread. 4715. Francis Urquhart - 1/25/2001 11:42:17 AM Fielding 4716. rubberducky - 1/25/2001 11:42:45 AM why would 4710 go in the Man Thread, jex? 4717. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2001 11:43:02 AM No pardons were bought, Fielding. 4718. Francis Urquhart - 1/25/2001 11:43:37 AM Indiana 4719. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 11:46:03 AM Ace:"The only important "bias" is bias on the part of the scientist, not the magazine who quotes him. OF COURSE NR seeks out a contrarian voice in response to the UN's silly Scare-Report. " 4720. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 11:46:10 AM "PPPPS: And note that in the same posts you scold me for not quoting 4721. Fielding - 1/25/2001 11:47:40 AM 4722. janjon - 1/25/2001 11:53:15 AM Here are some wise reflections and suggestions from a wise man: 4723. jexster - 1/25/2001 11:55:13 AM good FU , very good gaseous emmissions muy bueno! 4724. janjon - 1/25/2001 11:56:00 AM Frankie - no, you won't litter this thread. You'll just haul out yet another of your self-proclaimed bon mots, like the Betty Currie-gifts-under-her-bed chestnut. 4725. JudithAtHome - 1/25/2001 12:02:20 PM 4726. seadate - 1/25/2001 12:04:44 PM Judith, 4727. glendajean - 1/25/2001 12:06:15 PM I saw Orrin Hatch on Chris Matthews "Hard Ball." He thought Mike Milliken should have been pardoned. He also said that Rich had done some good things. 4728. glendajean - 1/25/2001 12:07:42 PM But of course, we don't need campaign finance reform so it is a moot point to even be upset about this corrupt system. 4729. Fielding - 1/25/2001 12:10:31 PM 4730. Fielding - 1/25/2001 12:12:57 PM 4731. rubberducky - 1/25/2001 12:13:43 PM 4732. Fielding - 1/25/2001 12:15:52 PM 4733. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 12:25:36 PM For contrast, here is one of the better general articles on Global Warming I have read recently, from the generally conservative Economist. This might require registration. I can copy and paste it if requested. 4734. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 12:30:55 PM Another Economist article (short enough to copy and paste) 4735. janjon - 1/25/2001 12:30:59 PM Hey, congratulations, Rask. I've never been able to get anything to link from The Economist and gave up trying some time ago. I'll now be inspired to try again. 4736. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 12:31:05 PM (cont) 4737. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 12:47:05 PM "(maybe the problem is that my print subscription doesn't carry over to the online version.)" 4738. bbb - 1/25/2001 12:58:39 PM Notice: Table Talk will be down for major upgrades, starting the morning of January 26. We apologize for any inconvenience and will try to have it back online as soon as possible. Our estimated downtime is 24 hours. 4739. bbb - 1/25/2001 12:59:48 PM Even Paul Begala refused to defend Clinton's pardon practices. 4740. bbb - 1/25/2001 1:01:40 PM And the Washington Post's Editorial called Clinton's pardon actions "UNPARDONABLE". 4741. Fielding - 1/25/2001 1:02:41 PM 4742. bbb - 1/25/2001 1:03:49 PM Clinton used to get money from China. 4743. rubberducky - 1/25/2001 1:09:41 PM Fielding: 4744. jexster - 1/25/2001 1:12:48 PM In the middle of the maneuvering, Senator Feinstein delivered her unexpected and stinging attack. 4745. bbb - 1/25/2001 1:13:26 PM 4746. jexster - 1/25/2001 1:13:38 PM RD - 4747. bbb - 1/25/2001 1:16:09 PM Another decision that drew ire was Clinton's pardon of former Washington lawyer William Arthur Borders Jr. A jury convicted Borders of bribery after he promised an undercover FBI agent that he could fix a case in front of U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings. In 1983, a Miami jury acquitted Hastings, but the Senate later removed him from office after convicting him of bribery conspiracy and lying on the witness stand. Hastings is now a Florida congressman. 4748. bbb - 1/25/2001 1:17:18 PM Borders went to jail rather than testify to a Florida grand jury about a matter involving South Florida mobster Santo Trafficante, who also had a case in front of Hastings. The lawyer went to jail again rather than talk to a House impeachment committee. Twice in the past six years, the D.C. Court of Appeals has declined to reinstate Borders's law license, ruling that he failed to prove his redemption by telling what he knows about the Hastings case. 4749. bbb - 1/25/2001 1:18:38 PM Senator Hillary is questioning Alan Greenspan in the Senate on tax cuts. 4750. Fielding - 1/25/2001 1:20:09 PM 4751. JJBiener - 1/25/2001 1:20:44 PM BBB - Hastings is now a Florida congressman. 4752. JJBiener - 1/25/2001 1:23:49 PM DiFi - However, his views on certain issues — civil rights, desegregation, a woman's right to choose, guns — we'll make him, uh, I mean, will make him an enormously divisive and polarizing figure 4753. seadate - 1/25/2001 1:25:49 PM Thanks for pasting the global warming article here, Rask. 4754. bbb - 1/25/2001 1:30:37 PM How about the ozone holes? 4755. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 1:31:56 PM 4756. JJBiener - 1/25/2001 1:36:06 PM Prediction - When the Ashcroft DOJ begins to look at Clinton and Gore's involvement in the 1996 fundraising activities, there will be howls of protest claiming it is a personal vendetta. This confirmation battle is just a prelude to the main event. Democrats want Ashcroft confirmed but discredited so any attempt he makes to bring prominent Democrats to justice over their fundraising activities can be dismissed as a partisan witch hunt. They will cite the confirmation hearings as "proof". 4757. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 1:36:22 PM 4758. jexster - 1/25/2001 1:37:14 PM AP-President Bush (news - web sites)'s plan to scrap the federal estate tax would mean lower revenue for states in a ripple effect that would cut tens of millions of tax dollars from every state's budget. 4759. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 1:38:36 PM 4760. janjon - 1/25/2001 1:38:44 PM don't give much of a fig what Ashcroft does or does not do about the so-called fund-raising abuses (and what do you think would be uncovered if Tom DeLay's files could be perused?) 4761. jexster - 1/25/2001 1:39:50 PM A health care expert who applied for a top Cabinet post in Missouri's government contends then-Gov. John D. Ashcroft questioned him about his sexual orientation during a job interview, posing the query in a way that indicated he would not be hired if he were gay. 4762. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 1:41:27 PM "At the same time, it would knock out some $9 billion to the states, because their tax codes piggyback the federal government's." 4763. bbb - 1/25/2001 1:42:05 PM Greenspan Cites Room for Tax Cut 4764. jexster - 1/25/2001 1:43:23 PM DiFi Senator Ashcroft’s commitment to enforce the law in view of the extremeness of his record, as well as, on occasion, the harshness of his rhetoric, makes it difficult to believe that he can, in fact, fairly and aggressively enforce laws he deeply believes are wrong. 4765. jexster - 1/25/2001 1:46:03 PM Not so easy Ace....sure the states can each set up their own tax returns, bureacracies etc but the reason they piggyback is that their rates are lower and don't justify the expense...moreover, the Feds have the ability to track assets, accounts, money in and out that no state has or could reasonably be expected to have.... 4766. bbb - 1/25/2001 1:48:16 PM And we're not creating water, last time I checked. 4767. jexster - 1/25/2001 1:49:31 PM In Michigan, estate taxes account for less than 1 percent of the total budget. Nationally, the taxes, which can vary widely each year, make up between 1 percent and 2 percent of a state's budget on average, said Harley Duncan, executive director of the Federation of Tax Administrators. 4768. bbb - 1/25/2001 1:50:16 PM 4756, 4769. iiibbb - 1/25/2001 1:59:54 PM DHMO is a major environmental threat. I really think this one should be taken up by Congress ASAP. We need to get this stuff banned. 4770. iiibbb - 1/25/2001 2:03:22 PM Health risks of DHMO 4771. bbb - 1/25/2001 2:31:35 PM MSNBC said last night that the President could pardon anyone EXCEPT with bribery and the pardon of Marc Rich was close enough to be further examined..... 4772. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 2:33:27 PM Ace:"In addition, there's been ZERO atmospheric warming. None. None 4773. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 2:36:53 PM 4774. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 3:32:37 PM Ace: you used to have better retorts than a paraphrased "no, you are!". You are slipping. 4775. janjon - 1/25/2001 3:35:04 PM Methinks he is actually unsure of himself when it comes to his stand on global warming. 4776. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 3:42:41 PM No, I think it is more likely his reaction is: "Facts! Arggggggh! Run Away!" 4777. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 3:44:12 PM 4778. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 3:45:50 PM 4779. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 3:49:49 PM 4780. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 3:54:28 PM 4781. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 3:59:10 PM Ace: my primary point was that your comments on water vapor showed a gross ignorance of global warming theories. And why do you think the feedback mechanism will be "runaway"? 4782. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 3:59:37 PM 4783. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2001 4:00:43 PM Ace, you apparently didn't get the memo from Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Headquarters. The campaign is over, and conservatives no longer need to stretch and strain trying to discredit the accurate environmental analysis by the Demoratic candidate. Relax. 4784. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 4:00:55 PM And why is it, again, that when you want to cite information on Global warming, you automatically glom on to sites and organization who explcitly are skeptical about it, rather than sites and organizations who are likely to be objective about it? I have my own theories, but I would like to hear your answer. 4785. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2001 4:01:29 PM I could be mistaken for "concerned", writing "DemoRATic". . . 4786. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 4:02:41 PM 4787. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 4:05:13 PM 4788. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 4:08:16 PM 4789. PelleNilsson - 1/25/2001 4:09:26 PM Incorrect. "Global warming" consists, so far, to the extent it exists at all, as a raising of the nighttime minimum temperature with NO increase in the daily maximum temperature. 4790. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 4:21:01 PM 4791. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 4:42:44 PM 4792. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2001 4:52:09 PM " . . . the same crowd who now cries "Global warming!" was actually crying "Global cooling!" in the seventies, and even predicted the onset of an actual Ice Age, glaciers and all." 4793. wonkers2 - 1/25/2001 4:56:18 PM For more on Ashcroft's lies to the Senate, see Timothy Noah's Chatterbox article "Save Your Lies for the Senate." And see today's New York Times story on the health care expert interviewed by Governor Ashcroft for a job with the state of Missouri. The very first question that Ashcroft put to him was: "Is your sexual orientation the same as that of most men?" The interviewee was surprised and told friends about the experience contemporaneously. This was verified by the NYT. Another BIG LIE by President Bush's nominee for Attorney General. 4794. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 5:04:42 PM 4795. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2001 5:07:15 PM Okay, I could be wrong. Name one person who advanced a "global cooling" theory in the 70's who currently supports the greenhouse gas/global warming theory. 4796. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 5:10:40 PM 4797. jexster - 1/25/2001 5:15:38 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - The political polarization of Americans on the basis of religion was reinforced during the tight Bush-Gore election, a team of political scientists said Thursday. 4798. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2001 5:18:06 PM Why did you bring up "The "burden of proof disparity"? That would indicate that you should support YOUR statement with evidence. It is easier to prove (if true, of course) your statement that numerous people advanced a "global cooling" theory than it is for me to prove a negative. 4799. PelleNilsson - 1/25/2001 5:22:28 PM 4800. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2001 5:29:11 PM Pelle: I don't recall "global cooling" alarms either, but global warming "skeptics" like to insist, as Ace does, that "global cooling" was the big scare back in the 60's and 70's and that "the same people" now advance global warming. 4801. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 5:31:25 PM "So we assume, without evidence, that at 4802. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 5:36:06 PM 4803. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 5:44:15 PM "What an asshole. Can't you see that you equate "belief in global 4804. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 5:48:29 PM "Are scientists who believe in Super-string theory the only "objective" ones, and all skeptics (who believe that a Grand Unified Theory must be sought elsewhere) non-objective? " 4805. JJBiener - 1/25/2001 5:48:48 PM janjon - It is what Ashcroft will do . . . enforcing the gun control laws 4806. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 5:56:07 PM 4807. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 5:59:31 PM 4808. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 6:02:46 PM 4809. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 6:05:14 PM Ace also seems to assume that inputs into Global Warming models are all wild-ass guesses, rather than numbers determined by empirical research, such as the heat trapping abilities of different gasses. 4810. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 6:09:32 PM 4811. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 6:09:43 PM "Wrong, asshole. iiibbb suggested several sites, some of which were 4812. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 6:11:44 PM "Time and time again, you resort to the same fallacious trope, though 4813. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 6:14:26 PM Bye for now. 4814. iiibbb - 1/25/2001 6:14:27 PM I think the global cooling "scare" wasn't so much saying we'll be under glaciers within a century... The last ice age was about 14000 years ago during the Pleistocene. Over 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years. 4815. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 6:16:42 PM 4816. iiibbb - 1/25/2001 6:19:25 PM But here is a "global cooling" article 4817. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 6:22:13 PM 4818. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 6:30:38 PM Incidentally, Rask, your frustration here is the result of the tension inside you -- you *want* to prove things to me scientifically, but you're simply incapable of doing so, and you can't quite admit this to yourself. 4819. iiibbb - 1/25/2001 6:45:00 PM Maybe I can make some quick money selling Glacier shelters for people to put in their backyard... 4820. Cellar Door - 1/25/2001 7:42:47 PM Global Warming = Ace sits on a hot waffle iron. 4821. jexster - 1/25/2001 8:18:04 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - A controversy over John Ashcroft (news - web sites)'s statements on gay rights widened Thursday as the nation's first openly gay ambassador and a health care expert questioned the truthfulness of the attorney general-designate's comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 4822. jexster - 1/25/2001 8:19:38 PM Whatever I consider the Economist's editors to be, one thing I do not consider them to be are scientists. 4823. jexster - 1/25/2001 8:20:15 PM Lawyer perhaps? Political analyst? Wingnut cretin? 4824. jexster - 1/25/2001 8:21:03 PM I KNOW - expert on Southern politics and history! 4825. Cellar Door - 1/25/2001 8:39:34 PM Well one might come to the conlcusion that Ashcroft lied. 4826. jexster - 1/25/2001 8:42:24 PM NBC News reports growing evidence of oligopolistic supply manipulation by wholesale power companies - Texas companies 4827. jexster - 1/25/2001 8:45:11 PM CD - I'm sure he didn't really recall that he was a fag bashing asshole.... 4828. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 8:48:43 PM 4829. Rosetta Stone - 1/25/2001 8:50:34 PM Small change for the Clintons.... 4830. jexster - 1/25/2001 8:57:54 PM Linda Chavez lies about her Guatemalan "house guest" and the Bush team hangs its nominee for labor secretary out to dry. John Ashcroft lies about why he opposed the nomination of James Hormel, a homosexual, as ambassador to the vitally strategic nation of Luxembourg, and the Bush team circles the wagons around its nominee for attorney general. At first glance, this may look like inconsistency, but in fact there's a clear, if unspoken, standard for appointees: It's OK to lie to the Senate, but not OK to lie to your prospective boss at the White House. 4831. jexster - 1/25/2001 8:59:00 PM Ashcroft - liar, freak, homophobe, racist, misogynist, character assassin, a little man 4832. jexster - 1/25/2001 8:59:16 PM toys 4833. arkymalarky - 1/25/2001 8:59:18 PM Ace is sure an all-or-nothing kinda guy. 4834. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 9:02:31 PM 4835. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:07:42 PM Read the article dipshit or I'll quote it.... 4836. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 9:09:06 PM 4837. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:09:56 PM The freak lied thru his teeth.... 4838. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:12:09 PM Its about as easy to believe that Ashcroft forgot hating fags as it would be to believe that I forgot how much I loathe Ashcroft, Bush, DeLay, Lott, Barr...or to believe that I don't get my rocks off pissing all over the AceOfWaste 4839. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:15:33 PM Ashcroft said he opposed Hormel not because he was gay, but because he promoted gayness (a charge Hormel denied, incidentally). But this distinction doesn't have much meaning. If Ashcroft believed Hormel promoted the "gay lifestyle," and that this made him unfit for public office, then Ashcroft can't truthfully claim that his opposition had nothing to do with Hormel's being gay. 4840. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:16:09 PM Bend over Acie, here it comes again.... 4841. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 9:16:53 PM 4842. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:19:11 PM Fortunately Senators do not have to prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty... 4843. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:20:19 PM If you asked me what I thought of religious freaks 30 years from now and I told you I couldn't recall.... 4844. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 9:25:56 PM Ace:"Incidentally, Rask, your frustration here is the result of the tension inside you -- you *want* to prove things to me scientifically, but you're simply incapable of doing so, and you can't quite admit this to yourself." 4845. Raskolnikov - 1/25/2001 9:26:09 PM 4846. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:26:43 PM 4847. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:27:47 PM What in heaven's name do you mean lately, the silly little freak is an habitual, congential liar 4848. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 9:29:17 PM 4849. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 9:31:41 PM 4850. jonesatlaw - 1/25/2001 9:32:10 PM JJ:janjon - It is what Ashcroft will do . . . enforcing the gun control laws 4851. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:33:40 PM 21 Rules For Being A Good Republican 4852. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:33:52 PM 12) You have to believe that a waiting period for purchasing a handgun is bad because quick access to a new firearm is an important concern for all Americans. 4853. jonesatlaw - 1/25/2001 9:36:48 PM Jex- save the reruns for TV please. 4854. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:38:21 PM Hormel on TV - repeadtedly called and wrote Ashcroft inquiring what the reasons for his opposition were.... 4855. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 9:38:35 PM 4856. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:38:54 PM What are you talking about Jonesy? 4857. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:39:36 PM (giggle) 4858. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 9:39:36 PM 4859. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:40:00 PM Well Acie, that's news to me. 4860. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:40:39 PM I make it a habit NOT to read every mote post - too much drivel from certain quarters..... 4861. Rosetta Stone - 1/25/2001 9:41:34 PM Jex: I was part of the demonstrations in DC last weekend. Let me assure you they were nothing compared to the good old days. Just a couple of hundred (maybe a thousand) misfits trying to get the cops to beat them up. 4862. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:41:56 PM In fact, I received the Rules for Wingnuts in an e-mail not 10 minutes ago... 4863. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 9:44:39 PM 4864. Cellar Door - 1/25/2001 9:46:38 PM Ace: "I'm pretty gay-friendly" 4865. jonesatlaw - 1/25/2001 9:46:42 PM Jexster- I think that the list was posted within the last two days. Joke material has the shelf life comparable to that magic attraction you feel for the person you take home at closing time. By the next morning, you don't feel it anymore- hell you can't even remember it. 4866. Cellar Door - 1/25/2001 9:51:13 PM Ashcroft's a liar and so is Ace. 4867. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 9:53:02 PM 4868. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 9:55:01 PM 4869. Cellar Door - 1/25/2001 9:55:21 PM "You spent 8 years claiming that perjury wasn't any big deal. People could claim a lack of memory re: things they clearly remembered (Senator Clinton? President Clinton?) and that was pefectly legal, ethical, and legitimate." 4870. jexster - 1/25/2001 9:59:55 PM Not MY President! 4871. Cellar Door - 1/25/2001 10:03:20 PM "In fact, America is planning you a Surprise Party tomorrow, to tell you how much they love you." 4872. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 10:13:16 PM 4873. wonkers2 - 1/25/2001 10:31:07 PM Just heard Anthony Lewis and Stuart Taylor slice John Fund a new asshole on today's Christopher Lyden show on the topic of my favorite Republican, John Ashcroft. 4874. jexster - 1/25/2001 10:31:49 PM FYI 4875. iiibbb - 1/25/2001 10:43:30 PM I just have to balance Jexter's post 4876. iiibbb - 1/25/2001 10:44:07 PM 4877. Rosetta Stone - 1/25/2001 10:52:24 PM There weren't that many demonstrators there, jexster. They kept moving from one camera position to the next up Penn Ave to Freedom Plaza. At the most 5 to 10 thousand out of a quarter of a million. 4878. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 11:13:47 PM Thursday, January 25, 2001 4879. AceofSpades - 1/25/2001 11:15:08 PM Part of the problem is a new state law that says people must be permitted to vote even if they don't present either a registration card or picture ID. That invites fraud. 4880. Al D - 1/25/2001 11:25:56 PM 21. You have to believe that Affirmative Action is a great thing and deserves are full support and be pissed off that it got Clarence Thomas to the SC. 4881. joezan - 1/25/2001 11:31:24 PM 4882. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 12:10:05 AM Then CNN was wrong, Joe. There were more than a thousand. Unless the CNN reporter was just talking about just one demonstration site. There were at least three. 4883. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 6:57:17 AM Clinton aides accused of theft, vandalism 4884. Liberty Freeman - 1/26/2001 8:53:20 AM What is politics,but human relations; there is more politics in churches,schools and every day life than there is in the government. Every social order and group has their own rules. Our country's fathers tried to make a constitution that would take care of all the existing disputes and they did a superb job. Many realized as Jefferson did that government should be left to the living and amendments should be fairly easy. But there were enough hard headed people,to carry the day and their ideas were fostered upon the next generation. Today we are experiencing a product of this branch of human nature still persisting. Our congress has never had enough honest men at one time to carry the day for the political reforms that we have needed in the two hundred twelve years of our existance 4885. bbb - 1/26/2001 9:13:38 AM Torricelli will vote FOR Ashcroft . 4886. lisajolie - 1/26/2001 9:16:40 AM For a good laugh, try using the google.com search engine and typing in "dumb motherfucker." 4887. bbb - 1/26/2001 9:23:10 AM The actions were meant to be humorous or expressed the frustration of White House staffers who were losing their jobs, the Democratic officials said. 4888. bbb - 1/26/2001 9:25:43 AM Calif. Power Supply Falls Again 4889. bbb - 1/26/2001 9:26:39 AM 4886, 4890. lisajolie - 1/26/2001 9:28:43 AM Sure, Bbb. 4891. bbb - 1/26/2001 9:34:55 AM 4892. bbb - 1/26/2001 9:48:38 AM 4893. bbb - 1/26/2001 9:56:13 AM 4894. bbb - 1/26/2001 10:15:30 AM 4895. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 10:28:14 AM Working with the Nazis. Can a "Night of the Long 4896. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 10:29:43 AM "18) You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House." 4897. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 10:31:13 AM "6) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural." 4898. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 10:32:27 AM "America loves you." 4899. rubberducky - 1/26/2001 10:34:23 AM CD: don't forget us wanna-bes, hahaha 4900. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 11:40:07 AM 4901. rubberducky - 1/26/2001 11:53:19 AM good link, CD 4902. Ronski - 1/26/2001 12:08:26 PM Cellar, 4903. bbb - 1/26/2001 12:12:04 PM Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich was boardline bribery? 4904. bbb - 1/26/2001 12:18:15 PM On Ashcroft's confirmation and Dem's nasty fight : 4905. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 12:19:59 PM Terrific first week for President Bush. Clearly the right man won the election. 4906. concerned - 1/26/2001 12:20:03 PM Unofficial hand recounts of undervote ballots in Miami-Dade and Collier counties are showing the winner, George W. Bush, would have widened his lead over Al Gore if there had been a statewide recount using the standard of counting any discernible dimple or pinprick as a vote. 4907. bbb - 1/26/2001 12:22:08 PM 4905. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/01 5:19:59 PM 4908. lisajolie - 1/26/2001 12:22:46 PM The Trouble With John 4909. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 12:23:17 PM "Does this do anything to redeem Bawer in your eyes?" 4910. bbb - 1/26/2001 12:24:09 PM Concerned, 4911. lisajolie - 1/26/2001 12:32:13 PM McCarthyism Alive and Well in Virginia 4912. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 12:35:00 PM Just keep saying "OBVIOUSLY!" 4913. bbb - 1/26/2001 12:35:09 PM Calif. Power Alert Upgraded 4914. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 12:35:50 PM Somehow I'm still about to post in here. 4915. bbb - 1/26/2001 12:36:35 PM Even Alan Greenspan agreed with GWB. 4916. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 12:37:11 PM 4917. bbb - 1/26/2001 12:39:28 PM Bush/Cheney/Powell etal govern the nation with charm,persuasion,and effectiveness. 4918. bbb - 1/26/2001 12:41:35 PM JAH 4919. lisajolie - 1/26/2001 12:42:33 PM Greenspan didn't agree completely with George W. 4920. azazel - 1/26/2001 12:44:53 PM Oh yeah, GWB had a great week - "Sure, CA, I'll help you out - how's about I loosen the clean air standards so that the utilities can produce more power -would that help?" 4921. Andy F - 1/26/2001 12:48:48 PM President Clinton, I salute you for a job very well done. 4922. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 12:50:27 PM 4923. bbb - 1/26/2001 12:52:15 PM http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-01-25-bushstrategy.htm 4924. bubbaette - 1/26/2001 12:54:43 PM McCarthyism Alive and Well in Virginia 4925. lisajolie - 1/26/2001 12:55:16 PM John Ashcroft's Anti-Gay Crusade 4926. bbb - 1/26/2001 1:00:40 PM Start with the easier issues, the ones that already have bipartisan support. The White House would like an education bill passed by summer even if that means compromising on the issue of vouchers, the use of public funds to help students attend private schools. 4927. bbb - 1/26/2001 1:05:12 PM Bush strategy to build momentum 4928. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:06:06 PM Questions About Ashcroft Honesty Mount 4929. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:07:26 PM One potential new example involves the Justice Department's landmark lawsuit against the tobacco industry, which Ashcroft told senators last week he knew little about and had "no predisposition" to dismiss. 4930. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:08:20 PM Certainly appears that DiFi's Old Ashcroft, New Ashcroft indictment has struck a responsive chord... 4931. bbb - 1/26/2001 1:10:00 PM Andy F., 4932. bbb - 1/26/2001 1:10:47 PM The L.A. Times is equally charmed: "During his first days in office, before a single meeting with his own Cabinet, Bush has summoned dozens of members of Congress-Democrats and Republicans, leaders and backbenchers, liberals and conservatives-to the White House for a dose of his fabled charm. 4933. bbb - 1/26/2001 1:14:12 PM Clinton may have escaped to Chappaqua after his last-minute pardons, but they are coming back to bite another Clinton. So much so that the New York Post runs this front-page screamer: "HILL IN HIDING." 4934. lisajolie - 1/26/2001 1:14:58 PM I want to make this a literate and hopefuller country. 4935. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 1:16:05 PM "Andy F., 4936. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:17:55 PM "Then I went for a run with the other dog and just walked. And I started thinking about a lot of things. I was able to--I can't remember what it was. Oh, the inaugural speech, started thinking through that."--Pre-inaugural interview with U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 22, 2001 4937. Ronski - 1/26/2001 1:18:24 PM Ashcroft's veracity problems remind me of George Wallace's pledge never to be "outsegged" ever again after he lost an election to an overt race-baiter. Ashcroft traditionally threw raw meat to the rabid right, especially on the gay issue. He governed as considerably less of a fire-breather, however, politics being the art of compromise. 4938. bbb - 1/26/2001 1:19:11 PM The former first couple is also getting scrutiny on the gift front, as the Associated Press reports: 4939. wonkers2 - 1/26/2001 1:22:44 PM MORE BOUNDLESS GOP HYPOCRISY 4940. Ronski - 1/26/2001 1:22:57 PM Apparently the looting of Air Force One was grossly exaggerated. The former First Couple In Name Only took only a few hundred bucks worth of stuff. The trashing of the OEB is more serious, as it will cost a couple of hundred thousand bucks to fix. Most of the perps were Gore's people. I suspect Gore will apologize for their actions. 4941. Ronski - 1/26/2001 1:24:21 PM wonkers2, 4942. bbb - 1/26/2001 1:24:24 PM NFL/GOP ? 4943. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:25:12 PM Murray will vote against Ashcroft for attorney general 4944. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 1:25:40 PM 4945. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 1:26:10 PM 4946. lisajolie - 1/26/2001 1:26:42 PM Does this mean I'll have to return my Air Force One Coffee Mug? I also have a couple of packs of M&Ms with the Presidential seal. 4947. wonkers2 - 1/26/2001 1:29:22 PM bbb, Mark Chamura is (or was) a superstar in the NFL and in the Wisconsin GOP. But his new uniform may have stripes. 4948. Ronski - 1/26/2001 1:29:57 PM Lisa, 4949. Ronski - 1/26/2001 1:31:05 PM Fortunately, the worst problem we've have with our hot tub is occasional folliculitis. 4950. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 1:32:57 PM 4951. Ronski - 1/26/2001 1:33:21 PM Btw, it's Chmura. 4952. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 1:34:16 PM 4953. Ronski - 1/26/2001 1:35:55 PM Judith, 4954. Ronski - 1/26/2001 1:36:43 PM (attracting women, not acting women). 4955. Ronski - 1/26/2001 1:39:30 PM Judith, 4956. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:40:11 PM A Glimpse Into the Looney Left 4957. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:40:41 PM Rich DeLeon wrote one of the most offensive books that I've EVER read and he uses it for his class. It was called "Left Coast" and it chronicled the evolution of progressive politics in California. It's fatal flaw is that it totally ignores and discounts the gay and lesbian movement as part of that evolution. Most of you know that gays and lesbians were in critical leadership roles in the Women's Movement, Civil Rights Movement (including the organizer of the March on Washington), Labor Movement and the Anti-War Movement. Many of the gay and lesbian leaders that we know of today in the Bay Area who are over 40 evolved as LGBT activists from those movements. In fact, many of the nascent gay rights issues that we are fighting today were formulated within those movements. Those of you who are my age might remember the fervent discussions of lesbianism and lesbian leaders within the Women's Movement. It actually caused quite a rift. All of us are familiar with the gay movement gaining enormous momentum when we aligned with the Teamsters for the Coors Beer Boycott. Mr. DeLeon, like so many "Bay Guardian Lefties" seems to not only discount our history, but forget it. And what did we learn from the Jim Jones tragedy: "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it in the future." I, for one, resent people like Mr. DeLeon teaching generations of young progressives and purposefully excluding gays and lesbians. 4958. Ronski - 1/26/2001 1:44:39 PM A remnant of the left's denunciation of gays as mere bougies. 4959. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:46:59 PM Wellstone Opposes Ashcroft 4960. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:48:18 PM Ronski...described by another correspondentas a "myopic old hippie".... 4961. lisajolie - 1/26/2001 1:55:17 PM I'm disinclined to believe the allegations that Clinton staffers "vandalized" the White House. If they had, I'm sure George W.'s staff would have invited the press to see and document the extent of the damage for themselves. It sounds like just another swipe at Clinton. 4962. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:55:37 PM You'd think an administration headed by the son of a former president might be a teensy bit leery of appearing to foster a culture of nepotism. This is a republic, after all. Offices are supposed to be earned, not inherited. And the Bushies' principled opposition to affirmative action should surely be reinforced by a concern that none of the new president's appointees seem to be the beneficiaries of special treatment. 4963. bbb - 1/26/2001 1:56:56 PM Congress Wants Rich Pardon Inquiry 4964. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:57:14 PM Eight years ago, the Clinton administration ushered in what seemed like a social revolution. The Clintonites didn't just bring an ideology to Washington; they brought a caste. Gone were Poppy's crusty boarding-school WASPS. In their place was a new kind of elite: multicultural, aggressively brainy, confident they owed their success not to birth or blood but to talent alone. "Perhaps more than any in our history," wrote The Washington Post's David Ignatius, "Clinton's is a government of smart people." Or at least credentialed people. The White House staff alone boasted six Rhodes scholars. One-third of President Clinton's 518 earliest appointments had attended Harvard or Yale--or both. The president called his staff "the top ranks of a new generation." 4965. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:58:15 PM After Meritocracy: A Sociology of Bushies 4966. robertjayb - 1/26/2001 1:58:58 PM . 4967. jexster - 1/26/2001 1:59:04 PM NEWS FLASH...Congress has no business reviewing Presidential Pardons..its constitutional thang 4968. jexster - 1/26/2001 2:00:36 PM But if the Wingnut Motiers are any indication, they've nothing better to do than this sort of political masturbation 4969. Ronski - 1/26/2001 2:09:33 PM (I have presbyopia, not myopia.) 4970. jexster - 1/26/2001 2:11:16 PM I just saw that word on a TV commercial...now I HAVE to look it up 4971. OhioSTOPAS - 1/26/2001 2:11:47 PM Dan Burton's on the case again! 4972. jexster - 1/26/2001 2:12:36 PM Aaah yes it was a Lenscrafter's Commercial! 4973. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 2:15:03 PM 4974. Dusty - 1/26/2001 2:15:23 PM Message # 4950 JudithAtHome 4975. AceofS
CalGal:
"Well, the names have been getting lighter and lighter, loafer wise."
You know that wherever you find guys who are light in their loafers, you are sure to also find a poodle.
Just as well. Thought better of it in the light of day.
Juditha:
"What's that? Giving him ugly kids?"
We're gonna get screwed.
I preferred my suggestion of Napolean Lajoie.
Fielding....I know that; THEN come the ugly kids!
Not if they have my genes.
"Francis Urquhart is Chief Whip. He has his hands on every secret in politics - and is willing to betray them all to become Prime Minister. .."
It's not the votes, it's the money. Business owners pay good money to the Democrats to keep them from actually implementing their campaign promises. It is no coincidence that the more Gore campaigned against the drug companies, the more the those same companies contributed to the Democrats.
"You owe it to yourself to sit back, relax and enjoy the ride that is Francis Urquhart."
Was this review written by Cellar or what?
Fielding:
The progeny of Matalin and Carville defy description...suffice to say, one look and you are made aware that all babies are NOT cute.
Your argument seemed to be the exact opposite.
Not exactly. If business owners believed the candidate was serious and would really try to implement his campaign promises, they would abandon him in a heartbeat and do everything in their power to defeat him. That's why I said it was a fine line to walk. He has to be convincing enough to take in the true believers while letting the money folks know that the status quo is not going to change.
If you listened to the complaints of the Naderites, the recurring theme was that Gore was a sellout to the business interests and his rhetoric was empty. Essentially, they got a peak behind the curtain and realized that Gore was not The Wizard of Ozone, but rather just an opportunist from Occidental.
Whoever is the next Democratic nominee will have to put that curtain back in place and make people forget what they saw behind it. This isn't extremely difficult since most people want to believe, but it is still a significant challenge to hold two groups of people with drastically different agendas.
1) Business money tends to go to the GOP anyway. The exceptions that I know about aren't heavily hit by environmental regulations. So I don't think there is that much money to run screaming the other way.
2) If what money there is does bail, they are less likely to have input in the process.
3) There is not always a dichotomous choice between helping the environment and helping businesses. There are many environmental polices that can do both at the same time, mostly because much environmental regulation lacks a solid incentive structure. Basically, business costs for clean water and clean air are already sunk, and have been quite effective. Gore at his most radical probably wouldn't tighten them up much. The biggest exceptions are global warming, non-point source pollution, and commercial use of government lands. Global warming is best suited to carrots, not sticks, right now. Non-point source pollution isn't as much in the lap of corporate interests. Government land issues are concentrated in states that vote Republican anyway, so you can piss them off with impunity.
4) I am convinced the Naderites were wrong about Gore. I think he was quiet about it for political reasons, not as a matter of conviction.
Check out the DNC's contributor list. There are a surprising number of businesses contributing money who would be harmed if the Dems platform was ever implemented. I don't think they are paying for their own funeral. I think they are paying to make sure the platform never becomes law.
I am convinced the Naderites were wrong about Gore.
I think they had him nailed. I used to think Gore was a man of principle (even if I disagreed with him on most issues), but his words and his actions have diverged too many times for me to accept that anymore.
JJ -
You once thought Bore was a man of principle? When was that?
Neither can your guy....as you say, they are a rare breed.
Uh, 1972? No, actually when he was in the Senate and when he first ran for VP in '92. I later realized that in '92 he only seemed principled compared to Clinton's complete lack in that area. If Gore ever had principles, they left no lingering evidence.
I knew he was, at best, a flake; probably a charlatan, from the time I found out that he wrote 'Earth in the Balance' in the early '90's. It was all downhill from there wrt my opinion of him. 
I would hope Clinton would refuse a Bush pardon, which won't ever happen anyhow...no indictment and certainly no pardon for the guy who whipped his Daddys ass....you don't honestly think GW would do anything Daddy didn't approve of, do you? Dream on....
Go look it up, idiot. Find "Legal Canon of Ethics" on-line. Go search for the dozens of articles on the silly conflict of interest claims, and read all the legal ethicists who said, flatly, there was no "conflict of interest" as that term has ever before been defined.
Feh. "Legal ethics". Right up there with "military intelligence" or "one size fits all". Who cares what a bunch of subsidized think-tank pencil-pushers have to say about anything? The excerpts of Scalia's decision I read were horrendous and strained, like a teenager coming up with any possible bullshit excuse to borrow Dad's car.
But whatever. If you're happy with it, I'm happy with it. Tell the truth, though -- had the situation been reversed, and Gore had won with the help of such possibly conflicted justices, you'd be yelping and yarking like Alanis Morissette about the whole wicked deal.
Personally, I think the SC is a bit too fucking precious for their own good anyway. Liberal or conservative, they are hellbent on making every fart and tickle ex cathedra, possibly because cameras don't do justice to Rehnquist's cool-guy racing stripes.
Concerned Message # 398:
Again, the SCOFLA justices who contributed to Pinocchio Bore's campaign are much more justifiably guilty of conflicts of interests.
No, they're roughly the same. It's evidence of possible political bias, in either case.
No, the point is that it was against the self-interest of the *Naderites*, based on their self-described political goals. By backing Nader, they are much worse off than they would have been by backing Gore.
I understand your point, and in fact I agree to some extent. However, I also understand that ultimately, these folks went for Nader because Gore was unpalatable to them. They were not gulled by Nader's putative megalomania, unless you also concede that voters for Gore and Bush were also sucked in by lame marketing bullshit.
(In any event, I don't recall hearing anything about confusion in voting for Nader. They seem to have figured out the immense complexity of punching through a ballot card. Does it all boil down to simply paying attention? Who knows?)
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "triangulate"....I think Gore should have treated Nader *even more* like shit.
Oh. Okay. Maybe so. Or, they could have thrown him a bone or two on some relatively harmless issues, and got all those votes that they apparently feel that they were entitled to in the first place.
The Dems did not want you and your fellow Nader sanchos to stay home.
No shit. They wanted our votes, and were unwilling to do anything to get them. Pointing out how evil the other side is can be a rather shortsighted sales tactic. I already knew I wouldn't vote for Gump. But to make the sale, ya gotta make me want to vote for you.
You may want to jot that down for future reference.
They wanted you and your fellow sanchos to choose between A Gore AG or Ashcroft, between a Gore Interior pick or Norton, between a Gore Supreme Court nominee or Garza. You guys made the WRONG choice. Now we have Ashcroft, Norton and Garza. And I ask, are you happy with the results of your choice?
Given how ineptly and half-heartedly Nader finished up his campaign, no. I wish he would have either tried harder or gotten out of the way. But I'm not going to use that rationale to shit on a group of people who felt they were doing the right thing. No one says a fucking thing about people who vote just for gun control, or tax cuts, or any number of completely selfish interests, some of which are only justifiable by squinting at certain passages in the Bible.
But you have a group of citizens who genuinely wanted to change something, who are tired of having to pick between two center-right parties, and they are the biggest problem you've got? Sorry. I really don't think so. You have no right to shit on these people for voting their consciences, yet not say a word about the multitudes that defected to Gump. It's their fucking fault too, you know. If Gore had just managed to carry AR and TN -- his and Clinton's home states! -- FL wouldn't have mattered, Nader or no Nader.
So now the long knives are already being sharpened, and Nader and anybody associated with him will be excommunicated, and the Democratic Party can go back to sucking up to oil companies and pharmaceuticals and defense contractors with all the fervor of the GOP, and maybe woo back a few of the yokels that went for Gump this time around.
It's just a tactic, and a shitty one. Because, right or wrong, people should have a real, clear choice. There should be an actual liberal party, to balance out the two conservative ones. Maybe they aren't 100% alike. But foreign and economic policy are more or less the same, military policy only differs in how much money will be wasted on NMD and drug-war (actually securing oil deposits) adventurism. Domestic, social, enviro policy -- yes, there's a difference. But it's not exactly night and day.
When all informed parties unanimously agree that there was no conflict, yada yada blah blah bullshit....
Translation: When Sean "Puffy" Hannity and Ollie North agree with me, then that means I'm right and Eric Communist is wrong. On the rare occasions that they disagree with me, they're wrong and EC is wrong, and I'm right.
Close?
Cartman - Message # 522:
I already knew I wouldn't vote for Gump. But to make the sale, ya gotta make me want to vote for you.
You know, I think Nader is a nut job. But I really, really do see why people voted for him.
There are millions and millions of single-issue, knee-jerk voters in both the Repub (Guns) and Demo (abortion) ranks.
If someone were to vote for Nader based solely on his environmental views (as I think most did), I don't see how anyone could argue that that is any less valid than voting for Gore because of his views on abortion, or Bush because of his views on guns.
Actually, I voted for Nader more for his position on campaign finance reform and workers' rights, than enviro. I'm actually fairly centrist on most enviro issues, believe it or not, and I think the current administration has been very reasonable in that area.
This is about as enviro as I get -- every time I drive into a large city (usually either Sacto, SF, or LA) I wonder how people can stand living like that. Practically right on top of each other.
This is certainly the first time, and most likely the last; so I thought it was worth noting.
"A govt which takes the resources that we would devote toward the interdiction of drugs and converts them to treatment resources, and instead of saying 'Just say no' says 'Just say maybe' or 'Just don't inhale...is a government that accommodates us at our lowest and least."
Ashcroft thus scorned a policy supported by conservatives like Strom Thurmond and Bob Barr. His position, on this as on so many issues, was out of sight on the far right of our politics.
How would he enforce the law against disruption of abortion clinics when he has said that more than anything else he would like to forbid all abortions except to save the mother's life. How committed would he be to the civil rights laws, given his acceptance of an honorary degree from Bob Jones "University."
Ashcroft was chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. He held hearings not on discrimination or freedom of speech or the like. His subjects included the right to gun ownership and reversing the Miranda decision.
If he weren't a former senator, the idea of a person with Mr. Ashcroft's views being attorney general would be regarded as grotesque. He would have no chance to be confirmed. But because he was a member of the club, everyone is predicting his confirmation.
As for Dem senators, not one has had the courage to oppose the Ashcroft nomination. If Al Gore had been elected chosen someone far out on the left, would conservative senators have been so deferential? Not likely.
After the turmoil of Watergate, Gerald Ford made a non-political choice: Edward Levi, president of the University of Chicago, who restored the Justice Dept's luster. Last August I asked whether George Bush would, in choosing an attorney general would follow Gerald Ford and put politics second to respect for law. We know the answer now.
Samples:
Mr. Ashcroft is a full-service partisan pinata. He has not only left a long paper trail of race-mongering..but an equally energetic history as a hack water carrier for special interests...Ashcroft could be sparking acrimony for years...Once confirmed by the Senate as attorney general, he's on the fast track to be a Bush appointee to the Supreme Court in a year or two.
Some of Ashcroft's past is so embarrassing you have to wonder if he got this far by a fluke. After all, the first Bush admin. had been smart enough to take a pass on his resume when John Sununu tried to peddle it a decade ago. Ashcroft was chosen by W. only after another conservative choice, Gov. Marc Racicot of Montana, was abruptly torpedoed by the hard right (Mr. Racicot's hanging offense? He wanted to extend hate-crime laws to cover sexual orientation after Matthew Shepard was murdered.)
Once W. settled on Ashcroft, who endorses the right of schools to turn away gay teachers, W. tried to sugar coat the announcement by declaring that his choice "now holds the Senate seat that Harry Truman held." Mr Ashcroft is no Harry Truman-he may not even be Dan Qualyle--and he couldn't hold his seat at that...the irrppressible sports columnist Hondo of the New York post asked, "If he couldn't beat a dead man in an election, how's he going to outsmart living criminals?"
Cut the "sometimes" and you've got it!
Bush tried to camouflage Ashcroft's hardline views by simultaneously anointing the pro-choice Christie Whitman to head the EPA as if such a pairing might pass for another example of ideological bi-partisanship, but a pro-choice EPA head can only protect the reproductive rights of spotted owls. Ashcroft who opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, will actually have the power to limit women's access to those rights.
To deflect such questions, the Wash. word on Ashcroft is "integrity." Bush used it twice in introducing the man, and Ashcroft used it four times in as many minutes to describe himself. Ever since, he has been so often referred to as "a man of integrity" by fellow senators of both parties, it sounds like a Chatty Cathy tape loop. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of integrity is.
Sure Ashcroft has not committed any crimes, but Reno also passed that test. Otherwise the most consistent example in his record is his truly ecumenical hazing of all minority groups. He hasn't just attacked African-American candidates for federal jobs (including the distinguished surgeon general David Satcher), but has also targeted Asian-Americans (the assistant attorney general for civil rights, Bill Lann Lee) and homosexuals (Ambassador James Hormel).
Such "integrity" isn't otherwise a hallmark of the flip-flopping Ashcroft career. He may be from the "Show Me" state, but his won motto could be "show me the money!" A famously pious teetotaler who doesn't dance and forbade alcohol in the Missouri gov's mansion, he now takes contributions from Anheuser-Busch, whose lobbyists do battle with MADD to defeat legislation aimed at reducing alcohol-related accidents. Though Ashcroft expressed "grave concerns" in 1992 about state laws permitting concealed handguns, he reversed his stand in 1999--by which time the AP reported, the NRA had long been pouring cash into his campaign coffers.
Another Ashcroft contributor is the pharmaceutical giant Schering Plough. In 1999, weeks before it gave his campaign $50,000 Ashcroft co-sponsored a bill to extend the patent on its leading prescription drug, Claritin to prevent it from facing cheaper generic competition. This slab of corporate pork would be worth at least $9 billion to the company--all out of the pockets of American consumers.
In each of these cases, Mr Ashcroft has strongly denied any quid pro quo. Just the same, The St. Louis Post-dispatch has crowned him "the Senator from Claritin." Among the other senators from Claritin are Orrin Hatch, who hitched rides on a Schering-Plough corporate jet during his presidential campaign last year, and Robert Torricelli, the Democrat who represents Schering-Plough's home state and also boards the financial gravy train. Mr. Hatch and mr. Torricelli both have a big say over the fate of the Ashcroft nomination in the Judiciary Committee and have both been among the loudest cheerleaders for his "integrity."
It'll be rip-roaring fun to watch them defend that "integrity" in televised hearings. Will Mr. Ashcroft swear on a Bible that he "didn't really know", as he's put it, that Bob Jones "University" forbade interracial dating when he accepted its honorary degree a mere 20 months ago? Mr. Ashcroft's truthfulness will be further tested over his repeated assertion that he sabotaged Ronnie White, Missouri's first black Suprem Court Justice, only because the nominee was a "pro-criminal" slacker on the death penalty.
At least no one can accuse John Ashcroft of being a wishy-washy bipartisan. Twlo years ago he firmly condemned fellow Republicans "who preach pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. He needn't worry. It's only Senate Democrats who are talking that way now.
[Isn't this enough to make you throw up?]
(Sing to the tune of "The Beverly Hillbillies"
Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy named Bush.
His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush.
He drank like a fish while he drove all about.
But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out.
DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up.
Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale.
He can't spell his name but they never let him fail.
He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk.
And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke.
Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.
The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam.
Kin folks said, "George, stay at home with Mom!"
"Let the common people get maimed and scarred."
"We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard."
Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.
Twenty years later George gets a little bored.
He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord.
He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be."
So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP.
Gun owners, that is. Falwell. Jesse Helms.
Come November 7, the election ran late.
The kin folks said "Jeb, give the boy your state!"
"Don't let those colored folks get into the polls."
So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes.
Chads, that is. Duval County. Miami-Dade.
Before the votes were counted five Supremes stepped in.
Told all the voters "Hey, we want George to win."
"Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation.
And that's how George finally got his coronation.
Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority.
Y'all come vote, now. Ya hear?
What an idiot.
February is a Sweeps Month.
Ethics
I have a moral question for you. This is an imaginary situation, but I think it is fun to decide what one would do.
The situation: You are in the Midwest, and there is a huge flood
in progress. Many homes have been lost, water supplies compromised
and infrastructures destroyed.
Let's say that you're a photographer out getting still photos for a
news
service, traveling alone, looking for particularly poignant scenes.
You come across George W. Bush who has been swept away by the
floodwaters.
He is barely hanging on to a tree limb and is about to go under.
You can either put down your camera and save him, or take a Pulitzer
Prize-winning photograph of him as he loses his grip on the limb.
So, here's the question, and think carefully before you answer the
question below:
Which lens would you use?
Spoil Bush's Party, Send the Imposter Packing!
Great story about him at Drudge...
Well, why don't you link to it, then?
Here it is, Slides New God
(UPI) Immigration and Naturalization Service employees in Miami have been ordered to destroy or conceal documents and electronic mail related to the Elian Gonzalez case, according to an attorney who works there, says The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.
Well, unlike the "mainstream centrists", I don't believe that the Green enviro policy is insane. In fact, extremism is generally bred as a reaction to extremism from the other side, and is thus a logical refutation.
I think they have some ideas worth considering. I'm just not quite ready to go entirely in that direction.
Given the current appointments and priorities, Ireland is sounding better and better though....
You know, I've always found that the best investments are the ones your rich daddy and his powerful cronies set you up with. And if you cash out early and the SEC investigates your company, oh well -- just get 'em laughing at the way you talk.
Is this the sort of message we want to send to our children -- coast through life as a drunken layabout until 40, then glom on to your Poppy's connections? It's just terrible. What will the children think? What....will....the children....think?
Eh, who gives a fuck. The children are occupied with comparing Eminem and Sisqo. Let 'em go to Andover and Yale and Harvard, and still not be able to speak coherently.
And you know, it's still useful to point out that our Parsdent-elect and his l'il bald sidekick have been arrested five times.
Thug Life On Da Westsi-eeed!
Eric:
And you know, it's still useful to point out that our Parsdent-elect and his l'il bald sidekick have been arrested five times.
I'm sure those incidents occurred during their youth...like mid to late 30s, early 40s.
Have you noticed how many of the good ole boys around Bush are fat?
I'm sure those incidents occurred during their youth...like mid to late 30s, early 40s.
Heh, yeah. Cheney's two arrests were his two DUI's during the '60s. One of W's was his DUI, the other two were while he was improving his mind at Yale, en route to that coveted Harvard MBA we hear so much about. Nothing huge; neither one was busted for growing hemp or molesting collies, but still....what would the children think? How do I tell them that their new Parsdent 'n Vice-Parsdent are ex-cons?
And draft dodgers?
Have you noticed how many of the good ole boys around Bush are fat?
Honestly, no. The only one I've noticed as being truly in Fat Bastard territory is Hastert, and from what I've read, he's regarded more as a go-along-to-get-along fella, rather than a Armey-Lott firebrand. So I'm loath to pick on him any more than I already have.
To me "fat" is obese, not just being overweight. So Cheney, while overweight and unhealthy, is not what I call "fat". Just a guy who's probably had a bit too much of the good life, porterhouses and good whisky and such.
I don't usually like to fuck with fat people anyway, unless they're jerks. I'm not exactly Steve Reeves myself, though I'm pretty efficient at losing weight when I pry my ass off the couch.
Do not be lulled by his mangling of the English language, Judith. Watch who he talks to, and how he talks to them. Bush is very cagey about things, and clearly wants to run a tight ship. He's made it clear that Ashcroft is supposed to shut the fuck up unless told to speak.
Who will tell him to speak and what to say? That is the most important question. Reminds me of Vito slapping Sonny upside the head and admonishing him, "Never tell anyone outside the family what you're thinking."
I'm not saying it to sound alarmist, I just think that things are going to be handled very differently than what we're used to. We'll be on a need-to-know basis.
How much will NMD really cost, and how well will it really work? You don't need to know. How much damage will drilling for oil in the Wildlife Refuge really cause? You don't need to know. How long will be really be stuck in Colombia, helping paramilitaries murder schoolchildren while we preserve our access to their oil? You don't need to know.
Democracies are messy. Despotisms are very smooth and efficient, because the proles are deliberately kept out of the loop. We'll see. For now, I'll concern myself with the Raiders' imminent throttling of the hapless Dolphins.
Ciao.
Don't forget to mention Laura's big rear end, or Cazart will be disappointed.
I watched the roll call of the electors and thought Gore once more acquited himself very well. The highlight of course was his smackdown of Maxine Waters when the latter said, "I don't care that I don't have a Senator [to support my objection]" and Gore replied "The rules do care."
My only other comment is that lawzy but those Fox folks like to blab. What gets me is by presenting the roll call they imply that it's worth watching, but then talk over it the whole time as though no one could find it interesting without their commentary (which is of course the same stuff that we've been hearing for weeks). As a result, no one even noticed that D.C.'s electors didn't go entirely for Gore because of the one elector who refused to vote in protest of D.C. not being treated like a state. Sure, it's not that important in the big scheme, but it was one of the only interesting bits outside of Florida.
Also, at least on this occasion I would say that Fox was pretty pro the Republicans, as most liberals claim. I don't have cable so normally I never see the Fox team (very sorry not to be able to watch Paula Zahn), but they and Dan Rather are pretty divergent in reporting perspective.
IJ:
I wasn't commenting on their sizes so much as they all seem well fed and they look as though they intend to continue that way...
I watched the roll call and felt as you did that Gore did well in an awkward situation. I saw it on CNN and thus avoided hearing that massive jerkoff Fox crew telling everyone what was going on, as though they couldn't have seen for themselves. Then, as luck would have it, I was surfing channels just now and landed on Fox Headline News where "Republican Consultant", Ms Georgette Mosbacher, was waxing philosophic on what GW intends to do....this is such a hoot! She is a former cosmetologist with great skin who managed to sleep her way into consultanthood and a cushy marriage to a honcho in the Bush, pere, administration. After dumping her hapless hubby, she's become the social darling of the Bush, fils group. Such are the credentials of the Fox News "consultants".
I'm sure she could help Tony Snow with his dry skin and crows feet, though...
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why new senator Hillary Clinton didn't want to sign any of the Florida elector objections? Was she even there? I never saw her on camera, and I can't believe the newsies wouldn't have shown her if she was. And after Al swore her in and everything.
IJ:
I'm sure Hillary is aware that any Senator signing on would be opening their veins in a tub of warm water. She wasn't the only one to pass, you know....
Must be nice to so inside the power circle, Rosie....
I would hope that Demo senators who refrained from objecting did so out of respect for the process rather than their own political future. While I'm not saying that was her motivation, in HRC's case, I think you have someone whose political future clearly benefits by what transpired today.
If OPEC is able to force the price of oil back to $30 a barrel, I think that will severely weaken the Federal Reserve's ability to fight the economic slowdown. Not only will the higher energy costs hurt the economy, but the resulting inflation will make it more difficult to lower interest rates any farther.
OTOH, a slowing economy will mean less demand for oil, and OPEC hasn't shown particularly strong unity in the face of low demand.
Judith:
You have got to be joking. The Demos have the two fattest SOBs in the House and Senate in Jerold Nadler and Ted Kennedy.
In fact, I don't think even Hastert has enough time before he dies to get as fat as Jerold has-to-pay-for-two-airline-seats Nadler.
I live in Missouri. Ashcroft was our AG and our governor before he was elected to the Senate. I have met the man on several occasions. The man is not a backward (or barely?) thinking, intolerant, phony. The attacks on him are pure bullshit. The man is a politician, no question. He can and will play hardball with the best of them. But the other charges are just an attempt to spike his nomination by people who are opposed to his politics. He will pass the Senate because they know the man and they know the charges are politics as usual. The Dems will question him so it looks good for the folks back home, but they all know Ashcroft is a decent man and he will be excellent AG.
Or rather where the Democratic Party's heart used to be before it rotted away.
That's the problem. You don't know his positions. At least I haven't seen a post in this thread that demonstrates any understanding at all.
Call it politics if you will, but that's just a way of hiding the ugly truth of his ugly beliefs.
You are equally clueless about his beliefs. You are repeating baseless accusations as if they were fact and drawing conclusions based on them.
Or, if it's just "politics" that makes it even worse as in the case of Bush pere and his dirty racial ad attacking Dukakis.
As it has been documented here on several occasions, Bush had nothing to do with any racial ad attacking Dukakis. It would seem that once an accusation of racism is made, the truth is irrelevant. The accusation will be presented as fact no matter how many time it is refuted. McCarthy lives.
This has nothing to do with loyalty. This has to do with a man's reputation being trashed with baseless accusations.
The man's politics, as seen in his own statements and actions, are quite properly described as "barbaric", whatever his behavior in a receiving line may be like. His positions are plainly (even proudly) crudely unsympathetic, even inimical, to much of the American government's constituency; his philosophical inclinations, as represented by his acceptance of racial bigotry and sexism, are equally rejecting of many American citizens. This is the very opposite of the attitudes that should go with the professions of public service that all politicians are properly bound by (even if many of them are pretty slippery on the subject). Ashcroft's seems, contrariwise, to take pride in his animosity to so much of the public he is supposed to be aiding.
He is easily the worst of W's appointments so far, and I am in no way suggesting the sorts of treatment the late Senator from Wisconsin was famous for (and proud of) finding appropriate for persons whose politics disapproved of, but I see nothing at all wrong in viciously criticizing this man of vicious politics.
What do you think BJU is? Do you think they advocate racism or discrimination? They had an unenforced policy opposing interracial dating that has since been discontinued. This doesn't make them a racist organization and certainly doesn't make Ashcroft a racist. BJU has ties with a great many politicians both Republican and Democrat. To point to this as evidence of anything is absurd.
Does he oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest?
What does this have to do with his being AG? Do you really believe that this belief will prevent him from enforcing the law? How?
Does he oppose handgun control?
So do I and so do millions of Americans. How does this make him a backward (or barely?) thinking, intolerant, phony?
Did he take $50,000 from Schering-Plough after sponsoring a bill to extend the patent on Claritin?
I don't know, did he? How many other Congressmen and Senators have accepted money from industries affected by their legislation. It seems to me that the Democratic Party has taken in millions from the various drug companies despite campaigning against them. Why do you think that is?
Is he opposed to dancing?
And what would this be relevant to? Are you afraid he's going to single-handedly outlaw dancing? The man's religious beliefs are his own business. Unless you want the religious beliefs of all candidates exposed for public scrutiny, it is not fair to single out Ashcroft's beliefs. BTW, since I've seen him dancing, I don't think he is opposed to it.
And it was a perfect example of McCarthyism at that. You might want to remove the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the mote from another's.
JJ, My mention of Ashcroft's opposition to dancing was intended to be humorous! However, my teenage experience with Baptist girls in Louisiana who weren't allowed to dance was that they tended to make up for not dancing in other ways!
Incidentally, there was a nice piece about local Green politics in the NYT a few days ago. They now have something like 130 officeholders in various local jurisdictions around the country. In one of them, Sebastipol CA (an old stompin ground of mine), they control the city government. This (supposing most of them do a decent job) is the way a left can be reconstituted in this country.
I read your entire post and all of the posts in this thread if that's what you mean.
Either that or, like those who call Republicans "Fascists" you have only a vague, arguably sentimental notion of what McCarthy actually was.
I know exactly who and what McCarthy was. I know the tactics he used to discredit people. I see those same tactics being used against Ashcroft just as they have been used against other Republicans over the years. Guilt by association. Appeals to authority. Repeating accusations of others as evidence. Unsupported conclusions. All the classics. Democrats have learned their lessons well.
At least somewhere in the back of McCarthy's twisted mind, he really believed he was saving America from the Communist Menace. Democrats do it for political gain.
You should be careful about believing everything you read. Much of what is being reported are the words of those who oppose Ashcroft for political reasons. They are not realiable sources of information.
You were quite eloquent in your posts about Ashcroft's supposed intolerance. You said that his beliefs and positions as you understand them make him a troglodyte. Yet your attacks on his beliefs and positions demonstrate your own intolerance. What does that make you?
And the distinction between JM and others is not that he traduced people—really, can you be shocked at politicians traducing each other—but that he tried to really off 'em, in all but the literal sense. He and his kicked out half the Asian staffers in the State Department (to the considerable harm of the country), ran a considerable number of bureaucrats out of their careers, blacklisted those film industry hacks (and geniuses perhaps) who wouldn't accept HUAC's bullshit, impoverishing some of them, and sent some people to jail (though none for very long, I think).
Pointing out Ashcroft's dreadful qualities—even if wrongly (though I think we Dems have more or less got his number)—is not remotely the same thing. After all, should he not get his appointment, he'll still be making a pretty fine living as a rain-maker, I should imagine. He's certainly not entitled to the job, and if speechifying can keep him out of it, the speakers are simply acting politically. McCarthy was a terrorist, by comparison. 
But that isn't what is going on here.
Speak for yourself. I plan to stay in touch with SDI developments. Plus, you realize, I hope, that the questions you ask here relate to evolving and even hypothetical situations, so your wish for pat 'answers' here may be impossible to grant.
How much damage will drilling for oil in the Wildlife Refuge really cause? You don't need to know.
Minimal. Most of the refuge will not be affected in any way. Plus, it will be hardly the state secret you are trying to make it out to be.
How long will be really be stuck in Colombia, helping paramilitaries murder schoolchildren while we preserve our access to their oil? You don't need to know.
That's the kind of crap you get with a Lefty administration. You can rest assured Bush won't do what you hypothesize.
Unfortunately, some House Socialist whack jobs were trying to get the Florida EC votes tossed out. So much for the Left's bullshit posturing about 'making every vote count'.
It's not so -but if it were:
"Recognize this petard, Mr. Ashcroft?"
Not to worry. The Miami-Herald's count will soon be complete concerned and the first time that Moron steps in Cheney's doo, the chorous will loudly proclaim "Hell, Scalia elected that piece of garbage anyway - not us!"
That inaugural address was actually delivered by President George Bush in 1989 (and obtained via an electronic database)."
Gale Norton's legacy of environmental law enforcement in Colorado is decidedly mixed, according to court records and natural resource experts. That legacy is being scrutinized as the U.S. Senate debates whether the former state attorney general should win confirmation as George W. Bush's interior secretary.
Her colleagues and admirers praise Norton for her environmental successes - a major court victory over the Army's Rocky Mountain Arsenal, a pact to streamline the cleanup of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant and a national law forcing federal polluters to obey state environmental law.
But critics say Norton should be defined more by what she did not do. Though she first won election in 1990 as a "tough law" candidate, Norton rarely took on corporate polluters, they say.
...
Though Norton has been widely criticized by national environmental groups for her support of Colorado's self-audit law, which waived penalties for polluters that turn themselves in for wrongdoing, it's important to remember that the law was strongly supported and signed by Romer, Looby said.
Both Norton and Romer came under heavy attack in 1992 after leaks from the Summitville gold mine near South Fork killed life in 17 miles of the Alamosa River, and the mine declared bankruptcy. Though state records showed the mine leaked cyanide from the first day of operations - and mine operators repeatedly broke promises to fix the widespread contamination - neither state environmental regulators nor the attorney general's office ever tried to close it.
[continued]
...
While Norton was attorney general, they often asked state officials for help against polluters but were either ignored or turned away.
In the early 1990s, the state allowed the Louisiana-Pacific mill near Olathe to spew pollution for months without a required state permit. State environmental regulators then granted a permit that allowed the firm to quintuple its air pollution.
Four downwind neighbors, who abandoned their homes because of the stench, had to hire their own attorneys to fight the emissions. In 1992, the neighbors won a $2.3 million court judgment against Louisiana-Pacific.
Though evidence from that civil trial showed the company had boosted production with law-breaking midnight burns and even covered up violations by sabotaging record-keeping equipment, the state didn't pursue any criminal penalties.
That led the federal government to step in. The result: Federal prosecutors slapped L-P with a record $37 million in fines - $31 million for fraud and $6 million for Clean Air Act violations - while the company pleaded guilty to 18 law violations.
"I would have grave concerns about Gale Norton's aggressiveness in enforcing environmental compliance and protecting citizens from environmental damage," said Kevin Hannon, one of the lawyers who won the case against L-P.
JJ:
But the other charges are just an attempt to spike his nomination by people who are opposed to his politics.
This is a political appointment, have you not noticed?
I hope people are equitable and apply the same standards to Ashcrofts appointment that he applied to others when he axed them...people like Ronnie White and Bill Lan Lee and James Hormel.
You are carrying on about our objections as though you never made negative remarks about Janet Reno, JJ....surely we're allowed to dislike GWs pick as much as you and yours were allowed to detest Reno? Your attacks on people who have just cause to oppose Ashcroft smack of intolerance, the very intolerance you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having. Just because you've personally met the man changes nothing about his core beliefs...do you admire him so much because you share all of them? If so, I'm very surprised.
And please....let's not fall back on that "the bad things written about him are from his enemies"....that just sounds soooo....Clintonian.
Note that the states are constantly competing with each other to attract new business using tax incentives, free land, etc. Just imagine how competitive it will be when the states can offer ever more lax environmental regulations and enforcement.
joezan:
You have got to be joking. The Demos have the two fattest SOBs in the House and Senate in Jerold Nadler and Ted Kennedy.
Have you taken a gander at GWs chief economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey? He hasn't missed many meals....
Greystoke:
We here in Texas have noticed, big time...just come down here and wander around any city of size. You'd do well to bring your sinus pills and eye drops...
A review of Mr. Ashcroft's public record demonstrates how his deep religious commitment is intertwined with his outspoken support for the agenda of the religious right on a number of issues, INCLUDING SOME HE WOULD HAVE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN AS ATTORNEY GENERAL. Among the isues he has embraced as abortion, the death penalty, gun control, homosexuality, prayer in schools, the judiciary and elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts.
JJ, I strongly disagree with Ashcroft's position on all the above issues as do most educated, rational and tolerant Americans. Judith is correct. A turd still stinks even when sprinkled with cheap perfume.
And of COURSE most union political activity is in support of Democrats. While an individual union member may vote Republican for unrelated reasons, his or her interest AS A UNION MEMBER will be supported primarily (if not exclusively) by Democrats.
More from NYT: "The son of an Assembly of God minister and educator, Mr. Ashcroft has woven his private faith into his public life....he wrote that he...anointed himself prior to each of his two terms as Missouri's governor. He did so again using a bowl of Crisco oil, before being sworn in in 1995 as senator.
The act of anointment, wh arote in his largely autobiographical book, replicated the practice of the "ancient kings of Israel, David and Saul," who Mr. Ashcroft said, "were annointed as they undertook their administrative duties." [I personally prefer Mazzola to Crisco!]
As a senator, Mr Ashcroft was the leading recipient of campaign contributions from clergy and religious organizations, according to a recent report.
Mr. Ashcroft's opposition to legalized abortion, with a 100 percent voting record in the most recent rankings by the National Right to Life Committee, is certain to be a flash point during his Senate confirmation hearing.
Mr. Ashcroft has a long history of support for the anti-abortion cause, as attorney general, governor and senator. He is a hero to the anti-abortion movement and anathema to supporters of abortion rights.
Raw-ther!
One is inclined to suppose that she is either corrupt or mentally defective. A typical Bushoid (he being both).
replicated the practice of the "ancient kings of Israel, David and Saul," who Mr. Ashcroft said, "were annointed as they undertook their administrative duties."
I would imagine those guys used olive oil. Probably had huge contributions from the Olive Growers Association, too...
But then, perhaps they weighed this peccadillo against the grandeur of it all and forgave him.
Perhaps they decided to adopt that little touch of panache for themselves and have a giant gang anointing right before they take their oaths...they seem sanctimonious enough to have done so.
That is irrelevant to his confirmation. The fact that some educated and rational Americans believe otherwise--enough so the House, Senate, and Presidency are at least more in their hands than yours--means those positions have for the time being won the right to govern under accordance of the law. Bush can choose his cabinet as he sees fit, provided that cabinet is qualified apart from their political views. You likely don't agree with many of Bush's views either, but he's still the President (or will be January 20).
On abortion, most polls show the nation divided. No one would be borked for being an unmitigated supporter of abortion rights, yet you think the contrary is sufficient reason to challenge Ashcroft?
As far as religious practice and belief about "anointing," who is being intolerant now? Should Joe Lieberman have been prohibited from being Vice President because his religious beliefs were at variance with the vast majority of Americans. You didn't include this part of the NYTimes article:
"It is against my religion to impose religion on people," [Ashcroft] wrote in the book. But he added, "I also believe that I need to invite God's presence into whatever I'm doing, including the world of politics."
How different is that from what Lieberman has said?
I don't agree with that statement. Nor, apparently, did the Republican Senators who refused to confirm Bill Lann Lee as an Assistant Attorney General.
IJ:
The fact that some educated and rational Americans believe otherwise--enough so the House, Senate, and Presidency are at least more in their hands than yours--
Well, technically, that should read "enough ELECTORS" as far as the Presidency part goes.
I don't care if Ashcroft batters and fries himself in oil before he undertakes his duties, frankly; I just think his stand on many issues happens to not jibe with mine. Sorta like the way you guys disagreed with Reno and called for her to resign almost every week in the past 8 years. For us, saying Ashcroft seems intolerant is the equivilant of concerned braying that Janet Reno liked to torch babies before breakfast.
Ohio: Are you saying the Senate should be able to reject a nominee to the President's own cabinet based solely on political disagreement? In which case, could not a majority of senators dictate cabinet selection to the president, and thus effectively subordinate the executive branch to the legislative branch?
Do you believe Bill Lee was opposed solely for his political views? Do you think then (be consistent with your answer above) that opposing his confirmation was okay?
Judith: The statement was accurate as written. I worded it carefully.
Sorta like the way you guys disagreed ith Reno and called for her to resign almost every week in the past 8 years.
What was the vote on her confirmation? Calling for someone to resign is to express disagreement with their job performance.
I think saying you disagree with Ashcroft is of course perfectly legitimate. Trying to choose the incoming President's cabinet for him would be more akin to the senate firing Reno because she refused to perform her duties. The senate was in Republican control during the last six years of Clinton but never did that.
Linda Chavez, the Labor Secretary-elect, had a Guatamalan woman, an illegal alien, living with her for over a year but she didn't pay her a salary or anything so it's probably not going to be any big deal. Of course, it wouldn't be a big deal; it's not like she PAID her to clean or anything.
Seems it was a surprise to the Bush vetting team; they missed it....it was mentioned just now on Wolf Blitzers Late Edition.
IJ:
I agree with your statement on the House and Senate bt still think 500,000 more votes for President lends credence to my remark about the electors.
Unless, of course, you mean that those 500,000 voters were not educated and rational.
I hope all of Bush's major appointees get Senate confirmation
and that they all live up to their reputations and to the public's reasonable expectations, based on their records.
That should assure four years and out for W.
Maybe they're lovers.
bt still think 500,000 more votes for President lends credence to my remark about the electors.
Judith: I said "enough Americans" and "in accordance with law." I think that sufficiently qualified it.
And 500,000 votes nationally represents less than half of one percent of those who even bothered to vote. It also occurred because urban pockets of the country voted overwhelmingly for Gore, meaning his support represents a narrow, deep base, and Bush's represents a broad, less-concentrated base. Remove the top five Gore-leaning counties and Bush's victory margin is in the millions.
In any case, we're not a strictly majoritarian democracy. I think a president who wins despite losing the popular vote by one and a president who wins and carries the popular vote by one ought to govern pretty much the same way: "Half the people agree with me, half don't. It's up to me to work with that."
I would agree with you if the views of these nominees were only of philosophical interest and their impact would only be felt inside the beltway. Unfortunately, decisions made by these Cabinet members will have tangible effects on real people.
I want the Democrats to rake them over the coals. What have we got to lose? You know the Republicans have done, and will do, the same to all past and future Democratic Cabinet nominees.
the President's own cabinet based solely on political disagreement? In
which case, could not a majority of senators dictate cabinet selection to the president, and thus effectively subordinate the executive branch to the legislative branch?"
If each Senator holds out for the nominee he or she considers best, no one will ever get confirmed, so as a practical matter some deference is necessary and proper. Where I disagree with you (and others) is with the statement that the nominee's political views are entirely off the table in giving "advice and consent".
"Do you believe Bill Lee was opposed solely for his political views?"
Yes.
"Do you think then (be consistent with your answer above) that opposing his confirmation was okay?"
I don't know. Rejecting a nominee for the position of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights because he favors civil rights is pretty strange.
Judith: You should ask wonkers2 about that. It was his post 615 that implied disagreeing with his views means one is likely either irrational, uneducated, or intolerant.
IJ:
ask wonkers2 about that. It was his post 615 that implied disagreeing with his views means one is likely either irrational, uneducated, or intolerant.
To begin with, I don't think that is what he implied and to end with, I suppose if it were, it might have been brought on by JJs accusing him of thinking his shit didn't stink.
"each Senator holds out for the nominee he or she considers best"
and
"the nominee's political views are entirely off the table"
Where one draws the line between the two extremes determines a lot about whether the two branches are separate and equal. I think to maintain executive independence, one ought to draw it at least pretty far toward the latter direction. Much more so on appointments to the executive branch than even the judiciary.
Judith: What is implied by the following statement?
I strongly disagree with Ashcroft's position on all the above issues as do most educated, rational and tolerant Americans.
It seems to me it says that anyone agreeing with Ashcroft is likely (i.e., more than 50 percent) either uneducated, irrational, or intolerant.
IJ:
You logic reminds me of Ace saying that because I loathe Bush, I love Gore.
No. Suppose the breakdown is:
50% -- educated, rational, and tolerant; agree with Wonkers
49% -- educated, rational, and tolerant; disagree with Wonkers
1% -- uneducated, irrational, or intolerant; disagree with Wonkers
Then most e., r., & t. folks agree with W., but if you disagree with him, there's still a 98% chance you are e., r., & t.
So you agree that Dem. charges that the GOP opposed Lee because of his race were complete garbage?
That was a good column, Cellar...I like this part:
Civic disrespect means that the illegitimacy of this administration must not be allowed to fade from view. The conventions of politics remain: Bush will be president; Congress must work with him. But those outside that process are not bound by those conventions, and to the extent that we have a voice, we should use it. Politically, civic disrespect means drawing lines around the freedom of maneuver of the incoming administration. In some areas, there may be few major changes; in others, compromises will have to be reached. But Bush should be opposed on actions whose reach will extend beyond his actual term.
Of course, that won't happen, as most Democrats are peeing themselves to get in line and kiss his ring.
Uh oh...toys.
!
Help!!
Never mind....sorry.
Speak for yourself. I plan to stay in touch with SDI developments.
Great. You do that. I plan to keep up on it as well. I want to know how much we're spending on it, and how well the tech is working. Also how much it may provoke other extremely large nations into another arms race.
Plus, you realize, I hope, that the questions you ask here relate to evolving and even hypothetical situations, so your wish for pat 'answers' here may be impossible to grant.
Not at all. Bush repeatedly said throughout his campaign that he plans to push hard for BMD. Don't know how reliable the figures are, but I've seen estimates as high as $200-250 billion.
Gore is not much better in that regard -- he was ready to commit $60 bil to it.
Most of the [Alaska Wildlife] refuge will not be affected in any way. Plus, it will be hardly the state secret you are trying to make it out to be.
We'll see. Maybe taking steps to curtail aggregate demand for oil might be helpful as well. That may be a lot to ask from oil folks, though.
[Cartman]: How long will we really be stuck in Colombia, helping paramilitaries murder schoolchildren while we preserve our access to their oil? You don't need to know.
[Concerned's response]: That's the kind of crap you get with a Lefty administration. You can rest assured Bush won't do what you hypothesize.
Nonsense. Republicans were pushing for the $1.3 billion in "military aid" just as hard as the Democrats. There is no indication whatsoever that Bush will change this anytime soon. Not that the initiative of the policy is on Bush, but continuing it will be.
However, if I'm now thinking correctly, one of two conditions must be true:
1. As in your example, the majority of people are educated and rational and tolerant. I doubt that, but perhaps wonkers believes they are. In which case, I withdraw my characterization of his statement.
2. Or non-ERT people agree with him in an even higher ratio than do ERT people. I certainly don't think he meant to imply that.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake, though. I had the nagging feeling I was engaging in lazy thinking but was just heading out and didn't do the probabilities.
They also like Brittany Spears.
It seems that wannabe labor secretary Linda Chavez will not be Borked after all. She has Zoeed herself.
Ignorant Jesse Jackson Sr. called it 'indentured servitude'. What a fucking moron.
Yeah, concerned...let's just give them all a pass without any confirmation hearings at all. Heaven forbid anyone have a dissenting opinion. Let's just all get along, why don't we?
Funny we didn't think of that once in the last 8 years...
Much good it does 'em (us).
Now to avoid inconsistency, let's hear Insouciant and other Republican apologists, who have been kvelling about the return of the rule of law to Washington, condemn Ms. Chavez for housing--and possibly employing--an illegal immigrant, contrary to the rule of law.
Another item from the NYT today, I would like to add to that rather impressive list of crap, the DD-21 destroyer
During the campaign, Mr. Bush hammered home the need to rebuild the services, calling for an acquisition program that would "propel America generations ahead in military technology." To its advocates, DD-21 fits that goal, and Mr. Bush is on record as promoting an earlier version of the DD-21 known as the arsenal ship. But Mr. Bush also never explained how he would pay for such leap-ahead technology, and therein lies the rub.
A billion here, a trillion there, its all funny Bush money anyway,, right ThomasD?
But Wombat, she was only exercising Compassionate Conservatism ....she was only helping out an unfortunate person down on her luck. She shouldn't be condemned for being charitable .
We're just being mean in bringing this up....Chavez didn't know the woman was here illeagally. The fact the woman herself says Chavez did know is just a mere trifle.
Sure, we'll all forget it in time and as soon as she gets a male lover, we'll cheer her on, right?
Ms. Chavez doesn't even attempt to conceal her disdain for the labor movement. Just last summer she wrote, "Union members are hardly representative of the American working public."
Working women? No problem. Ms. Chavez has declared that women do not face a "glass ceiling" that keeps them from advancing beyond a certain point. And she has ridiculed sexual harassment lawsuits, which are on the increase, saying they have made the U.S. "a nation of crybabies."
It will be interesting to see how Ms. Chavez, if she is confirmed as labor secretary, will respond to complaints by women of employment discrimination and sexual harassment. I presume she'll shout, "Stop crying!"
I'm disappointed in Bush. He's been prez-elect for a couple of weeks now (I think) and hasn't had a major blooper yet. What is wrong with the guy? Doesn't he realize what he was elected for?
I learned, at my maternal grandfather's knee, that the War for Southern Independence was just because the South's treatment of slaves was "charitable" and just. Thus the War of Northern Aggression was an abomination.
Linda Chavez shares with JC Watts and a certain Motier a problem common among minority republicans. Theirs is the ardor of the converted. They're little more than wannabe rich whites.
Cal:
Send your resumé to Rove...he's probably looking for a new nominee by now.
toys
and sure there are too many harrassment suits which are little more than nuisance suits. Yet such is straining at gnats. There are vastly more actions that ARE justified.
Having prosecuted and defended AA suits, having seen descrimination up close and personal as a gay man, I am glad to see this gas bag of a wignut get her ass.
How sad....MTV won't be having any Inaugrual parties for GW and Company. I guess it's because GW prefers country western. The "real" music of America. Ha! 
I hope I never have to be confirmed for public office. I am sure I will be crucified for daring to adopt an abused child.
Impeached, Indicted, Disbarred, Pardoned, Divorced
JAH -
I probably shouldn't be, but I'm still surprised that you're so consumed by partisan bias that you would condemn Linda Chavez for her charity and actions on the strength of her words and beliefs, even if you don't personally agree with helping out the less fortunate.
Maybe, but I don't think that is how Bush is going to do things.
Instead he appointed a strident opponent of unionism, OSHA, the minimum wage, etc, etc. which was like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
The guy's got guts. It is worth it just watch liberals sputter and fume. Their desperation is palpable. I'd like to see Bush barbecue a couple more sacred cows just for the entertainment value.
John Ashcroft's nomination as Attorney General is the first installment on George W. Bush's enormous political debt to the radical right. Remember back in early February when Bush's campaign for the Republican nomination was on the ropes....
Block Ashcroft -I
Block Ashcroft -II
Message # 692 must be his idea of a joke post....
Except for Ashcroft. No matter how much I want W's handlers true stripes to show both quickly and with gusto, he crosses the line. Too many vital areas are under the AG's umbrella, and there is no way that an rigid idealogue like Ashcroft wouldn't create drastic harm - both through his actions but most likely through his inactions.
Now, I don't really think the results will be much different if Mr. X or Ms. Y gets the AG job instead. The shots will be called much the same.
But, letting W's handlers get by with a pick like Ashcroft goes to fundamental principle. I would rather be blindsided on this one with an X or Y instead of have an Ashcroft slapped at my face.
All things in their place and at the right time.
He was writing about the death of Bill Rogers. Paraphrasing here, Rich said that his first reaction was sadness over the fact that the W cabinet had already lost a member to death. Then he remembered that Rogers was one of the very few old line Republicans who had NOT been reappointed to a cabinet post.
OTOH, Bore and his minions certainly gave stealing the 2000 Presidential Election the old Vanderbilt Divinity School try.
hen the news arrived this week of the death of William Rogers, my first response was to grieve for the new administration. Inauguration Day isn't even here yet, and it had already lost a cabinet member! Thankfully I was wrong: the former Eisenhower attorney general and Nixon secretary of state turns out to be one of the very few veterans of G.O.P. regimes past who has not been brought back for Bush II.
As for those familiar faces who did make the cabinet, no one can accuse the president-elect of failing to strive for the ideal du jour — bipartisanship. George W. Bush is an equal- opportunity employer of retreads: forgotten Ford and Reagan retainers are just as welcome as dad's. He has also achieved an impressive ethnic bipartisanship, though not to the point of adhering to Democratic- style quotas. There will be no Jews in the new Bush cabinet — that'll teach them to vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County — and youth will not be having its day anytime soon. With the average age pushing 60, this team is just what the gerontologist ordered for a nap-oriented president who travels with his pet pillow.
I guess that depends on how you define "steal", doesn't it?
He is hidebound in too many areas of great importance.
What's your definition Biener? 
714. CalGal - 1/8/2001 12:46:04 PM
I misread you, sorry.
Jan,
I've been wondering about that being the plan for Chavez all along.
But, jexster. Alphalfa Bore said it himself in a joint session of Congress: Bush 271, Bore 266 electoral college votes.
Guess even you are calling your boy a fucking liar.
Moron.
The means-nothing unlawful absolutely biased toward Pinocchio Bore 'recount' that only partisan pinheads pretend means anything?
Ashcroft not Chavez is the most dangerous. Perhaps Nanny Warbucks is using her as a stalking horse for the malignant loser. Its certainly clear that Ashcroft is the first in a series of payments the Moron owes his wingnuts. Chavez is a lightweight and no great loss to them if she does go under
"January 1991: War is bestowed like electroshock on the depressive nation: thousands of volts jolting the system, an artificial galvanizing, one effect of which is loss of memory. War comes at the end of the twentieth century as absolute failure of imagination, scientific and political. That a war can be represented as helping a people to 'feel good' about themselves, their country, is a measure of that failure." —
Yeah, but that's Adrienne Rich. Poetic leftist. (g)
JJ:
The guy's got guts. It is worth it just watch liberals sputter and fume. Their desperation is palpable. I'd like to see Bush barbecue a couple more sacred cows just for the entertainment value.
I'd like to see Bush actually DO anything...everything you've seen thus far is Karl Rove and Dick Cheneys ideas of guts. And if you think otherwise, you're in sadder shape than I thought.
I suppose you think it's just a peachy keen idea that the AG, whomever that may turn out to be, has to clear everything with Karl Rove?
Sure, Judith. Anything you say. BTW, Why Bush is responsible for everything negative, but anything even slightly positive is someone else's doing?
Salon has this longish piece on John Ashcroft
The Gulf War had no electoral benefit for Bush Senior, and it certainly did not unite the country. Its ending was squalid, and its aftereffects continue. I also supported the war, and regret only that it wasn't prosecuted to the point of driving Saddam out of the country.
I assume that you quote Ms. Rich's puerile sentiments to indicate that you feel President-select Bush is going to try and wage a "Splendid Little War" in order to unite the country.
JJ:
BTW, Why Bush is responsible for everything negative, but anything even slightly positive is someone else's doing?
I don't think you understand my meaning...I don't think Bush does anything , positive OR negative. He's a figurehead, period. Rove and Cheney run the show and if that's satisfactory to you, then bless you and enjoy.
Gee, just think how handily he would have beaten Bore if he'd bothered to lift his little finger during the campaign, then.
Oh come on, concerned, what I believe is no more ludicrous than what you do....
Is that the standard by which you want to live?
Best damn statement I heard yet from this thread.
Defintely reason for concern.
How would you break Concerned's or Rosie's nose? (Not that I am advocating doing so.)
Kick GWB in the ass.
You can keep your fucking rapist. Thank god the treasonous POS is just about out of the WH.
This joke was originally about Gore and Clinton.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Tom DeLay
Congressman, 22nd District
Burning Lake of Sulphur 2 mi.
News Flash Doofus....the only thing the Moron beat was his meat 
How does he do that?
Wombats -
Clowntoon was the coke fiend, not GWB. The drinking stuff - all a Lefty smear.
OTOH, why don't you emulate your this great Liberal hero of yours and sexually assault some women. I can pretty much predict that you'll spend a good part of your life in prison if you do, as Clowntoon should be doing for this alone.
Which is why the Moron makes such a big deal about supposedly being sober since the first bitch to be threatened to dump his ass
However, because I am considerably more sane on the subject of Bush than you are on Clinton, I will leave the invective and abusive names to yourself and Jexter. It will be either "President" Bush or President* Bush for the next four years.
"As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted in an editorial in December, Ashcroft "has built a career out of opposing school desegregation in St. Louis and opposing African Americans for public office."
When he served as Missouri's attorney general in the 1980s, Ashcroft persuaded the Reagan Administration to oppose school-desegregation plans in St. Louis, then used the issue to win the governorship in 1984. Since his election to the Senate in 1994, Ashcroft has consistently appealed to the right wing of his party, even when his approach risked appearing racist. He fought unsuccessfully against the confirmation of David Satcher, a distinguished black physician, as surgeon general, because Satcher opposes a ban on late-term abortions. In 1998 Ashcroft told the neo-segregationist magazine Southern Partisan that Confederate war heroes were "patriots." In 1999 he accepted an honorary degree from South Carolina's Bob Jones University, which hadn't yet dropped its ridiculous ban on interracial dating.
Most disturbing of all, as Ashcroft was gearing up a short-lived campaign for the White House last year, he verbally attacked Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White, an African American whom Bill Clinton has appointed to the federal bench, for supposedly being "pro-criminal" and soft on capital punishment. The charge was outright slander. White had voted to uphold the death sentence in 41 of the 59 cases that came before him, roughly the same proportion as Ashcroft's court appointees when he was Governor. No wonder Gordon Baum, leader of white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, in 1999 included Ashcroft along with Pat Buchanan in the circle of politicians he'd like to see in the White House.
"
Time
JJ -
I will never let biener or any other wingnut BushShitter rest
Clowntoon was the coke fiend, not GWB. The drinking stuff - all a Lefty smear.
Hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha!!!!!
Bring it on...I enjoy the laughs!!
It will be fun to watch them try to pin every conceivable problem that arises on Clinton. Fat chance. He will continue to give much better than he gets and will cut them to shreds. 
"Spurious" George
Well, he certainly isn't curious in the verbal sense.
...or maybe the adverbal sense?
Cheney..."I Am Curious Yellow".
You can't say the Bush team doesn't know how to pick 'em!
Donald Just Nods And Says Yes
There seems to be a trend developing here.....
I'm sure Mr. Rumsfeld was simply in an awkward position, sort of like when all his Cabinet went out and agreed with Clinton in front of the cameras.
Oh, my goodness! These bushies are just so damned compassionate.
Gov Whitman Employed Aliens Too...(AP)
Whitman said in 1993, ``I fully acknowledge that the hiring of
this couple before they received their legal residency, and the
delinquency in filing tax payments on their wages, was a serious
mistake and one which I deeply regret.''
For a few hours, Whitman's political future seemed in doubt. But
her GOP primary opponent, Cary Edwards, disclosed that he, too, had
employed an illegal alien. Whitman went on to defeat Edwards in the
primary and to oust Democrat Jim Florio as governor.
This is becoming a regular episode of The X-Files .
I take comfort that these are not arrogant, liberal elitists so disconnected from the mainstream that they believe they can ignore laws that apply to others.
Good point, Robert! I'm sure our friends who lean more to the right will be the first to agree!
"Ashcroft opposes one AA judge out of more than a dozen and that makes him 'dangerous'? Why are Lefties suddenly requiring that Ashcroft has a problem because he wasn't a damned rubber stamp? This defines 'intellectual dishonesty' on the part of the Left."
I usuaually ignore your partisan ravings but this one is so ludicrous that I have to call you on it. First of all, the judge involved was not an "AA" judge. Your calling him "AA" because of the color of his skin is most pernicious. Second, those questioning Ashcroft's fitness to serve as AG are not questioning his vote, but rather his McCarthyite smear tactics of said judge. Ashcroft spread innuendo and lies that he knew were wrong. This, coupled with his championing of a neo-conferacy group, raises questions about Ashcroft that even you should care about.
What an idiot!
Why doesn't he just say, "From what I've been told..."
But like many Republicans are prone to do, she talks a tough line for others and then decides she can ignore the laws herself because, after all, she knows better. In any event, this one could hurt her.
Lets take some inventory here.
The Ashcroft issues are serious. His candidacy should be in question. I would probably vote against him.
The Rumsfield issue is worthy of asking him about during confirmation, but is unlikely to affect confirmation.
The Chavez and Whitman issues look pretty silly.
The Powell issue is beyond ludicrous. If Hillary can accept an $8 million book deal after being elected and while her husband is still President, than what difference does it make who pays for Powell to speak before election day?
If the woman lived there a year and turns out was household help, that would be different. I say all that while thinking that Chavez was a poor choice for Labor Secretary. On the other hand, how many wonderful great labor secretarys have there been?
It sounds like Ashcroft's nomination has more problems. As a senator, he firecely opposed candidates he had ideological differences with and now it is biting him in the butt, so to speak.
Unlike you, I am cognizant of and intellectually honest enough to properly acknowledge the fact that Ashcroft approved the appointments of 26 of 28 AA judges. Almost, but not quite a rubber stamp.
Tell you what? Rather than simply attack Ashcroft, why don't you make an attempt to discover what his reasoning on the issue was?
Your calling him "AA" because of the color of his skin is most pernicious
No. Your arbitrary whining is what's pernicious here. Clearly, I used AA as a contraction of 'African American'. I'm not sure what you might have been dreaming up here, but don't try pinning your giddiness on me.
So, I take it you have problems with Democrat Robert Byrd's affiliation with the KKK and Gephardt speaking to white supremacist groups. Why aren't you expressing your reservations about these people? Party uber alles, AFAIC.
Funny, I took AA to mean Affirmative Action....silly me.
Concerned, as a New Years resolution, why don't you resolve to link to messages to which you are responding? It's the easiest thing in the world to do and would go a long way toward being helpful to those of who still read your posts.
As for Powell, it is more just a matter of poor political judgment (assuming indeed that the facts ultimately show that he even knew the source of the funds.) Not worthy of knocking out his nomination. Far from it.
As for Ashcroft, the fun and games are just beginning.
JAH -
Hmmm. Maybe that's what Fielding thought, then, too. Honestly, that didn't cross my mind. However, I was wondering if he thought I was trying to make a reference to Alcoholics Anonymous or maybe even American Auto Association.
So okay, what do you think of my other suggestion?
NAAAA.....
Powell's isn't anything much at all. Haven't figured out what the rummy guy did yet.
Chavez is still my choice for most likely to be picked off (although it's not a given). Politically, it's the nastiest, even if it's ethically minor. It will give Dems an excuse to refuse to vote for her and it's not like she has strong backing from any groups.
If I were her, though, I'd take a page from Clinton. Wait it out, don't withdraw her name.
I wouldn't normally be ironic that particular way.
Okay, then go ahead being your irritating little self! :-)
Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood were not killed by the Republicans, they were pulled by Clinton owing to his utter lack of balls at the beginning of his administration. I still believe that either of them would have been confirmed (especially Wood), and both would have been vastly superior to Janet Reno (or John Ashcroft, for that matter).
Also, there is insufficent evidence (so far) that Chavez is the same thing as Baird.
Now, what the Republicans did to Lani Guinier is another story. If I remember correctly, the phrase they used was "Quota Queen". . . .
I am indebted to Bill Herbert's column in today's Detroit Free Press.
concerned:
If you intended "AA" to signify, "African American" rather than "Affirmative Action", than your post becomes too stupid to respond to, but at least its a little less offensive.
The point which has not registered in your thick skull is that it doesn't matter how Ashcroft voted so much as that he wrongfully besmirched the reputation of a Judge. What he has to account for is why he lied.
Byrd's relationship to the KKK has no bearing on whether Ashcroft is fit to be an Attorney General. It only bears on Byrd's fitness to be Senator. We'd probably agree on that question.
Powell is a bureaucrat -cautious to the point of cowardice and lacking in both foreign policy experience and analytical skill. Cheney chose him for precisely that reason.
What do you believe Ashcroft lied about? I'm objecting to the stupid, shallow anti-Ashcroft demagoguery that infects virtually all of the LW rhetoric regarding the Ron White situation.
George Wallace made the same crude political calculation when he changed himself from a moderate on race into a rabid segregationist after being defeated in a gubernatorial election. I believe the famous quote is "Nobody is ever going to out seg me again!" Ashcroft has used crudely symbolic acts and words for political purposes in order to attract votes. No one should be surprised when averagely tolerant Americans react unfavorably to such racial demagogery.
Hi!
What happened to Salon TT? Meltdown or technical glitch?
Ashcroft's a fucking racist. Not that this should upset you in the slightest, connie. Spudboy visited Table Talk earlier this evening and posted Ashcroft's links to a whole mess o wingnut orgs.
I'll bet Ace and connie know every single one of them and consider them "middle-of-the-road conservative."
BULLSHIT!
He belongs to racist orgs. He writes for racist mags. He speaks at racist universities. He opposes civil rights. And he speaks of those who would dare to critize the Confederacy as "perverts."
HE'S A FUCKING RACIST AND ANYONE WHO WOULD DEFEND HIM IS A FUCKING RACIST TOO!!!
GOT THAT, CONNIE?? GOT THAT JJ.??? GOT THAT ACE???
Now, don't hold back. What are you really trying to say, cllrdr?
According to Lefty myths, Caucasians are the only people with a racist gene....
cllrdr -
I would never support racism - but you're the wing nut who talks about killing Republicans. You can't do a lot worse than that, rhetoric-wise.
"In the Senate, Ashcroft voted in favor of 26 of the 28 African-American judicial nominees that President Clinton put forward.
And in two terms as governor, Ashcroft appointed eight African-Americans to state judicial positions. Among them: Fernando Gaitan, Jr., the first African-American to be appointed to a Missouri Court of Appeals (now a federal district judge), and Sandra Farragut-Hemphill, the first African-American named to the St. Louis County Circuit Court.
In Missouri, non-partisan judicial nominating commissions present to the governor a panel of three possible choices for each judicial office. The governor is limited to those choices -if none of the three candidates is African-American, the governor can't make such an appointment.
Given the choice, Ashcroft virtually always chose the African-American candidate. On only one occasion did he select a white over an African-American - and in that case, he named the candidates who were not selected to fill later judicial openings.
As his former chief of staff, Richard McClure, recalls, "Gov. Ashcroft made a concerted effort to appoint qualified minority candidates to the bench."
In many instances, Ashcroft's support launched a career. Take Jimmie Edwards. In 1988, Ashcroft named him to the Missouri Public Defender Commission - the first African American to serve there. Two years later, Ashcroft appointed him to a Democratic seat on the St. Louis City Election Board. And in 1992, Ashcroft selected him to be a Circuit Judge in St. Louis. Edwards says, "John Ashcroft's support has certainly helped my career. But for his appointment, I would not be on the bench."
Nor was Edwards the only African-American Democrat that Ashcroft put on the bench. He also tapped Jon Gray, a Kansas City Democrat, for a Circuit Judge position in Jackson County. Says McClure, "Gov. Ashcroft was looking for judges of integrity who would exercise sound legal judgment on the bench. There was no ideological test."
Ashcroft also propelled at least three African-American careers via Cabinet appointments. In 1986, for example, Ashcroft made Jerry Hunter head of Missouri's Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. This was a key step in Hunter's career, putting him on the radar screen for a federal appointment. In 1989, President Bush named him General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Says Hunter: "John Ashcroft was very supportive of me, and very supportive when I went to Washington to work in the Bush administration."
And Hunter helped the governor locate other qualified African-Americans. "Ashcroft was actively looking for minorities, including African-Americans, for appointments to state boards and commissions and government positions," says Hunter. "He wouldn't appoint anybody just because they were a minority. But he clearly wanted to consider minority candidates who were qualified."
On the face of it, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he may have, in his public statements, deliberately exaggerated White's leniency towards offenders when deciding, as only one member of the committee, not to cast his vote to confirm this lone instance of an AA Clowntoon judge appointment as compared to the 26 he approved of, but, even if so, similar isolated possible discrepancies in judgment by Democrat Senators seem quite forgiveable (and even praiseworthy) to most of those with a liberal bent, and certainly wouldn't justify the charges of racism and calls for Borking that Ashcroft is enduring.
Just thought everyone should savor this one more time. Key phrases: "may have...deliberately exaggerated" "but, even if so"
I have not stated that Ashcroft is immune from criticism. You have plenty of leeway to be as exorcised as you desire. I have rebutted the charge that he is racist. You have responded by leveling another criticism. If you could provide readers with the actual "lies" perpetrated by Ashcroft about Judge White, we can discuss them. Until that point, vague and frothy generalities are but so much typical twaddle.
The Salon article was interesting yet tenuous theorizing.
Yes, but that can be explained away as mere envy.
Ashcroft opposed Hormel because he did not believe his "lifestyle" would well represent the United States abroad. He was one of two GOP senators to vote against the nomination in committee. If I recall correctly, more than three GOP senators opposed Hormel.
If you think that the Department of Justice would best be served by an opportunist who conducts smear campaigns for his own advancement, and whose views on a number of issue areas put him outside the Republican mainstream, more power to you. You might want to delve more fully into why Keating and Racicot dropped out, before you defend Ashcroft and the President-Select's decision to nominate him.
I have made no public pronouncement on Ashcroft's nomination. Unlike so many, I will actually wait until hearings on the matter. I have debunked the smear that he is a racist, though I expect many who know the facts to continue the campaign due to its polarizing force.
Ashcroft is an idiot for, as would be most anyone who defends such an action, assuming the rest of the world gives two figs that Hormel is gay. put any spin you wish to it, but the man is, to be charitable, homophobic.
that in and of itself is not reason to reject his nomination - but homophobia is just one symptom that causes me to wonder what Bush (or whoever picked him) was thinking wrt Ashcroft other than a pay-off to the religious right for remaining quiet during the election.
I heard hints about Keating last night--he failed the loyalty test? I forget who was reporting on it.
What would have happened if Bush had picked Rogan, the House Impeachment Manager who was defeated in LA? A different kind of in your face appointment? Would the Senate Democrats avoid Impeachment anger? Bush would have made his point to his red meat supporters without going through the landmine of cultural wars that an Ashcroft nomination brings).
Since I didn't raise the issue of his alleged racism, you are apparently referring to someone else. However, I would suggest that someone who espouses the "Southern Heritage" historical viewpoint in his writings and speeches is not the best person to preside over the administration of justice in Federal sector.
Unless something concrete comes out on Ashcroft (footage of him speaking at a KKK rally, for example), his hearings will consist of some pointed questions about his various activities, which he will attempt to explain, followed by his assurances that he will administer justice fairly, and most likely a vote in favor of his confirmation.
Here's something for concerned to mull over:
THE $635 million Robert Wood ("Woody") Johnson paid for the New York Jets might not turn a profit for many years - but the $100,000 he donated to George W. Bush's presidential campaign is likely to pay off big-time.
Though the Jets crashed and burned, the billionaire is happy he ponied up more than $100,000 to Dubya's cause - directly and indirectly - over the past four years, according to government filings.
Johnson's six-figure donation to Bush makes him one of only a few hundred so-called Pioneer class contributors nationwide and one of only seven Pioneers from New York. That largesse may or may not have been a factor in getting Johnson an overnight stay in the Texas governor's mansion on June 1, 1997.
Beginning in the summer of 1997, while Bush had his toe in the water, more and more Republicans from around the country found their way to the mansion as guests, according to Texans for Public Justice.
It is illegal under Texas law to use state resources, like the mansion, to influence elections. The Texas Legislative Council, a non-partisan office within the Texas legislature, said the issue of overnights rests on whether the visits were "intended to influence the outcome of any election."
A year after his sleepover at the mansion, TPJ reports, Johnson returned to cattle country to attend a Bush-hosted bird hunt on a 10,000-acre ranch owned by a Pioneer-level contributor. A dozen other Pioneers also attended. After the hunt, Bush emerged as the deep-pocketed group's favorite, and his campaign had some traction.
I guess Hillary and Bill aren't the only slumber party lovin' couple in politics, huh?
According to Conservabot myth only Liberals are racist.
"I would never support racism - "
You support Ashcroft don't you? Well then you support racism
"but you're the wing nut who talks about killing Republicans. You can't do a lot worse than that, rhetoric-wise."
And you could do a lot worse than growing a sense of humor. Put down that Crisco bottle and lighten up.
You cannot see the difference between a personally devout person who does not subscribe to a specific politico-religious agenda, and one who is personally devout and does?
"Nor was Edwards the only African-American Democrat that Ashcroft put on the bench. He also tapped Jon Gray, a Kansas City Democrat, for a Circuit Judge position in Jackson County. Says McClure, "Gov. Ashcroft was looking for judges of integrity who would exercise sound legal judgment on the bench. There was no ideological test." "
In other words there was an ideological test. Only lawn jockeys need apply. Anyone with half brain would know that for the past quarter century racial issues are NEVER black and white.
Rice and Powell "prove" that Dubbya opposes racism. Yeah, right.
Lieberman injected religion and morality into political discourse more so than any political candidate since Pat Robertson.
Wombat
Please explain how Ashcroft has espoused the "Southern Heritage" historical viewpoint. Specifically, lay out your case based on his writings.
And as we all know, Democrats are opposed to racism. Except, of coursewhen they support racism. And that's when a) they actually do, and b) Whenever a Republican decides a Democrat is racistfor purposes of argument.
If you don't know what the above statement means then there's no point in talking to you.
My life has been one glamorous moment after another!
"I have not stated that Ashcroft is immune from criticism."
No, we have J.J. to do that.
" You have plenty of leeway to be as exorcised as you desire."
Thanks everso.
" I have rebutted the charge that he is racist."
No, you have merely ignored the blatant racism of his acts, statements and associations. The only thing that surprise me is that you haven't gone running to the First Ammendment.
Your desire to defeat Ashcroft is so great that you must smear the intellect of every African-American jurist whom he supported. You have rhetorically destroyed the village in order to save it.
Wombat
The issue is the same. Can the individual separate his personal and religious beliefs in enforcing the law? I believe that both Lieberman and Ashcroft can do these things. I don't recall the issue being brought up by supporters of Lieberman during the campaign. It appeared to be a given.
Ashcroft is a conservative. They exist in government. As near as I can tell, conservatism - even of a cultural/religious stripe - is not a disqualifier for high office.
The strongest case against Ashcroft is the Bill Lann Lee model. Of course, Lee was appointed without the advice and consent of the Senate, so it demonstrates the previous administration's commitment to the concept, and weakens the heft of a senatorial stamp of approval.
LIAR! What have all these posts been about? Rhetorical wool-gathering?
" Unlike so many, I will actually wait until hearings on the matter."
Mighty White of you!
" I have debunked the smear that he is a racist,"
No you haven't. You've finessed it in true Conservabot style. Which Think Tank do you work for?
" though I expect many who know the facts to continue the campaign due to its polarizing force."
You couldn't shut connie up foranything in the world.
As I read you, if Ashcroft commits to supporting policies that conflict with his religion, your opposition is withdrawn.
Oh yeah,right. The "Liberal" employers of David Horowitz and Camille Paglia.
Incidentally -- has "Salon" crashed completely?
I have a vivid imagination, but it does not extend to being able to explain to you the nature of my posts, as they are not in the style of grandiose sloganeering that so attracts you.
That's because Lieberman supports Brown vs.Board of Ed.
Unlike YOU!
Well you know how it is in this culture, Wombat. Unless you're a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Kln, and have personallydragged a black man to his death by tieing himto your pick-up truck, you can't possible be a racist, and anyone who dares to say that you are is guilty of "smearing" you with a charge too horrible to be so much as uttered under one's breath.
Yeah, that's right. Salon is a bastion of the right wing--how'd I forget? Yes, TT is back up.
I LOVE THE SMELL OF SCORCHED EARTH IN THE MORNING!!!!!
Don't think I haven't noticed. What do you imagine I've been responding to?
" but it does not extend to being able to explain to you the nature of my posts, as they are not in the style of grandiose sloganeering that so attracts you."
Flattery will get you everywhere!
Hi! I could not even connect www.salon.com. What happens to Salon?
i Incidentally -- has "Salon" crashed completely?
Celler Door,
I have the same question.
I've been posting to TT all morning...are y'all dreaming or am I?
bbb:
Welcome! and by the way, that little "i" at the beginning of a line doesn't work over here...sadly.
please move that conversation to Technical Issues or the Mote Cafe
thanks
PS welcome bbb!
Headline: Deathwatch begins for Salon.Com. by Alex Beam.
I saw it on www.lucianne.com, by far the wittest political site on the www.
(on topic)
bbb
i imagine people lost the same amounts of money on both!
There are a number of people who I don't want to see here.
Even neo-conservative Michael Mede is getting on my nerves.
Probably because you keep misspelling his name...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court's conservative majority continued
its gradual erosion of federal powers over the states with an important ruling
limiting the scope of a landmark environmental law. The court ruled 5-4 that the
federal Clean Water Act should not prevent a group of suburban Chicago
localities from building a landfill atop seasonal ponds used by migrating birds.
I can't believe my post about GW paying off big contributers to his cause by sponsoring overnights in the Guvs mansion has had zilch effect on the thread. Of course, it's not a big deal because those were just his personal friends (!) and it was before he was a candidate (!) and even if it IS against state law, well, piffle! He was just doin' what good ole boys do in Texas...sleepin' overnight with pals and goin' out early to shoot the hell out of defenseless li'l ole birds. It's not like he broke the law or anything.
The court ruled 5-4 that the
federal Clean Water Act should not prevent a group of suburban Chicago localities from building a landfill atop seasonal ponds used by migrating birds.
As HG Wells said, The Shape Of Things To Come.
BRISTOL, England (AP) -- Prime Minister Tony Blair was nailed by a tomato
Tuesday as he encountered a group protesting against sanctions imposed on Iraq.
''How many Iraqi children have you killed?'' a protester shouted as Blair arrived at
City of Bristol College.
Protesters were throwing oranges and other fruit, but only the tomato was seen
hitting the prime minister.
Lucky for G.W. Bush that it does not happen two months ago.
Duck: Do your job and STRIKE.
"In October 1998 Ashcroft gave an interview to the Southern Partisan magazine in which he lashed out at "revisionists" who make malicious attacks on America's founders, such as charging that George Washington was a racist. (The Q & A's introduction praises Ashcroft as a "jealous defender of national sovereignty against the New World Order.") "Your magazine helps set the record straight," said Ashcroft. "You've got a
heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Robert E.] Lee, [Stonewall] Jackson and [Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."
i don't know if you used Rosetta Slide's last name or not, but 890 was deleted because of it. please don't do that again.
hahaha
Start keeping records, duck. ES is no longer a "compassionate conservative."
897 was deleted for reposting the message before i could delete it
Rosetta Slide: i keep no records here other than what posts i delete and why.
You just a sentimental fool, Rosie.
How's the kid? Has he come out to you yet? Tell him to e-mail Uncle Cellar if he has any questions he'd like answered.
Slide:
You posted your own initials the other day when you ran that schmooze letter from your new flame, Katherine Harris. Don't be so touchy with everyone else. You've posted your real name before; grow up.
Heh!
Rosetta Slide:
better 'dangerous homosexuals' than more brain washed conservatives with penis envy - not to mention obsession.
I wonder if you liberals have yet awakened to the problems that the Democrats created by giving the black racist Donna Brazille carte blanche to use any tactics to mobilize the African-American vote and by turning Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and NAACP's Mfume loose to savage Republicans both before and after the election.
They now have a very angry and misinformed constituency on their hands and have lost considerable political clout in national politics because the did as their democrat plantation bosses demanded.
Cellar:
Make sure the "dangerous" ones identify themselves as such! Wouldn't want Rosie confused.
As many as four hundred illegal ballots were cast in Broward County's Nov. 7 election, most of them by unregistered voters.
Election records also show one man voted twice -- once by absentee and once at the polls -- while another may have voted at two different precincts.
Time after time across Broward, poll workers violated safeguards intended to thwart voter fraud by allowing people to vote when their names did not appear on precinct voter registers. All the voters had to do was sign statements swearing they were eligible to vote.
Poll workers were supposed to call elections headquarters in Fort Lauderdale to verify registrations. But in dozens of instances, the calls weren't made. Other times, poll workers tried to call but got a busy signal.
...
The irregularities in Broward cast further doubt on the hotly contested Nov. 7 presidential election and amplify similar findings of illegal voting in Miami-Dade. A Herald investigation last month showed 144 illegal ballots were cast at 138 of Dade's 617 precincts by voters who were allowed to sign in at polls where they were not registered. In one case, a Miami-Dade ballot was cast in the name of an El Portal man who died three years ago. The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office and Florida Department of Law Enforcement are investigating.
...
``A lot of our poll workers are elderly, they are human and they make mistakes. They were dealing with a huge turnout, people in line screaming in their faces and they made mistakes.''
The 400 illegal ballots were among 587,928 cast in Broward on Nov. 7, a 66 percent turnout. Poll workers overseeing the ballot boxes received up to four hours of training and were paid $95 to $125 for a 14-hour day.
bbb:
Gore is so over...it's Rove and Cheney who are the news.
as the Secretary of Labor.
Heck,Elaine Chao could be a good backup plan for John Ashcroft too.
Is Elaine Chao the one who shows up on that chick talking head show, To the Contrary? Fifties, Asian, Republican?
I've seen Anatomy of a Hate Crime. It was directed by my old High School classmate Tim Hunter and it's truly great. I am so proud!
ROTFALMAO!!!!!
Rosie, you're a riot!
Alas, poor Linda. Done in by the politics of personal destruction.
And she was just trying to help.
they won't have to worry now
Nah, nah, nah, nah.
Nah, nah, nah, nah.
Hey, Hey.
Goodbye.
"Frank Fitts" Slide:
"CD is threatening to bring some dangerous homosexuals over here from TT."
More dangerous than you?
But then, Chavez had no constituency to egg her on.
The Republicans are more prone to fight than the Dems. They're better at it, too.
I disagree--I think the Dems are better.
GJ,
I missed that, but it sounds about right for the Bush league.
Then the woman was illegal.
The AP says that 'Chavez stepped aside under pressure from Bush's political team, according to three Republican officials involved in the case.'
CG:
If Clarence Thomas had been nominated by Clinton, he would have been withdrawn faster than you can say "Long Dong Silver."
Who is closeted, other than (I assume) Reno?
Fielding,
Yes, but that's because prior to Monica they had to give the impression that they gave a damn about sexual harassment.
Let's put it this way, if I were going to have a womens softball league, I'd pick Donna Shalala as captain.
I nominate Shalala.
CalGal:
"Yes, but that's because prior to Monica they had to give the impression that they gave a damn about sexual harassment."
Huh? Did concerned steal your password or something?
Ahem
????
No. I just mean that Dems would never have risked alienating feminists prior to Monica. There would have been plenty of other black jurists to appoint, so why risk it? That has nothing to do with whether or not they fight.
Ashcroft is toast too. Just wait and see.
We've had help ever since our daughter was born. I made a decision early on to play by the books. Period. I also made a decision to hire one of the services that does all the paper work. That was the best $$$ I've ever spent. (And, would you believe, that we've already had to haul out our records to show our compliance when one of the early "housekeepers" made a disability claim (not against us, but we got dragged into the proceeding anyway.) A couple of the people who've worked for us are now reaching Soc. Sec. age and it will be interesting to see what happens then, since I know that they also worked for people who paid them "off the books".
I don't believe Chavez hired anyone at all; she clearly has a pattern of helping people out. In her case it was the fact that she talks tough about illegal immigrants for others that did her in. 
The operative issue for Chavez was that the woman told her she was an illegal. At that point, Chavez had no options save either turning her in or telling her to leave and get back to Guatemala instantly.
CalGal:
"No. I just mean that Dems would never have risked alienating feminists prior to Monica. There would have been plenty of other black jurists to appoint, so why risk it? That has nothing to do with whether or not they fight."
This makes no sense to me. There is no way that a Gore administration or late Clinton administration would have allowed a Thomas nomination to get called to a vote. Lewinsky was not a case of sexual harassment. Most feminists supported Clinton during impeachment.
BTW, its "Wood", not "Woods". Kimba Wood's nomination was pulled by Clinton primarly because of perceived leaks by Wood's husband.
bbb,
Is Elaine Chao the one who shows up on that chick talking head
show, To the Contrary? Fifties, Asian, Republican?
Maybe. Elaine Chao was Deputy Secretary of DOT,President of the United Way,and wife of a powerful Senator .
bbb,
Is Elaine Chao the one who shows up on that chick talking head
show, To the Contrary? Fifties, Asian, Republican?
Maybe. Elaine Chao was Deputy Secretary of DOT,President of the United Way,and wife of a powerful Senator .
Sez you. Sez me. Sez not a single feminist organization prior to Lewinsky, in which any superior asking for a date, much less a blowjob, was considered harassment.
Most feminists supported Clinton during impeachment.
Yes, but most feminist organizations take hypocrisy to abysmal lows. Their support and the fact that it was appallingly self-serving was duly noted by most. IN fact, it was so appalling that it even bothered most of them.
That said, I would like to note the rare occurrence when NOW does something I agree with--they are supporting the equal rights to citizenship case recently heard by the SC.
BBB,
Refresh on this server causes a repost. It's confusing. Check out the Mote Interface (see the front page) for any other vagaries you may find confusing.
I'll have to look up a picture of Chao--but yes, I think she's a likely pick.
CalGal:
"Sez not a single feminist organization prior to Lewinsky, in which any superior asking for a date, much less a blowjob, was considered harassment."
Nobody claimed that Clinton asked Lewinsky for a date or a blowjob. Lewinsky didn't testify that Clinton was the aggressor in their relationship. There is no basis for feminist groups to opine on the Lewinsky matter, unless you are adopting the Rush Limbaugh definition of feminist.
I think that you are confusing the Lewinsky case with Paula Jones, which was a sexual harassment case.
Nobody claimed that Clinton asked Lewinsky for a date or a blowjob.
You're joking?
There is no basis for feminist groups to opine on the Lewinsky matter, unless you are adopting the Rush Limbaugh definition of feminist.
The angst of the feminist groups during the Lewinsky saga was heavily reported. As was the hypocrisy of their strong support for Clinton.
Right. I can see it now. Had she taken this approach she would be crucified as a heartless bitch who sent a desperate, abused woman back into a war zone. Classic no-win scenario. Kobiyashi Moru.
Naw, I doubt it.
Biener:
"Prior to Lewinsky, most femminist groups classified any relationship between employer and employee as sexual harrassment because of the unequal power in their positions."
Bullshit. You are taking the extreme views of Andrea Dworkin and tarring all feminists with them. 98% of NOW would disagree with your analysis.
"Had it been a Republican President and an intern, they would have gone ballistic and protested outside the White House 24/7 and appeared on every available venue to denounce the scoundrel."
Bullshit. There is no way that NOW would have overreacted as badly as the Republicans did then and continue to do today.
You are joking. You must be.
Thou shalt not criticize others while doing something similar.
Bullshit yourself. I didn't say 'all', did I? I said most self-described feminists held that view. It was the official position of NOW.
There is no way that NOW would have overreacted as badly as the Republicans did then and continue to do today.
Have you forgotten their reaction to Clarence Thomas? Check out their reaction to various cases in the private sector.
BTW, I know this has been said 14 billion times and you still don't seem to get it, but the issue for Republicans was obstuction of justice and lying under oath.
I think actually she'd be willing to fight that perception (it's not really the same thing) but I have a feeling that right behind it is the nasty little fact that she knew that she wasn't here legally.
Sadly, no. I don't think he is joking. I think he really believes it. At least for now. In a few weeks if it turns out that he needs to believe the opposite, he will have no problem claiming he has always believed the opposite.
I did say "similar."
"Prior to Lewinsky, most femminist groups classified any relationship between employer and employee as sexual harrassment because of the unequal power in their positions."
"I didn't say 'all', did I? I said most self-described feminists held that view. It was the official position of NOW."
Prove it.
"BTW, I know this has been said 14 billion times and you still don't seem to get it, but the issue for Republicans was obstuction of justice and lying under oath.",/i>
*cough*cough*Bullshit*cough*cough*Iran/Contra*cough*cough*
I don't believe that the woman qualified for political asylum. I don't think that made her situation any less desperate. Chavez did help her get the proper papers to stay in this country. I don't see what else she could have done. BTW, I don't believe her objections were to people who help illegals become legal. I believe she objected to people who exploited illegals for their own benefit.
toys
*giggle*
If Bush had wanted to be conciliatory he should have nominated an authentic Hispanic like Cesar Chavez.
A cursory search of Time and TNR on the words "feminist" "hypocrisy" and "Lewinsky" for the year 1998 provides the following:
Day Of Deliverance : It gave feminists an excuse for their pragmatic hypocrisy. (note the lack of further description--why? Because it was taken for granted)
Hypocritics: Feminist indifference to the Clinton sex scandals does constitute hypocrisy, but so does slamming feminists for abandoning their extravagant view of sexual harassment while simultaneously exploiting that view. (this article is about the conservative hypocrisy in slamming feminists--but that's because the author doesn't question the feminist hypocrisy for a moment.)
And it costs money, so I just offer you the results of the search for the words at the Washington Post. Even a look at the headlines contradicts your claims.
There are probably a ton of position papers about it at NOW, as well. You really are misremembering history if you don't acknowledge the serious shit they took for it--and the fact that it caused them no end of anguish as well.
Biener:
"Sadly, no. I don't think he is joking. I think he really believes it. At least for now. In a few weeks if it turns out that he needs to believe the opposite, he will have no problem claiming he has always believed the opposite."
Listen, Bozo, I've never distorted a position, and I admit it when I'm wrong. You have never conceded that you were wrong even though it happens almost daily here. Moreover, you freely make up bullshit, like when you said that the bigger states like Montana earned more federal funds per person than the smaller states because of more miles of federal highways.
Mercado: Chavez Was 'Like A Friend' Like thousands of other Central Americans willing to break immigration laws for a shot at achieving prosperity in the United States, Mercado came to the Washington area in 1991, drawn by tales of "the marvels of this country." She paid $2,000 for counterfeit documents to fool immigration officials.
Mercado was fleeing a foundering marriage and the drudgery of a life that held little more than the prospect of her $100-a-month ice cream factory salary and a little extra from her homemade tortilla business.
Mercado, now 40, said something terrible happened shortly after her arrival. Although she won't say under what circumstances, Mercado ended up in a police cruiser that took her to a shelter for abused women in Northern Virginia, where she lived for 10 days.
Not long after that, she met Chavez through a friend of Erika DeLeon, a Woodbridge woman who had been letting Mercado stay at her home.
......
Three months into her stay, Mercado says Chavez offered to help her become a legal resident. But months passed, and Mercado's legal residency documents never appeared, despite what she says were fervent attempts to acquire them.
Deflated, she returned to Guatemala in late 1993. Six months later, when Mercado returned to the United States using a tourist visa, she again sought Chavez's help because the visa had expired. But this time, Mercado said, Chavez seemed more concerned about her status as an illegal alien and did not invite her to stay there.
It doesn't seem as though Chavez helped Mercado get her papers.
Do they arrest people who are helping refugees from war-torn countries?
Linda Chaves is a jerk who got just what she deserved.
How dare she help the weak and abused.
If Bush had wanted to be conciliatory he should have nominated an authentic Hispanic like Cesar Chavez.
So she's not a "real" hispanic because her politics are wrong. You are quite a piece of work, aren't you?
It would help your case if you could remember who it you are talking to. I haven't made any comments about federal funds or Montana. FWIW, I do admit when I am wrong. The people who have been here for a while will confirm that. I will not admit I am wrong when the facts support my position or when there is a difference of opinion.
Really? What's the etymology of the word?
CalGal:
"A cursory search of Time and TNR on the words "feminist" "hypocrisy" and "Lewinsky" for the year 1998 provides the following:"
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. The first article you cited mentioned Paula Jones in the headline, the second one purports to be about Republicans.
Feminist groups were criticized (they always are).
In addition, Feminist groups were criticized for supporting Clinton in spite of Paula Jones, which was a clear-cut accusation of sexual harassment.
Now, there was also some criticism of Feminist groups for supporting Clinton during impeachment, but this was not the seemingly clear-cut case of hypocrisy that presents itself with regard to Paula Jones. Indeed, I heard plenty of feminists cackling that they would have try to give Clinton a blowjob too if they had been in Lewinsky's, ahem, shoes.
So there was lots of sound and fury, like there always is, but how much of it was on point?
Sigh. You said that there was no discussion of the hypocrisy of feminists about Lewinsky--or Jones, for that matter, but there is no question that the hypocrisy charges and their own angst only kicked in after the Lewinsky news broke.
There was discussion. There wasn't only discussion, there was general acknowledgement of the fact that the position taken by feminist organizations on sexual harassment--the one that you say was only taken by McKinnon, which is completely untrue--was utterly incompatible with their support of Clinton. The feminists themselves acknowledged this. In fact, it was their total hypocrisy on the subject that left them unable to argue when the dialog on sexual harrassment changed as a result of Clinton's get out of jail free.
Then why can't Democrats be honest about it? Why do you have to wage a full scale assault on her character rather than discuss her political views? Why is this the modus operandi for Democrats with all political opponents? Are Democrats incapable of being honest about political matters?
The Mentioners on the Lehrer show mentioned Elaine Chau as a sub for Linda Chavez.
JJ:
Then why can't Democrats be honest about it? Why do you have to wage a full scale assault on her character rather than discuss her political views? Why is this the modus operandi for Democrats with all political opponents? Are Democrats incapable of being honest about political matters?
I have some words to jog your memory: It isn't the sex; it's the lying. Why couldn't Republicans just admit they hated that Clinton was wagging his thing in their faces? Why couldn't they admit they hated his guts and considered him beneath them? Why couldn't they be honest and admit they were trying to hound him to the ends of the earth to weaken his Presidency? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
And I would say asking your neighbor to lie to the FBI goes a long way toward cutting your own throat...the Democrats didn't have to do a thing.
From the Times: [Chavez] conceded, too, that she was virtually certain from the start that Ms. Mercado was here illegally. But when trying to help someone in need, Ms. Chavez said, ``I don't check green cards.'' That contradicted what Bush aides have been saying - that Ms. Chavez learned Ms. Mercado was in the United States illegally only after the Guatemalan woman had left her home in 1993. Ms. Mercado, 40, said that once Ms. Chavez knew her status, ``she was very worried.''
Evidently she should have been...
Cal:
Did you see my suggestion in Movies&TV earlier today?
...or not?
These views and attitudes are what are really relevant to her appointment, not what she did for the woman from Guatemala. Nobody really cares about that any more than the Republicans really cared about Baird's and Woods's nannies.
You support Ashcroft don't you? Well then you support racism
Ashcroft opposed the appointment of Ron White because White refused to consider the death sentence for a cop killer, which, apparently in Mizzoo is bad wampum.
You support Ashcroft don't you? Well then you support racism
Ashcroft opposed the appointment of Ron White because White refused to consider the death sentence for a cop killer, which, apparently in Mizzoo is bad wampum.
Guess you don't have any evidence that Ashcroft is any more racist than Robert Byrd the former KKK member or Dick Gephardt who speechifies to white supremacist groups. And you support former KKK members, as long as they vote Demorat.
Ashcroft is no more a racist than you are, cllrdr. Suck on that one for a while.
It was the lying.
Why couldn't Republicans just admit they hated that Clinton was wagging his thing in their faces?
It would seem that Clinton only wagged his thing for Democrats. It would seem they were willing to give what he wanted.
Why couldn't they admit they hated his guts and considered him beneath them?
He is beneath most people. I have met very few people willing to stoop to levels Clinton will just to protect his sorry ass. I don't understand why the Democrats aren't furious at him for embarassing their party and making the Presidency a laughing stock.
Why couldn't they be honest and admit they were trying to hound him to the ends of the earth to weaken his Presidency?
Clinton's travails are no one's fault but his own. You can't expect the entire country to look the other way while the President of United States acts like a the head of an organized crime family. Clinton has more in common with John Gotti than he does with John Kennedy.
CalGal:
"Sigh. You said that there was no discussion of the hypocrisy of feminists about Lewinsky--or Jones, for that matter, but there is no question that the hypocrisy charges and their own angst only kicked in after the Lewinsky news broke."
What the hell are you talking about? Read my posts again. I never said "there was no discussion of the hypocrisy of feminists about Lewinsky--or Jones, for that matter".
If you could only read the two sentences I just erased!
Who knows anymore? Talent's record is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether some angry group or another decides to spike his nomination. If there is they will trump up some ridiculous charge and the Democratic faithful will repeat it on every news show 24/7 until the public believes it. He may still be confirmed, but for the rest of his life he will live under a cloud for the terrible crime of serving his country and not being a Democrat.
You say it like it's a bad thing. Seriously, 90-95% of the people you claim are "revulsed by his nomination" have never heard a word Ashcroft has said. They are depending on the word of bitter partisans who are quoted on news programs and in news articles as if what they say is fact. The fact that both Republican and Democratic Senators who have worked with him for 6 years refute the partisan attacks against him should be instructive, but those voices get drowned out in the cacophony that now passes for Democratic thought.
Ohfercryinoutloud, JJ. If you want anyone to take your posts seriously in here, you're going to have to ratchet your hyperbole down at least a notch or two.
Gee you know everyoneJ.J. I'm impressed.
"Ashcroft is no more a racist than you are, cllrdr. Suck on that one for a while."
Then I should be AG.
And I'll be glad to give you something to suck on, connie.
Then I suppose I shouldn't take #1014 seriously, should I? Or do you expect people to take your hyperbole seriously? What about the hyperbole running rampant on this thread and through the media about Bush and Ashcroft and Cheney and any number of others? Should they be taken seriously? Look around, Arky. Hyperbole is all the rage these days.
No, the reason I'm going to miss Bill Clinton is that watching him these past eight years has given me the same unbridled, childlike joy as watching a cartoon. Clinton was our first cartoon President. He ran off cliffs, was crushed by anvils and flattened by turn-of-the-century trains. Yet moments later, we always saw him, just like Wile E. Coyote or Daffy Duck, completely reassembled and eagerly pursuing his next crazy scheme. Essentially, people love cartoon characters because they cannot be hurt. They defy the rules of Greek tragedy. Clinton, unlike Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson, was not undone by his flaws. Whenever the smoke cleared, Clinton remained standing, covered in soot and looking at us slightly chagrined. But before we could pity him, the music was back on, and he was confidently strutting across the New Mexican landscape.
Clinton was such a cartoon that anyone who entered his orbit immediately became an absurd, two-dimensional character. Ken Starr, once a boring lawyer, magically sprouted a buckle hat and musket. And, like all cartoon villains, Starr became single-mindedly obsessed with catching his wisecracking prey. He did everything short of arranging sticks of dynamite into the shape of a woman, dropping a wig on it and hiding behind a nearby rock. Clinton made Starr funny and watchable. And without Clinton on the scene, Starr, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and all the rest revert back to bland, Anglo-Saxon reality.
And as we began hungrily digging in, he emerged with a hearty stew of Gennifer Flowers, "I didn't inhale" and Whitewater.
"Thanks, we're good," we said as we chewed greedily. But the dishes kept coming, each one more elaborate than the last. "Not another bite,"
"Why don't you sit down," we pleaded. But Clinton, it appeared, had been cooking for weeks. And finally, just as we were loosening our belts and picking lazily at that piece of Travelgate between our teeth, Clinton wheeled out the flaming Baked Alaska that was Monica Lewinsky.
Yeah, geez - that Bill!
We're sure gonna miss him. He's been the country's top entertainer for what - 8 years now?
It's kinda like when that old cartoon, Pogo, stopped showing up in the daily newspaper. Breakfast was never the same...
...btw - he was in the area yesterday on his "Goodbye Tour".
This consisted of reminding everyone how great the economy is, in obvious hopes that this will be what everyone remembers before we officially enter into a recession a few months from now.
sure - Clinton was entertaining - but for my entertainment tax dollar, Bush will be unbeatable in his total 4 years.
On Aschroft, Wombat, thank you for his quotes. I read them and I'm not sure where the objectionable material lay. He considers Lee, Davis and Jackson heroes. He considers the Southern cause during the Civil War something other than perverted. These sentiments are mainstream. For example, in Virginia, Jackson and Lee are honored by state holiday. Discussions of the lives of these men in historical context can be found in hundreds, if not thousands, of historical works.
There are legitimate objections to Ashcroft without resort to historical reductionism and gross distortions in leveling charges of racism.
She didn't lie to the FBI, since she hadn't employed anyone. She also told the woman to go to the FBI, which is hardly thwarting. I suspect she didn't lie.
That doesn't mean she wasn't doomed--her sin was still considerable. But the reason she left isn't because she hired an illegal maid.
Saying that Lee, Jackson and Davis were heroes is definitely a positive, especially if we are confirming a historian. Does anybody want to hear Ashcroft's views on cubism? How about favorite color?
CalGal:
She also told the woman to go to the FBI, which is hardly thwarting. I suspect she didn't lie.
Are you speaking of Mercado or of Chavez's neighbor, who she suggested answer the FBI in a certain way...in other words, asking her to lie.
Alabama celebrated Lee and Jackson Day, and then added King.
Six other states celebrate Lee and/or Jackson by state holiday.
In Stone Mountain, Georgia, there is a Confederate Mount Rushmore (Lee, Davis, Jackson, and I don't recall if there is a fourth face)
In Virginia, I believe legislation has either been introduced or passed to split Lee-Jackson Day from King Day. I also believe that King-Lee-Jackson day was enacted after King's assassination.
It is a testament to the peculiar spirit of the United States that key figures in a rebellion violently thwarted are honored without rancor.
Of course, Lee was offered the Army of the Potomac but could not bring himself to make war against Virginians.
I can't remember where I read that, now, so if you have a link saying that Chavez's neighbor told her to lie, fine.
GJ,
The problem with Chavez--and it is a problem common to Republicans--is that they talk a big line about what others should do and then ignore these rules themselves (because after all, they know better). This goes just as much for their kindnesses as it does for their sins. Chavez is tough on illegal aliens as a policy matter. That's where the contradiction would have hurt her--along with the fact that she didn't turn the woman in when she found out that she was illegal.
The Economist
July 26, 1975
History has not treated the confederate commander, General Robert E. Lee, harshly. His birthday is still a public holiday in seven or eight states, respectful tourists visit his birthplace and grave, and his residence overlooking Arlington national cemetery (across the river from Washington) is maintained as a memorial. One little matter, however, has long appeared to need clearing up: he died in 1870 without his civil rights having been fully restored. Congress put this right on Tuesday, when an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives carried a resolution previously passed by the
Senate, "that General R. E. Lee is posthumously restored to the full rights of citizenship, effective June 13, 1865".
It would be pleasant to record that this act of historical piety passed unquestioned; but alas, the brief, fascinating debate that preceded the passage of the resolution threw considerable doubt on whether its supporters knew what wrong it was that they were righting or on how the wrong, if wrong there was, occurred. The rights that General Lee died deprived of seem to have been, in reality, no more than those specified in the third paragraph of the fourteenth amendment (one of the reconstruction amendments to the Constitution): the right to hold federal office, to sit in Congress, or to be a member of the electoral college. The chief critic of the resolution, a highly sophisticated black congressman -- Mr John Conyers of Michigan -- raised some reasonable doubt about whether General Lee, in his last years as the respected president of a college in Virginia, entertained the idea of entering federal politics in any of those ways.
Cal:
so if you have a link saying that Chavez's neighbor told her to lie, fine.
No, I don't have a link because it was CHAVEZ who asked her neighbor to lie...it was all over CNN yesterday.
Only Congress, by a two-thirds vote of each house, can or could relieve a former rebel of the particular disabilities imposed by the fourteenth amendment. Now Congress has done it, and that is the end of that, or so one would suppose. Congress, however, has acted upon, and its resolution incorporates, a version of what happened that appears to contain flaws, which Mr Conyers, apparently the only participant in the debate who had taken the trouble to send somebody over to the national archives with a few questions, made excellent play with.
In question is the so-called "lost" oath of allegiance which General Lee executed, in support of his petition for a presidential pardon, in 1865. Obviously this had nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment, which was not even proposed until the following year. Legend has it, however, that because his oath never reached the president, General Lee was never relieved of the disabilities of the fourteenth amendment.
The resolution states that the "lost" oath "was only discovered in the
national archives in 1970", a statement somewhat irritating to the national archivists, men unaccustomed to losing anything, who have held the paper since the state department passed it on long ago, and who put it on public exhibition in the 1930s.
Francis, I think you have a romantic view about the south. Of course, the south had a strong reaction to the war, and nursed its anger throughout the late 19th and early 20th century, building monuments and glorifying its past, conveniently forgetting why the war started to begin with. Southerners got some mollification from the Federal Government abandoning reconstruction in the 1870. The southern state governments promptly enacted Jim Crow laws limiting the rights of the the newly freed slaves.
The issue isn't that someone considers Lee heroic, if you must need it spelled out. The issue is where the person mentions their admiration, and whether or not it can be considered a questionable means of nudge nudge wink winking to the audience about how he shares their other values, too.
Not that it matters. It won't be racism that brings Ashcroft down, if anyone does. I suspect he'll go through--Chavez was the designated lamb.
Only part of the United States considers Lee, Jackson, and Jefferson Davis heroes. I also note that Virginia, a southern state, is the only one that I know of that celebrates the former two as a state holiday (there may be others in the South, but nowhere else).
US historiography (outside of the South) treats Lee respectfully, noting his misgivings about secession and slavery, his agonizing over which side to choose, his generally "humane" conduct of the war, and his role in ensuring that military defeat would not degenerate into a guerilla war. Jackson is respected as a superb independent commander and a motivator of the men who fought under him.
What it ultimately boils down to is that the driving force behind the Confederacy, and the most passionate advocates of state's rights, were the slave owners who controlled the governments in the deep south. The paramount right that was threatened was their right to enslave others.
For a politician to allow himself to be admiringly quoted in a journal that acts as an apologist for the Confederacy indicates that he is a racist, or that he has made a calculated political decision to seek support from a constituency that is. I think the latter, rather than the former.
Many of Ashcroft's beliefs are well outside the mainstream of the Republican party. His buddying up to apologists for the Confederacy is another example of this.
I think you miss some basics in assessing Southern attitudes towards the war, such as lineage to war dead, issues other than slavery (the modern and historically inaccurate but politically palatable view is that the war was almost exclusively about slavery - it was not), and the effect of Sherman's march/invasion. Regardless, this is not an apologia for the South, but rather, a modest offering that the issue is multi-faceted and historical reverence to Confederate institutions is not quite akin to affiliation with the Nazi party. Ashcroft's meager comments are mainstream, and hardly relevant to his confirmation. Theya re offered, however, to lend credence to the bunk that he is a racist.
I'm reading a great book on Civil War era writers. "Patriotic Gore" by Edmund Wilson. Another good book with a middle section on Sherman's March, replete with strong insight on how it affected Southern attitudes, is "The Soul of Battle." Finally, V.S. Naipaul's "A Turn in the South" is a must read on this topic.
Legislation was passed last year taking effect this week as Friday is Lee-Jackson day.
I also believe that King-Lee-Jackson day was enacted after King's assassination.
Try well after King's assassination -- as within the past decade. The King holiday was hard-fought in Va. and, as I mentioned, Lee and Jackson were thrown in as a sop to the Sons of the Confederacy to lessen the humiliation of having a state holiday for a commie negro.
Old times here are not fogotten.
Would support of a Confederate symbol or flag in a Southern state (such as Arkansas) disqualify a politician for the Attorney Generalship? Could not that individual be branded with the same swath of "indication"?
In the end, your argument ignores an unassailable record of support for African-Americans - real, live breathing African-Americans, 26 of 28 while in the Senate, and almost 10 while governor, as well as support for a Martin Luther King Day in Missouri - but elevates and waves as a bloody flag an "indication" racism from one quote about history 140 years past.
Judith,
No, she didn't tell the neighbor to lie, from what I can tell. She basically checked out with the neighbor if the story was going to come out or not before she decided to take the job.
That said, however, she should have told the vetting team about it. She didn't mislead the FBI, though.
"Of course, Lee was offered the Army of the Potomac but could not bring himself to make war against Virginians."
ahem. Does anybody believe that the soldiers in the US army were all New Yorkers? Virginians fought on both sides (including "West Virginians"), and Lee's men made war against them.
As far as interpreting slavery as the cause for the Civil War, it was the cause for the war. Slavery politics smoldered for thirty years prior to war. It affected national expansion and every single decision on organization of new lands centered on how much one side or the other got an advantaged.
As far as politically correct interpretations of history, southern historians did that in their writings on reconstruction and the south. See Eric Foners' Reconstruction.
If you want to continue a discussion of Civil War historiography, may I suggest that we take it to the "War" thread (unabashed plug).
"Wood did indeed hire an illegal alien as a babysitter."
Thanx. I don't remember the details, but I recall that her facts were significantly better than Baird's. It was something like paying the nanny on the books and helping her get naturalized. I also remember her stating "I do not have a 'Zoe Baird problem'".
The idea of waging war against Virginians, and invading his own home, caused Lee great consternation, even though some Virginians may have fought for the Union.
Wombat
I'll look for your first salvo in "War."
I thought it amusing that all these rich chicks were hiring illegal aliens as nannies, but the big deal was on whether or not the paid taxes. Fuck that noise. They can put their kids in daycare or pay full price for an 'murrican nanny. And that, ultimately, is why they were picked off--and rightfully.
Most holidays are stupid. Holidays honoring confederate soldiers are particularly stupid.
By most modern accounts, Ulysses Grant was a better soldier than Robert E. Lee, and Grant had the virtue of soldiering for the United States of America. If any soldier from the civil war deserves a holiday, it is Grant.
Unless the "Lee/Jackson Day" is code for something else. I defy anybody tell me with a straight face that Lee/Jackson Day isn't intended as some kind of White Supremacy symbol.
I stated that IMO Ashcroft was not personally racist. While I can slough off enthusiasms for bad causes that have been made up for by subsequent actions or sincere changes of mind, I have a great deal of trouble with a politician who seems to think he can have it both ways on an issue where there is a clear right and wrong.
In answer to your first question, yes I would have trouble with a politician who supported the flying of the Confederate flag in a southern state as a nominee for a Federal office. I would have the same trouble supporting a black nationalist for that position. However, the former is far more likely to happen, don't you agree?
Funny. I thought Gone With the Wind came out in 1939.
"Try well after King's assassination -- as within the past decade. The King holiday was hard-fought in Va. and, as I mentioned, Lee and Jackson were thrown in as a sop to the Sons of the Confederacy to lessen the humiliation of having a state holiday for a commie negro."
The first King day was established in Virginia in 1984. Jackson-Lee day was already a Virginia holiday prior to the addition of King.
Exactly. As I said, all this romanticization came about right at the same time that civil rights laws, school integration, and voting rights acts were put on the books.
"I thought it amusing that all these rich chicks were hiring illegal aliens as nannies, but the big deal was on whether or not the paid taxes. Fuck that noise. They can put their kids in daycare or pay full price for an 'murrican nanny. And that, ultimately, is why they were picked off--and rightfully."
I guess you'd prefer that these women to stay home and take care of their own children. I guess you'd prefer that only super-rich and childless women run for office.
Mel Carnahan used to do minstrel. Literally, he performed in black face. I found it funny, as he was then race-baiting Ashcroft, but about as relevant to whether he showed "indications" of racism as Ashcroft's mundane comments of the Confederacy.
Fielding
We can discuss the merits of Grant and Lee as generals in "War." As for your challenge, a minimal amount of time in the South would demonstrate to you the dichotomy of race and reverence for the Confederacy. You are welcome to my Virginia estate any time where we can sip lemonade and discuss the after-effects of the War of Aggression.
Wombat
You have just nixed Bill Clinton as an Attorney General candidate. Not that I think he was on the short list.
Work harder at hiding your stupidity, it's showing. I said exactly what they should do--put their kid in daycare or hire a legal nanny. They were both lawyers making mid-six figure income. For either of them to bewail the high cost of daycare and the difficulty of finding good help is an obscenity.
Carnahan appeared in blackface in a fraternity skit in college. Ashcroft was interviewed by Southern Partisan in 1998. You really don't see a difference?
Southerners have romanticized the war since it ended.
You are welcome to my Virginia estate any time where we can sip lemonade and discuss the after-effects of the War of Aggression.
That's the War of Northern Aggression, Mr. Urquhart.
Also known as the Late Unpleasantness.
I prefer mint juleps myself, suh. Are you by any chance of the Charleston Urquharts?
Hee-obviously Fielding has never been decimated in a "stay at home-back to work" debate with Calgal.
FU:
"We can discuss the merits of Grant and Lee as generals in "War." As for your challenge, a minimal amount of time in the South would demonstrate to you the dichotomy of race and reverence for the Confederacy. You are welcome to my Virginia estate any time where we can sip lemonade and discuss the after-effects of the War of Aggression."
I have spent more than a minimal time in the South, and I understand that there is an element of pride in the confederacy that goes beyond white supremeacy. Indeed, most parts of the country have regional pride. But there are black Southerners too, you might be surprised to learn, and some of them might be a little bit sensitive to confederate imagery.
Nonetheless, I would be happy to share lemonade with you at your manse.
I know. I am aghast at the idiocy of it all.
More fool you, if you're looking to a sinecure in a Democratic administration. After all, by your standards this undoubtedly makes you a racist.
'She is absolutely wonderful, very intelligent, a complete woman and able to give love wonderfully and freely,' enthused Frank Richardson III. The tabloids promptly dubbed her the 'Love Judge.'
I sure do. I see one man who was Governor of Missouri playing Slappy White while still an adult, at a time when racial sensitivities were highest on the minds of Americans. I see another former Governor of Missouri who told a magazine that he thought some Confederate leaders were heroic and that the cause of the South was not perverted.
So, the facts are decidedly different. But my conclusion is similar. I look at what they have done as public servants, and from everything I have seen, both men have been strong advocates for racial tolerance and inclusion. They have track records that should make allegations of racism based on these tenuous threads the stuff of jackasses and publicity hounds.
As I said, instead, you make a monument to Ashcroft's comments and thereby wipe away his record of support for 26 out of 28 African-American federal judicial nominees; eight African-Americans in-state judicial positions, including fernando Gaitan, Jr., the first African-American to be appointed to a Missouri Court of Appeals (now a federal district judge), and Sandra Farragut-Hemphill, the first African-American named to the St. Louis County Circuit Court; Jimmie Edwards, appointed by Ashcroft a Democratic seat on the St. Louis City Election Board, and later, to be a Circuit Judge in St. Louis; and Jon Gray, a Kansas City Democrat, apppinted by Ashcroft to be a Circuit Judge in Jackson County; and Jerry Hunter, appointed by Ashcroft to be head of Missouri's Department of Labor and Industrial (this list is by no means complete).
Fielding: It's still history--and a shared history of both white and black Southerners. I personally know of black Southerners who have visited Stone Mountain and wept over it.
What about blacks who served in the Confederate Army? Were they racists?
Personally, I don't think you get past the past by covering it up or white-washing (if you pardon the expression) either side. Tell the whole tale, good and bad. Should slavery be glorified? Hell no, but the war wasn't entirely about that, and we ought to learn the lessons of Antigone: folks want to honor their war dead and heritage whether or not a cause was entirely just.
Should we condemn all Japanese for Pearl Harbor and "comfort women"? Should every American soldier in WWII be condemned for Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
CalGal:
"Work harder at hiding your stupidity, it's showing. I said exactly what they should do--put their kid in daycare or hire a legal nanny. They were both lawyers making mid-six figure income. For either of them to bewail the high cost of daycare and the difficulty of finding good help is an obscenity."
Some parents think their kids would be better off with a nanny than in daycare. Quality daycare is not always available. Sometimes its hard to find a decent nanny that will work on the books. Some parents put their child's well-being ahead of compliance with arcane immigration and/or tax laws.
BTW, when you resort to ad hominem attacks (like "your stupidity, its showing"), you communicate that a) I have hit a nerve, and b) you don't feel like you are up to arguing the merits.
Your words are well said.
Clinton urged his supporters not to let ``any disappointment you may feel'' from the election outcome to take away the pride they have in him and Gore for what they were able to accomplish over the last eight years.
you communicate that a) I have hit a nerve, and b) you don't feel like you are up to arguing the merits.
Your exposure to debaters is apparently quite limited. In my case, ad hominem attacks communicate that I am impatient and scornful with a fool. As Milkmaid's post points out, I am wellknown for my views on sahms, and your absurd interpretation of my very clear post made me unlikely to view you or your intelligence with anything approaching tolerance.
Some parents think their kids would be better off with a nanny than in daycare. Quality daycare is not always available. Sometimes its hard to find a decent nanny that will work on the books. Some parents put their child's well-being ahead of compliance with arcane immigration and/or tax laws.
Hahahahaha. Yes, and this is who I want serving as attorney general. Someone who thinks the laws are irrelevant if they are inconvenient.
Anyone who wants to be a parent had best determine how their children are to be cared for before they have children. If they didn't do this, then they have failed in one of the basic responsibilities of parenthood. That they would then whine about it means only that they are pathetic as well as irresponsible.
Mind you, that's true for someone who makes less than six figures. Anyone who would claim that she can't get good help on $600,000/year (which is what I believe Baird made) has demonstrated not only the aforementioned attributes, but rank incompetence as well.
No, they were slaves.
What were blacks who owned slaves?
'Only thing I remember about Kimba Wood was thinking at the time that "Kimba" sounded like a good name for an elephant.
She seemed, though, to be a sound candidate with a good mind --however wonderfully and freely she may or may not have given love to investment bankers. 'Interesting possibilities for Alternative History, here.
But for a mini-scandal about aliens, social security taxes, etc., maybe we'd have had better leadership in the Justice Department for the next eight years.
Now we've lost Linda Chavez and, who knows? Maybe now Bush will appoint someone to the Department of Labor who actually believes that people who work should be paid. Alternative history can work both ways, I guess.
Take a hair off the self-pitying, give me a little more tremor to the voice, and ratchet up the indignation. We'll shoot, cut, print, and you can be in a chair across from Mr. Lipton shortly.
From what I can tell, Chavez thinks that people should be paid for working. Her opposition to a minimum wage increase is not unique.
You have to love anyone who can rail against 'revisionist history' and 'political correctness' while engaging in both.
Francis 109 -- I'll be at the capitol today and will look up the legislation creating the Martin Luther King holiday. I think you are wrong about the date the state holiday was created and about there being a Lee Jackson state holiday prior to MLK.
Eat shit and die!
IJ:
"It's still history--and a shared history of both white and black Southerners. I personally know of black Southerners who have visited Stone Mountain and wept over it.
Nazi Germany is "shared history" between Germans and Jews. Are Jews living in Berlin not permitted to be offended by a statue of Hitler in their home town?
Many (not all) blacks are rightly offended by Confederacy paraphernalia.
What about blacks who served in the Confederate Army? Were they racists?
How the hell should I know? They were fighting in a war to preserve slavery.
Personally, I don't think you get past the past by covering it up or white-washing (if you pardon the expression) either side. Tell the whole tale, good and bad. Should slavery be glorified? Hell no, but the war wasn't entirely about that, and we ought to learn the lessons of Antigone: folks want to honor their war dead and heritage whether or not a cause was entirely just.
I don't want to white wash anything. I'm not saying that either "side" of the story shouldn't be told. Rather, I'm saying that the holiday is in bad taste. Moreover, a lot of Southerners are whitewashing the nature of the confederacy.
Should we condemn all Japanese for Pearl Harbor and "comfort women"? Should every American soldier in WWII be condemned for Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
This isn't about condemning people. It is about questioning why there is a holiday.
Slave owners. Your point? (As if I didn't know.)
I found Three Heroes, One Odd Holiday for Virginians in the Washington Post.
"In my case, ad hominem attacks communicate that I am impatient and scornful with a fool."
This is a classic fallacy, signifying only that the fool is you.
"Anyone who wants to be a parent had best determine how their children are to be cared for before they have children. If they didn't do this, then they have failed in one of the basic responsibilities of parenthood. That they would then whine about it means only that they are pathetic as well as irresponsible."
People who are expecting to get divorced shouldn't have children. Condoms shouldn't break. Parents shouldn't change jobs. Parents shouldn't die. Welcome to Disneyland, brought to you by CalGal, the judge and jury for parents everywhere.
Let me know when you come up with standards that work in the real world, where everything isn't always black and white.
"Mind you, that's true for someone who makes less than six figures. Anyone who would claim that she can't get good help on $600,000/year (which is what I believe Baird made) has demonstrated not only the aforementioned attributes, but rank incompetence as well."
Okay, I'm willing to carve out of my sympathy people making over $600,000 per year. What about the other 99% who have to make this choice?
But Ashcroft is from Missouri, a non-Confederate state. Yes, it was a slave state, and many residents supported the Confederacy at the time, but but it did remain with the Union, didn't face reconstruction, and presumably wasn't immersed in the southern mythologizing that took place in the core Confederacy. Does Missouri celebrate Lee/Jackson Day?
As such, I have trouble believing that his neo-confederate enthusiasm is simply a cultural relic of fondness for native sons, like it is in FU's Virginia. And I have considerably *less* sympathy for someone who has *chosen* neo-Confederate sympathies.
The only people in this drama that require sympathy are those who either need to whittle down every nuance of American history so no one gets offended, or who take snippets of mundane writings such as Ashcroft's to bolster a baseless case of racism.
Bubbaette:
"Imagine! The very nerve! After all, would Jews get all bent out of shape at admiring Hitler's military strategy and flying the Nazi flag? P.C. has certainly gone too far!!"
Interesting how the same imagery came to both of us independently.
In America, they say "Great minds think alike". In Russia, they say "Idiots agree". :)
The point is not whether certain Confederate institutions offend certain African-Americans. They do, and they will.
The point is whether deeming Confederate leaders as heroic and the Southern cause as less than perverted indicates racism in the face of a public record of results-backed support and encouragement for African-Americans indicates racism.
If so, you're a racist. The trees are racist. The Oakland Raiders are racist. Marmalade is racist.
I discuss your post 1069 in the War thread.
There are plenty of others, however. Ones not sloughable, like the Reb-loving ones.
Fielding: I don't think it's the same thing at all. The Holocaust was an event of brief duration that can hardly be said to have given birth to a culture. For virtually all blacks in America, their pre-1865 history is a shared creation of a new culture that most of them still have a closer kinship with than anything in Africa. Certainly blacks were in the subordinate role in the culture, but the white and black Southern experience was more intertwined than I think any non-Southerner ever understands.
A closer comparison might be between the way women were treated hundreds of years ago than with Nazi Germany. (Though the truth is somewhere between the two, I think that's closer than a systemic extermination of a race.)
Many (not all) blacks are rightly offended by Confederacy paraphernalia.
Of course they are, and I of course have no problem with that (though I wonder whether you think blacks who are not are "wrongly unoffended"). Native Americans are also offended by many aspects of American history. I am offended by piss crosses, but eliminating all remnants of cultures we find offensive is ultimately akin to ethnic cleansing itself.
As far as holidays go, I don't generally cotton to holidays honoring individuals or public buildings be named in honor of anyone, myself. But I also think that what people want to do in a government unit of which I'm not a resident is their business. So, for example, I think if a state wants to fly the Confederate flag, it's up to the people of that state to decide.
Personally, I would vote against it for my state. OTOH, I would not automatically assume someone who praised Robert E. Lee was a racist.
Do you believe Lee is an American hero?
No.
As I stated above, I think Lee, Jackson and Davis are indeed worthy of praise. This issue is but a tiny piece of a much larger overall picture of Ashcroft, a picture that I find very disturbing.
"If so, you're a racist. The trees are racist. The Oakland Raiders are racist. Marmalade is racist."
Not marmalade?
It's not a "fallacy" at all. There was no "therefore" in my statement.
People who are expecting to get divorced shouldn't have children.
Who says?
Condoms shouldn't break.
Happily, abortion makes this less of an issue.
Parents shouldn't change jobs.
Why on earth not?
Parents shouldn't die.
This is idiotic, unless we are discussing a parent's planning for that eventuality. But then, I fail to see the point of any of your odd assertions.
Welcome to Disneyland, brought to you by CalGal, the judge and jury for parents everywhere.
Parents are responsible for their children. I was unaware that this was an unusual assertion.
Let me know when you come up with standards that work in the real world, where everything isn't always black and white.
I do have "real" standards. I also live by them.
Okay, I'm willing to carve out of my sympathy people making over $600,000 per year. What about the other 99% who have to make this choice?
I wasn't talking about them, dumbfuck. Did you actually read the post in question? I was talking about the outrage over Baird and Wood.
I would offer that our justice system is degraded if significant portions of our society have the perception that the nation's chief law enforcement officer has a bias against them and those laws that currently protect them.
The nomination of John Ashcroft sullies George W. Bush's pledge to be a "uniter."
There are good reasons to oppose Ashcroft. The concocted, inconsistent and dangerous incantation of racism in spite of the facts, however, threatens to drown those reasons in the soup and yes, make marmalade racist. The utilization of minor historical observation makes the scummy tactic a larger issue, one that should join all intellects, be they for or against Ashcroft, because if you sit silent for that, it can only mute and dumb-down the future.
Thanks for the straight answer.
Is Thomas Jefferson an American hero?
There is no need to apologize.
maria
Thank you as well.
Either way, this is the first visible salvo in the 2002 elections.
Interestingly (for me at least) when I was in St. Louis recently, I noticed a plaque honoring Robert E. Lee near the St. Louis arch. As I recall, the honor was something having to do with navagation and engineering rather than the civil war.
CalGal:
"In my case, ad hominem attacks communicate that I am impatient and scornful with a fool
This is a classic fallacy, signifying only that the fool is you.
"It's not a "fallacy" at all. There was no "therefore" in my statement."
I didn't think I would have to explain it to you, but here goes. I'll try not to use big words.
You are arguing that it is appropriate to use ad hominem attacks when you have decided that the target is a fool.
First of all, ad hominem attacks never enhance an argument. They signify desperation.
Second, you are the one determining that the person is a fool, but then the target is already known to disagree with you. Piling on with, "I disagree with you and moreover, you are a fool" is the very essence of logical fallacy. If you are wrong on either point, then both premises come crashing down.
Third, if you have the power to determine who is a fool, you can determine that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool. This makes your label, for rhetorical purposes, meaningless.
Finally, the "therefore" is implied. As in "If I deem a person to be a fool, therefore I may use an ad homiem attack.
I hope that this clears things up for you. Thank you for playing.
Yes, but a flawed one. Anticipating your next question, the primary difference is the worthiness of the goal that the person struggled for. I believe Jefferson's role in the founding of the country significantly outweighs his hypocrisy in owning slaves. Same with Washington.
CalGal:
"I wasn't talking about them, dumbfuck."
What exactly is a dumbfuck?
(I'll back out quietly.)
It's nice to have people around who are able to fill me in on my vague recollections.
I wonder what bit of useful information had to be jettisoned in order for this crap to take up space in my brain?
No, I wasn't. I never said anything about appropriateness. You asserted the reason I was using them was because you had struck a nerve. I said that this was untrue, that the reason I was using them is because I was impatient with a fool. Whether it is appropriate or not is irrelevant--as I said, there was no "therefore".
Nothing about whether it was warranted, deserved, or whether it proved that you personally were a moron. Just a pure explanation as to why your assertions about my state of mind were incorrect.
Your analysis is credible. But so are many others. Jefferson could be viewed as more insidious than Lee, as Jefferson owned slaves, knew better, yet codified a concept of equality excluding blacks, thereby perhaps adding to their consignment to slavery for 100 years.
But I would oppose any effort to color your views or reject your nomination for your antiquated, insensitive views on Jefferson.
the Mexican War (as part of the US Army)."
I'll take you at your word, but I can't imagine that his accomplishments there outweigh his efforts *against* the US in the Civil War. Its like calling Benedict Arnold an American hero for Ticonderoga.
CalGal:
"I do have "real" standards. I also live by them."
Its too bad that a huge demographic of our population isn't up to your standards. But then there are plenty of people who would look down there noses at the choices you have had to make.
But the fact remains, some people have very difficult child care decisions. And like it or not, you can't always blame people for the decisions they are faced with, however much Falwell and Schlafly agree with you that you should.
Yes. And that's why we have an Aaron Burr day, because of his military heroism.
unfortunately) had been a many-generations back sire for the
Budweiser ponies.
Traveller.
I think the Clydesdales came from Germany. Or Austria?
I don't know how you morphed this into a diatribe about daycare--to say nothing of the fact that your attempts to predict my views are pathetically inept. But we were discussing Baird and Wood and why their use of illegal aliens was so out of line and struck such a nerve, and why their attempts to justify it were so ill-advised.
I have made no comments about anyone else.
As such, I think your comparison between Jefferson and Lee is quite a stretch.
But I appreciate your willingness to confirm me as AG.
Leaving aside Jefferson's personal attitudes and practices, any efforts to abolish slavery at the time the Constitution was being put together would have doomed efforts to get all the states to ratify it.
CalGal:
"Nothing about whether it was warranted, deserved, or whether it proved that you personally were a moron. Just a pure explanation as to why your assertions about my state of mind were incorrect."
Ah, the classic CalGal backpedal that I've heard so much about.
Are you saying that it was not "warranted or deserved"? If that is the case, you could have saved both of us some wasted time.
(BTW, this is called being on the "horns of a dilemma").
So my question is, given everything that has happened since, was the net effect of black slavery on America a good thing or a bad thing?
The reason I bring it up is because I think the question helps illustrate my point of how impossible it is to isolate an event or person in history for total condemnation. For example, without the importation of black slaves into America, when would the first Africans have arrived here? Would they have come in sufficient numbers to contribute to the American experience as much as they have?
To put a fine point on it, would early 21st century Americans have the pleasure of reading Open Secrets?
It is irrelevant. I never brought it up, nor did you. I don't feel any need to justify telling people I think they're an idiot.
So the only waste of time was caused by your failure to read properly.
Clarification: in your original post on my attack, you didn't bring up its justification, you addressed only what you perceived as the reason for my reaction. Then, after I told you what the reason was, you called it a fallacy and it was then that you morphed to justification--something that had never been mentioned previously.
I will if it goes on further. I thought, originally, we were discussing Wood and Baird.
I don't consider Lee an American hero. He did perform heroically in the Mexican War. Benedict Arnold, on the other hand...would the United States exist today without his military feats?
Calgal:
"I don't know how you morphed this into a diatribe about daycare--to say nothing of the fact that your attempts to predict my views are pathetically inept. But we were discussing Baird and Wood and why their use of illegal aliens was so out of line and struck such a nerve, and why their attempts to justify it were so ill-advised."
This is how it morphed. You used an argument to discredit Baird (Wood was earning about 20% of Baird, so you ought to drop her from your argument). Your argument used language that was so broadbased that it could also be used against any other nominee that faces difficult choices about child care. I pointed out that under your "let them eat cake" model, we would end up with three types of people in the cabinet: Men, rich women and childless women. I knew that this was not the result you were hoping for.
Oh, and you called me a "dumbfuck".
The irony is that both Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood would have been vastly superior as Attorneys General than Janet Reno. Moreover, Justice under Kimba Wood would have been so much more aggressive in its pusuit of investigations of Government officials that it is not certain that Clinton would have survived his term.
Rather than casting stones, and destroying people like Kimba Wood and Linda Chavez (who were much better suited to their appointments than the likes of Ashcroft), I think we would be better off liberalizing taxation laws for childcare providers.
Right.
Clinton will remain a very effective thorn in the side of the GOP (and W in particular) for a long time. His speech yesterday when he talked about the Florida vote is just the beginning. (Although I am a bit surprised he let fly with that so soon. I think he was just giving W's handlers fair warning that they better not go too far with this absurd "Clinton recession" shit.)
Count on it!
BTW,John Ashcroft is no Linda Chavez.
the Mexican War. Benedict Arnold, on the other hand...would the
United States exist today without his military feats?"
I guess I am not familiar with Arnold's critical role other than Ticonderoga. I believe he was at Saratoga, but I haven't heard any claims that he turned the battle. You are much more the military history expert than I am, so I would be interested in hearing your argument in the War thread.
Your recap is incorrect. I'm done with this; you are uninteresting.
bbb,
I read that in a couple other places after you mentioned it.
CalGal:
"It is irrelevant. I never brought it up, nor did you. I don't feel any need to justify telling people I think they're an idiot."
There are only two possible choices. Either
A) You think it was justified, in which case my analysis that you are guilty of a fallacy stands; or
B) You think it wasn't justified, in which case you wasted my time, but I accept your apology and I forgive you.
You are acting like the soldier in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who just had its limbs cut off. Let it go.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A yearning for better jobs, improved quality of life and attractive retirement settings were major factors in population shifts documented in the first release of Census 2000 statistics. Some of the biggest winners among states were those that proved attractive to restless Americans looking for a better place to live. Arizona, Georgia, Colorado, Nevada and North Carolina gained seats, in no small part because they represented inviting bait for people seeking to relocate, a demographer said.
BTW, GWB's victory margin would be a 279-258 one if Census 2000 data were used.
Last post on the subject--take it to the Inferno if you're stupid enough to want to continue.
No, there are not only two choices. There are plenty others, including this one: I see no reason to justify rudeness.
No, W's victory margin would be the same: 5 to 4.
Very good.
Hehehehe.
BTW, GWB's victory margin would be a 279-258 one if Census 2000 data were used.
And I'd have less personal property tax to pay if the county used next year's blue book value instead of this years. So what?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A closely watched economic forecasting gauge is now predicting that the economy will grow by just 2.6 percent this year, the weakest pace in a decade. Blue Chip Economic Indicators said its latest consensus forecast of top economists released today represented a 0.8 percentage point drop in the 2001 growth estimate in just two months, the biggest since the summer of 1990 when the economy was entering the last recession. Economists are not predicting, however, an outright recession.
Bill Clinton finally runs out of his luck on the economy front. So much for a failed and tainted legacy.
Wait and see.
The supreme court elects a bozo and consumer confidence tanks.
I need no reason to justify rudeness. Should have been clear from my previous posts, but still.
And to keep it on topic--to everyone:
Have you noticed the number of think pieces comparing Bush's "style" on Chavez to Clinton's early days? They're looking desperately for a pattern.
jcostello3 - Monday, 01/08/01, 2:40:19pm (#12220 of 12431)
To Brad Meinecke:
The votes were counted on Nov. 7th. Bush wins for the 1st time.
The votes were recounted on Nov. 8th & 9th. Bush wins for the 2nd time.
Gore asks for manual recounts in four counties: Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia. (Miami-Dade samples 1% of their precincts. After seeing the result of the sample, they refuse Gore's request. So Gore sues them to force a recount. Miami-Dade eventually capitulates to Gore's demand.)
Bush certified the winner on Nov. 14th pending the overseas ballot counts. Volusia recounts included in totals. Bush wins for the 3rd time.
Overseas ballots come in. Bush wins a 4th time but FSC delays certification until Nov. 26th so that other 3 counties can finish recounts. (Miami-Dade halts recount; say they can't finish by FSC deadline.)
Nov. 26th deadline arrives. Broward county submits results and they're included in certification results. Palm Beach misses deadline by 2 hours. Their totals not included. Bush wins for 5th time. (Bush would have won even if Palm Beach totals included.)
Gore contests election. FSC orders PBC results included as well as the partial Miami-Dade result and to count all undervotes.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that military ballots previously thrown out by Gore people must be counted.
USSC halts counts.
7 USSC Justices have problems with the way the recounts are being done. 5 of these 7 Justices rule that they must be done fairly, but that time is now up. Bush wins for the 6th time.
So, it was Al Gore who was trying to steal the election, not George W. Bush!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was that Boies over-rated or what?!
They will never get over their need to promote the notion that Gore would have won the election if only the voters' true intentions (or feelings) had been properly measured. Any pesky election rules that happened to get in the way of the actual outcome are to be continuously discounted in this formula.
Rules don't count. Feelings do.
A few sore and sour losers.
by LIB QUAID
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supporters of John Ashcroft are angry that foes of his nomination as attorney general have access to boxes of opposition research done by the late Gov. Mel Carnahan's campaign.
The files of news clippings, speeches and votes cast by Ashcroft were shared with the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way by the Democratic governor's campaign manager, political consultant Marc Farinella. The organization is part of a broad coalition working against Ashcroft.
GOP operatives asserted late Tuesday that the loan reflects poorly on the governor's widow, U.S. Sen. Jean Carnahan. Farinella says he is distributing the information on his own and that Mrs. Carnahan and her staff are uninvolved.
Mel Carnahan was killed in an Oct. 16 plane crash during his campaign to unseat Ashcroft. Carnahan's death came three weeks before the election -- too late to change the ballot -- and he won, 50 percent to 48 percent. Carnahan's gubernatorial replacement, Roger Wilson, appointed Mrs. Carnahan to the Senate seat, which she will occupy until the next general election, in two years.
Ashcroft was widely praised for conceding the following day.
David Israelite, political director for the Republican National Committee, called the loan of opposition materials ''troubling, given the class and dignity that was shown by Sen. Ashcroft in conceding the election.''
How's this for spin?
Somebody on Wall Street said that the stock market is in a tailspin because the market has less confidence in GWB, who can barely add, than it did in Clinton, who understood how the world's markets were inter-related.
C+ at best.
Oh, when will it all end???
What do W's college grades have to do with this?
Wanna make a bet on how the Fla. voting analysis to be done under the patronage of the NY Times, Wash. Post, W.S. Journal, CNN and others turns out?
But, as the sage Ohio said above, the real vote was 5-4.
Are you always lost?
You are in Michigan now.
:-(
Life is good!
"As for fairness . . . I think it not unfair to tell a prospective felon that if he commits his contemplated crime he is exposing himself to a jail sentence of 30 years--and that if, upon conviction, he gets anything less than that he may thank the mercy of a tenderhearted judge . . . . Will there be disparities? Of course."
This cavalier attitude towards equal protection surely would not be tolerated by Justice Scalia.
John McCain called the Confederate soldiers & generals "patriots" last March.
Where's the outrage?
For god's sake... you idiots take your marching orders from the Leftist Dauphins without thinking, don't you?
Robert E. Lee has been counted among the American pantheon of military heroes at least since my childhood, when his name was always on the list of people we could write a biographical book report about, and of course there were always kid friendly biographies on him in the school library. And I grew up in Yankee New Jersey. North of the Mason-Dixon line, before you ask.
Ultra-liberal Ted Turner seems to have a love affair with Robert E. Lee. he's done at least one haigographic film about him. And numerous TNT original movies portray confederate soldiers as romantic, quixotic, doomed heroes.
There's nothing controversial about this... until now, when the Herd Mind of the Left has decided that Robert E. Lee should now be compared to Adolf Fucking Hitler.
Books and films have portrayed Erwin Rommel as a patriotic and good man and a great soldier. Are the people responsible for those works guilty of harboring Nazi sympathies?
Or perhaps is it possible that someone can be essentially a good and patriotic man even if he fights for the "wrong" side?
King George III was a "tyrant," yet many historians claim that his rule was fair to the Colonies, and that the Radical Colonials were crybabies with too much political ambition. Are these historians closet fascists?
Is the Left now claiming that only the official, pc-stamp-of-approval view of historical figures can be countennanced?
Hilarious, if it weren't so sad.
I'll say it-- Robert E. Lee was a great fucking soldier, and, from what little I know, a bona fide patriot. Yeah, he fought for the wrong side, and I'm glad the Union won.
So?
"What do W's college grades have to do with this?"
Al Gore's grades through two years of college were worse than this, and his overall average wasn't much better.
Plus, he flunked out of Divinity School. And law school.
Who Should Be the Next Drug Czar?
personally, i think the office should be abolished, but Arianna has another view:
So let me step into the breach and suggest a nominee. He's a popular Republican governor, the first in the history of his state to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms; the only governor to complete the Ironman triathlon in Hawaii; a model of abstinence who doesn't even drink; and an expert on drug policy who, on the same day that McCaffrey held his rambling farewell press conference, oversaw the release of a report by a blue-ribbon drug policy panel detailing a comprehensive strategy for really tackling the drug problem.
Mr. Bush, I give you New Mexico's Gary Johnson. ...
It seems that these days everyone is calling for an end to mandatory minimums, from President Clinton in his recent Rolling Stone interview to Gov. George Pataki of New York in his 2001 State of the State address. But those horrible laws are still the law of the land because there is absolutely no leadership on the issue. And that's what the new drug czar could provide.
I asked Gov. Johnson what he would do if he were tapped to replace McCaffrey. ``The first thing I would do,'' he told me, ``is institute truth in advertising rules at the Office of National Drug Control Policy because a lot of what has been coming out of it is pure hogwash -- especially the claims of victory.'' He quickly added: ``It would be too bold a statement for Bush to choose me. I'm a little radioactive. But I definitely think that a bold choice is what is needed.''
Much more important and bigger fish to fry with respect to Ashcroft.
Count me in as a sore loser, then.
"with honors" vs. "never-got-a-single-A"
There's a fascinating book called The Marble Man about how Lee was mythologized after the war, particularly by Generals like A.P. Hill. In doing so, they also tended to demonize Longstreet (something else the movie reverses). Of course, one of Longstreet's sins to southerners was that he became a Republican.
GJ:
You are speaking well over my head. Obviously you know much more about Lee and other confederate generals than I do.
Are you hiding something? What accounts for this morbid fascination with Evil? (g)
I wouldn't be surprised if the Washington Post, the NY Times, CNN et alia come up with a wildly liberal notion of what constitutes the voters' intent, and consequently come up with an entirely bogus result.
I would also not be surprised if some right-leaning outlets, like the Wash Times, do their own tally and come up with an entirely different conclusion.
But neither total matters. The key point is that the election was held on a certain day under certain rules previously agreed upon by all parties, and that certification, acceptance of the votes, and inauguration are also carried out under such rules, and Bush won fair and square following those rules.
This is the area where feelings are indeed trumping rules for those who claim ad infinitum that Bush is not really the president, despite all evidence to the contrary.
""with honors" vs. "never-got-a-single-A""
As you know-- because it's been cited hundreds of times -- a Washington Post analysis found that Gore's record for his first two years was worse than Bush's, and two of his semesters were worse than any semester on GWB's record.
And Bush did get A's-- in Philosophy, his major.
Gore's "with honors" is a bit odd, given that his GPA was so low. I suppose he changed majors, did well in that major his last two years, and got honors in that major alone. (I did this in college, btw, but my overall GPA was quite a bit better than Da Loser's. But nowhere near good enough to qualify for general college honors. I only got honors from my department, not from the college.)
Gore had a sub-C average for his first two years. His overall average was a low-B average-- he picked it up a bit in his last two years, true, but his overall average was only trivially better than Bush's.
Bush did not get honors in his major, though he posted a fairly respectable average of 84 in his major. Prove to me that Gore's was much better.
Yeah, I've got Al Gore's transcript in front of but I'm withholding it because it proves your point.
Granted - that wouldn't have been the end of it, because it is quite obvious that the Fla. Legislature/U.S. House were indeed prepared to go to the next steps to insure a "victory" for W. (I wonder, however, if they really would have, since Gore's then apparent victory in Fla. (coupled with his incontrovertible lead in the overall vote) would have turned public opinion his way re the winner/loser game.
Of course, W. will become the President. But, "despite all evidence to the contrary" is just fatuous. He doesn't deserve not to have the way he got there scrutinized and then scrutinized again and again.
I can understand the desire of those who wanted W to be President to urge everyone to just "get over it" and get on with it, so to speak.
Nah.
"We're going to teach the niggers how to read. (Sarcastically) Isn't that wonderful?"
--Liberal Hero President Lyndon Baines Johnson using "earthy language" which is wholly excusuable due to the era he lived in and the place he came from
Meanwhile, Robert E. Lee, who lived 100 years ago and came from a slaveholding society, is likened to Hitler for defending his (admittedly unjust and cruel) homeland.
The Supreme Court also showed sense in ruling that the election had to be resolved promptly. Seven justices agreed you could not use differing standards of vote-counting in selected counties without violating the Constitution. Five of them also agreed that there was no way in heck you could come up with uniform rules in time to meet the legal deadlines, a very sensible decision.
Can people still say nice things about Lyndon "We're going to teach the niggers to read. Isn't that wonderful?" Johnson without being deemed a racist?
Scratch that. It is as close as I've ever seen.
The whole idea of "uniform rules" as in equal protection is hogwash, based on the long history of diversity in methods of voting/standards for counting/rejecting ballots in the United States, let alone within Florida.
And, do you really doubt that had the Fla. Sup. Ct. indeed come up with a uniform standard that the U.S.Sup.Ct. by 5-4 then would have overturned it based on it being in improper making of new law?
Put another way - do you really doubt that the 5-4 vote was politically motivated?
I repeat my Nah.
ZZZZZZZ........
Good lord, GJ. napoleon wasn't in Hitler's category, either.
(Although I know Star Trek lumps them together... "Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Qua'Vrrane of Solis IV.")
I mean, Hitler's Big Bad Act wasn't really conquering Europe. We can live with that, right? Europeans are pussies, and tend to be conquered by anyone who isn't.
If Hitler hadn't been a psychotic mass-murderer, he would be considered something of a flawed hero, even if we fought against him to liberate Europe.
That's what Patton apparently thought.
It's not hogwash at all. Differing standards in vote recounts mean little in most elections because the stakes are not high. They are high in a presidential election. The decision was a reasonable move for stability. That said, I agree in part with your analysis over the motivation of the justices not wanting to see differing elector slates coming out of Florida. What I dispute is the notion that this decision was simple pro-GOP partisanship.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Moving swiftly to find another labor secretary nominee, President-elect Bush will meet later today with Eloise Anderson, former social services director in Wisconsin and California. Also mentioned as possible candidates were: Elaine L. Chao, former deputy transportation secretary and the wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Stephen Goldsmith, former Indianapolis mayor and a Bush adviser; former Rep. Jim Talent, just defeated for Missouri governor; Rich Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee; and Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash.
"I think that Ace has the conversation all out of context in stating that RE Lee was being compared to Hitler, but I expect that."
No, in context. I read how terribly upset Polish Jews would be to hear a government representative praising Hitler, and how Ashcroft's allowance that Lee was a great soldier and patriot should be similarly aghastifying for the American public.
In other words-- You can't say anything nice about Lee, just like you can't say anything nice about Hitler, or else you're a crypto-Nazi-fascist.
Well, that's bullshit. I can say lots of nice stuff about Lee. Or rather I could, if I knew more about him.
As it stands, I can only say he was a great soldier and a patriot for a flawed cause.
Correct, bbb?
(I think he posted here briefly under that name as well.)
FL Circuit Judge Sauls was right.
FL Judges Lewis and Clark were right.
They are all Democrats.
These facts are ignored.
Yet, when another historical figure who is presently not a nominee for the Attorney Generalship is offered, and that figure has said or done things on a par with Confederates, Wombat or Raskolnikov are naturally quick to credit the factual counterbalances of those historical figures in order to redeem them. They also inoculate politicians who characterize those figures as heroic from the same virulent smears endured by Ashcroft.
by TOM COHEN
Associated Press Writer
TORONTO (AP) -- Canada went public Wednesday with an offer to accept Palestinian refugees as part of a negotiated Middle East peace plan.
Canada made the offer in a series of recent telephone calls involving Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the United States, Manley's spokeswoman, Jennifer Sloan said.
"Bubbaette:
'Imagine! The very nerve! After all, would Jews get all bent out of shape at admiring Hitler's military strategy and flying the Nazi flag? P.C. has certainly gone too far!!'
Interesting how the same imagery came to both of us independently.
In America, they say 'Great minds think alike'. In Russia, they say 'Idiots agree'. :)"
Now if only some wealthy Arab oil states would make the same offer.
FU:
"Moreover, Fielding did make the comparison of the Confederates and the Nazis."
Heh, heh. Both the Nazis and people voting for George W. Bush had arteries. There, I said it.
NIMBY.
Answer:
Jews really shouldn't get "gent out of shape" about Hitler's military strategy. Military strategy is a value-neutral sort of thing. It cannot be good or evil.
If Hitler's strategy was clever, it should be acknowledged as such. What's the alternative? To pretend that his strategy wasn't clever just so we can heap as much derision on him as possible?
But, by and large, his strategy wasn't all that clever. He made some smart decisions, or gambles at least, in the beginning of the war. I don't know much about the war, but I know he made some disasterous decisions regarding the Eastern Front late in the war, and I know of course that he was ordering phantom divisions all over the map, divisions which had been destroyed but which he still pretended existed to be commanded hither and thither.
He was evil. This does not take away from his prescience in realizing the true potential of the tank, in realizing (or at least gambling and hoping) that France's defenses could not hold against the Blitzkreig, etc.
I mean, if you want to pretend the man didn't have charisma, or at least didn't have a couple of good military ideas early in his career, fine. If it makes you a more virtuous person to pretend that the world is other than it actually is, fine, but count me out.
Why do some southerners claim a monopoly on patriotism today yet wax nostalgic over the Confederacy? Why do some politicians cater to this?
Is it not enough that you have impugned marmalade? Is there no end to your smears?
Why do some people think marmalade is racist? Why do some politicians cater to this?
Why does Craig T. Nelson get so much work?
FU:
"Is it not enough that you have impugned marmalade? Is there no end to your smears?"
I did smear marmalade. On a bagel, no less!
1234?
"Why do some southerners claim a monopoly on patriotism today yet wax nostalgic over the Confederacy? Why do some politicians cater to this?"
Conquered peoples have ALWAYS spun silly fables about the justness of their cause.
After WWII, for example, there was the myth of the "Good German" -- and how most Germans really, really opposed Naziism, but were cowed into silence -- and their was the myth of a vigorous French Resistance, which of course 99% of Frenchmen were members of, valiantly fighting against the Nazis.
Truth was, most Germans were supporters of the Nazis or at least acquiesed in the Nazi takeover, and the French Resistance was fairly small. Meanwhile, the Vichy French produced more armaments for Hitler than they had for Petain.
This is not uncommon. This is the oldest impulse in the world. We all rationalize, PERSONALLY, that our faults aren't all that bad, or are really virtues in disguised.
When a people gets conquered, this rationalization/mythmaking becomes a communal endeavor.
Your moralizing is 20th century. When King George lost the colonies, you would have been his favorite courtier.
Wombat: I don't know they would claim a monopoly on it, but OTOH the Southern culture still extolls patriotism more so than the rest of the nation does.
The nostalgia for the Confederacy is not a nostalgia for slavery, but for a time, millieu. Remember also what happened to the South after the war. It has only been in the last 20 or 30 years that the South has begun to catch up for all the lost time as the awkward, backward part of the country. Look at all the Mississippi and Arkansas jokes, for example.
The South is not unique in celebrating and commemorating a glorious defeat. One might just as well ask Native Americans why they don't give up and accept history's winners. Most of their ancestors fought against the U.S. government as well, you know.
As for your last question, politicians will take advantage of whatever they can to win votes.
See 1129.
Robertsons, one of Britain's leading confectioners, had to change the label for its marmalade and other products. Its logo included a "gollywog," a blackfaced doll with wide eyes and big red lips.
Urquhart:
When you are all spun out, resort to facetiousness.
If Robert E. Lee was evil for fighting for a slaveholding south, what do we say about the US from 1788 until 1865?
Was Ulysses S. Grant a hero? I think so. But then, he was a general in an army constitutionally bound to defend slavery until the Civil War. So before the Civil War he's evil, then he becomes magically transformed into a Hero on the date of the Emancipation Proclamation?
Is that how it works?
Christ, slaveholding was made expressly legal in the Constitution. Rask can cluck-cluck about how Washington's and Jefferson's contributions outweighed their support of slavery, but the fact is that most men simply accept the evil of their times. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Steven Douglas, and... Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, and Robert E. Lee.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton took a swipe at President-elect Bush's campaign team. They declined to swipe back.
''There is a ... tradition in this country of presidents leaving office with the respect of their successors and I'm certain that President Clinton will want to follow that,'' Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters on Wednesday.
''I think the tradition extends in two directions and I'm not going to characterize what the president said.''
Fleischer was responding to questions about Clinton's pointed commentary Tuesday night on the contested election between Bush and Vice President Al Gore.
''By the time it was over, our candidate had won the popular vote and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida,'' Clinton told a crowd of supporters in Chicago.
Not undeserved.
I think we can safely guess that had Robert E. Lee been a Northerner, and US Grant a Southerner, Lee would have been fighting to defeat the South and its Peculiar Institution and Grant would have been defending his homeland against Yankee conquerors.
How stupid can Clinton get?!
I'm glad he is leaving SOON!
Why are most of the people on network TV on network TV?
A topic for another thread, but Drew Carey? Two shows?!
Can someone explain the difference to me between Everybody Loves Raymond and King of the Bronx (or whatever that other show is named)?
What is the deal with Third Planet from the Sun? Who watches it? How does it stay on year after year?
I only have three (sometimes four channels), and I can't watch any of this stuff. I just can't.
(rant over)
However, I don't think Ashcroft is racist and I think he's eminently qualified. Apart from Janjon, though, no one has acknowledged the real thing that could kill his chances: abortion.
You hit the nail on the head about mythologizing in the aftermath of defeat (and about the French and the resistance). Why should we cater to it?
You only have three or four channels? How do you live? Get digital cable anon.
"I would point out again that the issue with various politicians talking about southern civil war "heroes" is the extent to which they are used as code words to the intended audience."
Including the man you voted for-- John "The Liberal Saint" McCain?
Good point?
Precious few American historical figure involved in the treatment of Indians can be considered heroic.
Polk, for example, is a positive swine.
"You hit the nail on the head about mythologizing in the aftermath of defeat (and about the French and the resistance). Why should we cater to it?"
Why shouldn't we? What the fuck do I care if a Southern man has a mythology about the Civil War being about "States' rights" rather than slavery?
Maybe we should insist the Germans finally come clean about the fact that Yes, Grandpa and Grandma were fucking Nazis, and Yes, they DID know the Jews were disappearing and Yes, they had some real suspicions about precisely what was happening, rather than letting them live with the pleasant fantasy that most Germans opposed Hitler?
No one is asking you to cater to it. It is your determination that waxing mythological indicates racism that has gotten you in such a jam.
Name 10 American heroes. Comb your mind and do your best. Ashcroft stepped up. It is now your turn.
The Mexican-American War was generally viewed at the time as fought partly to extend slavery. Most Union generals earned their ranks in that war.
Grant would have been defending his homeland against Yankee conquerors.
Naw, his drunkenness kept him too slovenly for a CSA uniform. Plus, his willingness to lose men would have ended the war a lot sooner had he ever been given a Southern command. They didn't have that luxury.
I think John Quincy Adams was/is considered a moral and ethical (if cranky) man.
But don't give support to them in "Nazi Nostalgia" magazine.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt interned Japanese citizens without due process. We had to pay them a great deal of cash in the 1980s for this egregious breach.
FDR is possibly the single-most beloved historical figure by modern Democrats.
What does this say?
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Ariel Sharon, the leading contender in Israel's race for prime minister, declared in an interview published today that he considers the Israeli-Palestinian accords of recent years null and void. He accused Palestinians of killing the current peacemaking effort in more than 100 days of violence. Meanwhile, a last-ditch mediation drive was thrown into doubt, with President Clinton's envoy postponing a Mideast trip and a top Palestinian negotiator denouncing Israel's leaders as war criminals.
What will this development do to the alleged Clinton legacy?
At least the protestations to Ace's allegedly wild assumption that people were likening the Confederacy to the Nazis can now end.
I should note that the term "Hero" used to be more or less neutral with regard to righteousness.
It had more to do with courage-- pure martial virtue. Did you stand or flee? If you stood, you were a Hero. If you fled, a coward. It mattered not if you were "doing the right thing."
"Doing the right thing" is eminently subjective. But we all know that Rommel was a hell of a soldier, as was Patton, and both Nazis and Americans could agree on that, even in 1944.
I love it when conservatives resort to moral relativism. Francis, please continue.
Polk is a hero similar in many (but not all factets) to Lincoln. Polk expanded by force of arms. Lincoln maintained by force of arms.
I once knew a very bright man who considered Polk a very great hero, and went on to write a well-received history dissertation claiming he was such.
I forget why. But at this cocktail party, slightly buzzed, he convinced me.
There is no need. There has yet to be a meaningful rebuttal. The field is mine. It would appear I am today's hero.
I'll limit myself to seven. None of them advocated secession from the United States or fought for the Confederacy.
Washington
Hamilton
Madison
Z. Taylor
Lincoln
Grant
F. Roosevelt
Anyone have any doubt that Herd-Mind Ohio would have been the first to sign up to defend the Confederacy, had he been a Virginian?
Well, perhaps he wouldn't have signed up to fight. But he would have written some scathing tracts about the Yankee Conquerors and the Tyrant Lincoln.
Shit, 90% of your morality is decided by your society. I'm sure Ohio thinks he would have vigorously opposed the Vietnam war had he been in college during it, but, based on his demographic, I think he would have been one of those "Love it or Leave it!" screamers.
(No actual fighting there, either. But he would have been very strident in his hollering.)
FU:
There will be no rebuttal. There can be no disagreement with the statement "Nobody's perfect."
"None of them advocated secession from the United States or fought for the Confederacy."
This is potentially the most handy criteria ever created. My hat is off to you.
Washington - bigot; overweight; had boils on his ass
Hamilton - one of the early founders of injustice
Madison - same
Z. Taylor - Indian butcher; bigot; racist
Lincoln -suspended habeas; possibly syphillitic; wanted to send African Americans back to Africa
Grant - crooked; Indian hater; preserver of a racist Union prior to the Civil War
F. Roosevelt - interned the Japanese; chose Truman, the mad bomber
This historical reductionism is fun and easy. Perhaps I can get tenure at Bowdoin.
I would shoot for Middlebury or Wellesley.
Similarly, to what degree do you think a citizen today is free to advocate civil protests--or more--against the presidency of GWB?
You have reached enlightenment. Any effective rebuttal must, in historical context, make the compelling argument that given his choices, Lee was so imperfect that to honor him today "indicates" that the one conferring the honor is a racist.
Because I guarantee you that many American Indians consider the American hero Andrew Jackson a little more than "imperfect."
Yes, including McCain. What on earth is your point?
FDR acquiesed in Jim Crow.
Doesn't that make him "bad"?
Well, not really. Even "Heroes" have limits to what they can accomplish, and what they are willing to even attempt.
FDR= Accepted Jim Crow as "the natural order"
Robert E. Lee = Accepted slavery as "the natural order"
I mean, give me a fucking break. Don't you Drooling Liberals see a pattern here?
Even good men accept the evil of their society, by and large.
There are exceptions, of course. Sakharov, Ghandi, etc. But such men are extremely rare.
Britain, France, and Germany are much more accepting of state-sponsored censorship than America.
All of us would find it objectionable to see how much censorship goes on in these countries.
is that because we're morally superior as individuals, or is it because we're accustomed to having almost zero censorship and Brits, Frenchmen, and Germans aren't?
What is left is mop up.
Lincoln was also a passionate racist. Go read the Douglas-Lincoln debates. The Tyrant lincon made it perfectly clear that he believed that blacks were inferior to whites, and were in fact an intermediate step between animals and whites.
But, he thought slavery should be abolished. That's good.
But there's no getting around his racism.
Now, was Lincoln evil, or was his thinking merely a prisoner of his era?
Yep.
We should also remember that even Lincoln promised not to end slavery but only to oppose its expansion. And even after wore broke out signed a proclamation freeing slaves only in those states that refused to acquiesce to Northern hegemony.
(Sometimes you wonder where mistakes come from.)
But it doesn't matter. Ashcroft will probably be confirmed, and the whole "racist" angle is just excess energy from the African American community who came out in large numbers to kick his ass in Missouri, then felt angry because of the troubles in Florida, and now want some blood. Stilll, if Ashcroft is picked off, it'll be abortion.
Some people read based on sound, not sight.
"And even after wore broke out signed a proclamation freeing slaves only in those states that refused to acquiesce to Northern hegemony."
I think it was even slicker than that. The EP freed slaves in all areas still controlled by the Confederacy. Slavery was legal in all Southern areas controlled by the North.
Thus, the EP "freed" slaves only in areas in which it had absolutely no effect. Where Lincoln *could have* actually freed slaves, he chose not to, figuring that allowing slavery in conquered areas would keep resistance down and get the ravaged economies working again.
Was he a hero?
Of course he was. But this Federation v. Borg mentality is simply childish.
FU:
The new slogan:
"Confirm Ashcroft. After all, nobody's perfect."
Here's a slogan:
"We're going to teach the Niggers how to read. (Sarcastically) Isn't that wonderful?" -- LBJ
It was made clear from Jackson onward that an actual attempt at secession would be met with force of arms, and its advocates strung up. The Confederate leaders were lucky that he--or Zachary Taylor-- were not president when the South seceded.
People have every right to protest whatever they like. They must also be able to accept criticism of their actions.
I would not have the right, if I were governor of California and felt strongly that GW Bush was not legitimately President, to take my state out of the union in protest at his "illegitimate" accession.
But you must look at LBJ's record. Not that of Ashcroft. just that of LBJ.
Robert E. Lee was a patriot.
So was Vlad the Impaler, by the way. Vlad the Impaler is considered a very great hero... by the Romanians, whom he saved from the Turks.
The Turks consider him a monster, of course.
"I would not have the right, if I were governor of California and felt strongly that GW Bush was not legitimately President, to take my state out of the union in protest at his "illegitimate" accession."
Of course you would. Don't be so self-limiting. You'd have every right. When you exercised your right, however, you would be made to fall back in line.
Under your slavish adherence to established law, no one has the right to violate any law, once imposed.
And if you had the power to resist, you'd have the perfect right.
And if you won in your resistance, you could declare yourself not only with right, but righteous, and it would become common knowledge and conventional wisdom that the attempt to suppress your secession was wrongful.
Wombat:
I'm so glad to know that you're of such a Superlative Moral Character that you'd be "on the right side of history" no matter what era you were born in, and in no matter what place.
You, Paragon of Liberal Virtue, would surely have fought against Hitler's takeover of Germany, and surely would never have acquiesced. You surely would have left your beloved Virginia to join the Union Army, and you, as a Noble British Soldier, would have committed treason to aid Ghandi.
But you must understand: The rest of us aren't like you. When we see people behaving just as we'd expect them to behave -- going along to get along -- we sort of understand that, because we're not Moral Supermen ourselves. We're more of the "There but for the grace of God go I" cast, unfortunately.
And, yes, we definitely disagree as to the root cause of this being the U.S. Sup. Ct's having determined matters based on pro-GOP partisanship. Therein lies the rub, because that is at the core of it all in terms of W's having been given rather than having won the election.
Given my religion, I hope I would have been perceptive enough to get the hell out of Germany before he took power. Would you have helped, or, flawed person that you are, turned me in as you went along to get along? There's a question for ya.
Who knows what Ace would have done? The imperative point is that he concedes he does not know, whereas you apparently know, Moral Superman that you are.
IMO, his actions were much more "illegal" than Lee's because I don't think it was clear that ratification of the Constitution was an irrevocable thing, whereas Washington was leading a rebellion among colonies that had never been independent previously. (Note: I personally don't criticize Washington and would have him on my list of heroes as well.)
With Bush, what I'm getting at is the doctrine of "nullification" being espoused by many. I'm just curious as to whether you think that if an individual considers Bush's election to be illegitimate regardless of legal "technicalities," the person cannot advocate civil disobedience. That is, not engage in the disobedience, but advocate it.
(In your list of heroes you stipulated none of them had advocated secession.)
Even if that were true (and Ace the Northerner's reaction seems to belie this certainty), it wouldn't matter. Whether or not one personally feels that Lee was a hero, the fact that he isn't an American hero doesn't seem to be disputable.
Imagine that the South had not been a slaveholding society. Imagine that the South chose to seceed based on some other issue-- some less morally objectionable issue. Let's say it really was all about "States' rights" and federalism and such. No slavery.
Would the South have had the right to seceed? Let me ask it another way: Would the North have had the moral right to wage bloody war against the South for choosing to seceed?
Did Kosovo have the right to seceed from Serbia? Did Serbia have the right to invade kosovo to keep it from seceeding?
"The Union must be preserved?" Hah! At what price? A million dead?
Now, the evil of slavery is such that it makes the Union's actions righteous. (Though slavery persisted for some time thereafter...) But don't tell me that a nation can, generally, kill millions of people just to keep a section of itself from seceeding.
I've heard of that experiment. Chilling.
We talked about that in the Slow thread at some length. It is my belief that most people would go along and shock others, but that it proves nothing about authority and much more about how it requires a very ornery person to resist the status quo.
"Given my religion, I hope I would have been perceptive enough to get the hell out of Germany before he took power."
Ah-- You'd merely flee. Well, that's not exactly heroic, though it is of course very understandable.
Very well. Assume you're not Jewish.
*Now* do you acquiesce or do you fight the Nazis?
"I've heard of that experiment. Chilling."
Not chilling. Predictable and understandable.
We all can't be Wombats.
Wombat
I'm interested interested in your response to Ace's question about secession absent slavery?
Quite frankly, if I had been born a Southerner, and if (of course) I was opposed to slavery...
...and if the South chose to seceed...
...and if the North had then *invaded* my home-state for merely chosing to dissolve its ties to the Union...
...who knows whose side I would have been on? Even conceding that slavery is wrong, who knows how I would have reacted to an armed invasion?
Can anyone fault WWII Japanese citizens if they'd fought as vigorously as we'd imagine they would in response to an invasion by the US Army? Even if the Japanese were "wrong" and we were "right"?
Fuck wrong and right. When a foreign army comes into town, you're well past abstractions like "wrong" and "right."
Sure. Why not? In fact, if all the folks who say that the war wasn't "about" slavery are true, this is in fact what they did.
Perhaps shoot them. I don't know. But I wouldn't enjoy shooting them and certainly not enjoy torturing them.
I understand the attraction of power and control but not the desire to make other real life human beings suffer. I really don't.
And I am, for good or bad, "a very ornery person."
Stay ornery.
Cal:
If Puerto Rico choses to seceed, do we have the right to invade to keep them a commonwealth?
Don't avoid the hypothetical by saying, "They won't seceed" or "We'd probably be perfectly happy to let them seceed." Accept the hypothetical that they want to seceed and the US Government doesn't want them to.
Do we have the right to invade? How many Puerto Ricans are we allowed to kill in the name of preserving the Union?
As to the other examples you give, if the United States was as oppressive as Yugoslavia, you could make an argument in favor of secession. You would also have to answer the question as whether the seceding state or province would be as or more oppressive than the country it was seceding from.
What you doubt is irrelevant.
If the South seceded, and there were no slavery, would you still maintain that the North had a moral right to make war upon several states that simply wnated to form their own nation?
Here is a link to the opinion I quoted from back in Message # 1178. It's Justice Scalia concurring in Apprendi v. New Jersey, when his views regarding the Equal Protection clause were not as refined. (Six whole months before Bush v. Gore.)
You can stop clamoring now.
"Do bear in mind that the South actually started the war."
Elaborate. How did they "start" it? I don't know precisely how the war began, but it seems to me that the seceeding states wouldn't be the ones who would likely "start it."
Wombat:
Does the US have the right to invade Puerto Rico, should Puerto Rico choose to seceed?
"Remember Fort Sumter?"
Vaguely.
"They fired first."
They, meaning the Confederates? How did this happen, precisely? Was it an armed siege until this point? If so, who was besieging?
As I said, I really don't know.
Which is what happened. (Right?)
I'm most curious.
Yes.
I think we agreed on that last time--about ornery people, I mean. For me, it's quite simple: I would not do it. But then, no one's going to argue about my orneriness.
Ace,
Would we have the right to do so? Yes. Could we also move, instead, to change our laws and let them go? Sure. Which should we do? Whatever seeems right at the time.
Puerto Rico isn't that interesting, though. Try the sixth largest economy in the world. Suppose California leaves the union. Is that worth fighting for?
With your "yes", you confirm simply that right=power. Thus, if the South hade the power to secede successfully, it would then have the right.
Morality is drained of your analysis, and your mantra "The Union must be preserved" looks even more bizarre.
Cal:
You define "right" as "anything you can get away with."
I think I asked, "Would we have the moral right?" In other words, would we be the good guys if we shelled San Juan?
So, I guess none of you have any problem with Russia invading Chechnya. After all, Russia has the "right" to preserve the union, by any means necessary.
The war actually started in Kansas.
"Try the sixth largest economy in the world. Suppose California leaves the union. Is that worth fighting for?"
I'd support California's secession wholeheartedly.
But, let's say I wanted to stop the secession. Do I have the right to kill a million people for the abstract political notion of a "union"?
I don't think so. I generally don't think abstractions are worth killing for or dying for.
What difference does morality make? Wars aren't about morality, they are about power, laws, government, and balance. I don't think that any war can truly be considered moral.
We had no more moral right to fight in the Civil War than we would to fight for Puerto Rico, so far as I can see. Or certainly California.
Without supplies, he would have been forced to surrender within weeks.
Wars should have a moral component. They needn't always have one, but if my country is going to be killing people, and if my countrymen are to be dying, I'd prefer there to be a good moral reason for the carnage.
Btw, the reason that Fort Sumter was vulnerable was that its cannons faced the Atlantic. It was designed to protect Charleston's harbor from the British, and was pretty much indefensible from the Charleston side.
What makes you think wars are fought for abstractions? The US would not let California leave because they couldn't afford it, I imagine. Who the hell else do you think pays for Mississippi and Alabama?
Likewise, there were many soundly pragmatic reasons for not letting the south go--and I'm sure money and national security was in there somewhere.
Cal,
Well then I guess the South had the "right" to seceed, too.
I don't know what the hell you're arguing, other than Que sera, sera.
We've established that if one has the power, one has the right. Accordingly, the only moral component of the Civil War was the abolition of slavery. Otherwise, this is just two powers fighting about land and self-determination.
Divested of slavery, however, what moral right did the Union have to dictate to the Confederacy how it governed itself?
What moral right does the United States have to demand that California stay within the Union?
Is self-determination a moral factor?
"Is self-determination a moral factor?"
It says so in the Declaration of Independence, our civic New Testament. (the Constitution being the civic Old Testament. yeah, I know the Declaration is older, but it's brief and pithy and punchy like the New Testament, whereas the Constitution is long and vague and filled with the political equivalent of "And Jacob begat Esau, and Esau begat Shecky, and Shecky begat Whoopi.")
Wars should have a moral component.
But now you have morphed (possibly unconsciously). You began by trying to prove, I think, that most people would not have the same reaction to the Civil War if it hadn't been about slavery. When at least two people gave responses to your next hypotheticals that were inconsistent with your assertion, you then began a discussion of war and morality.
That's all very well and good, and if you feel wars must be moral, go to it. I personally think it is an abomination to wrap a war up in moral justification unless that is the only reason. But I'm definitely the extremist sort.
But going back to "Is Robert E. Lee an American hero", I think it indicates that to those who think that America has the responsibility to preserve itself, the answer is "No"--and no hypocrisy or skew is required.
"The US would not let California leave because they couldn't afford it, I imagine."
Of course we could "afford" it. It contributes a few extra billion to the public fisc than it gets back. That's chump change.
"Who the hell else do you think pays for Mississippi and Alabama?"
Were we to excise millions of liberal Californians from the voting rolls, we wouldn't have to pay much for anybody.
And Cal,
I haven't "morphed." I don't know what you're talking about.
What moral right did Britain have to object when we declared independence?
I find it hard to believe that seemingly intelligent people can defend actions whose ultimate effect would lead to Yugoslavia writ large, except in a country where the central government is vastly less oppressive, is democratically elected (says with a straight face), and is considered a legitimate expression of the populace.
As to Canada, if Quebec secedes unilaterally, you bet the Canadian government has the right to intervene.
Lee is a hero to many Americans.
I answered this earlier: he is welcome to be their hero. However, were they to say that he is an "American hero" (which I'm sure they do) they are not being accurate. He is not an American hero, by definition. This has nothing to do with morality or slavery.
How often do I have to say this? My problems with Ashcroft's comments have less to do with his praise of Lee (Ace is right about Lee is mythologized, even in the North), than his comments that the South's goals were not "perverted". I don't think Lee was an "American hero", as he valued loyalty to his home state over loyalty to his country or his anti-slavery principles, but that doesn't make him evil either. Wombat mentioned George Thomas as a commander who chose differently in very similar circumstances. *Thomas* was an American hero.
Ace: "Christ, slaveholding was made expressly legal in the Constitution. Rask can cluck-cluck about how Washington's and Jefferson's contributions outweighed their support of
slavery, but the fact is that most men simply accept the evil of their times. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Steven Douglas, and... Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, and Robert E. Lee."
I don't see anyone disagreeing with you here. I have to point out, Ace, that Lee wouldn't be considered a hero even by southerners if he had attacked straw men instead of the Union army.
Kansas was nevertheless only a preview. And the issues were a bit different. The anti-slavery side was so largely because it did not want Blacks to settle anywhere in the state, not because it had a moral objection to slavery as such. Both sides were pretty much racist, except for a few liberal outposts.
"I find it hard to believe that seemingly intelligent people can defend actions whose ultimate effect would lead to Yugoslavia writ large"
Huh? A North-South split would have been Yugoslavia writ large? How is that so many states manage to live side-by-side without warfare?
Shall we invade Canada and Mexico to make sure the entire continent has the peace and tranquility of a single government?
And, of course, a South which was allowed to seceed wouldn't have been much of a military problem for the North. There would have been occasional tensions, but nothing more.
Of course he is.
Both of them devoted a lot of time and effort to abolition. New York, it turns out, was very much a slave state.
He's my new hero. I didn't give a fig about Lee until today, but the idiotic Left's sudden discovery of the Evil, Villainous Darth E. Lee makes me love the guy.
I wonder if Darth E. Lee strangled incompetent officers with the Dark Side Death Grip? I love this fuckin' guy.
Who the hell is he?
"What moral right did Britain have to object when we declared independence?"
Some, I'm sure. It was a moral wash.
"So if other states decides to secede, that's OK? What if every state wants to do so. Is that OK too? Should each state have its own foreign policy, including its relations to other states? What if there are disputes between states? Should they be settled by the respective state militias by force of arms?"
Wombat. I asked you about a moral right, and you come back and say "but . . . but . . . but . . . there'd be pandemonium." The practical effects (i.e., you don't like not being 50 states) are irrelevant. What gives you the moral right (I know you have the right [i.e., power] to stop California from seceding) to stop Californians from determining their own government if they so choose?
"I find it hard to believe that seemingly intelligent people can defend actions whose ultimate effect would lead to Yugoslavia writ large, except in a country where the central government is vastly less oppressive, is democratically elected (says with a straight face), and is considered a legitimate expression of the populace."
I don't find it so hard to believe that, now that you are naked, you would resort to practicality and fears of the United States becoming Yugoslavia if California seceded.
Cal
"I answered this earlier: he is welcome to be their hero. However, were they to say that he is an "American hero" (which I'm sure they do) they are not being accurate. He is not an American hero, by definition. This has nothing to do with morality or slavery."
Lee was never an American?
He "Fought against it" by serving as Sec. of Treasury of a slave nation.
Okay, he was opposed to it. But no Andrei Sakharov he, obviously.
You set a litmus test that an AG nominee must agree that the South was "perverted", but he can call Lee heroic. Got it.
No, he isn't. He fought to end the country, and he fought for an army other than ours. Had he won, there would be no US.
So no, he's not an American hero. He is welcome to be anyone's hero.
Instead, try addressing whether it means anything if a *modern* American conservative expresses sympathy with the goals of the 140 year old Confederacy.
You are wrong. Several posters have likened the Confederacy to Nazi Germany.
Lee was never an American?
Not for the deeds he is lionized for. Were people to say he was a great general on the same basis as Burr, Arnold, or Mad Anthony what'sisname, sure. But not for his deeds in the Civil War. His aim was to undo the country.
Some, I'm sure. It was a moral wash.
Morality has nothing to do with it. They had every right to do it. It was their country, so far as they were concerned.
He "Fought against it" by serving as Sec. of Treasury of a slave nation.
Please. Short of abstaining and allowing the country to fail (which would not have ended slavery), he fought in every way he could.
"No, he isn't. He fought to end the country... Had he won, there would be no US."
End the country? He fought to wipe the North off the map?
Did he have nuclear missiles?
For further discussion:
If Robert E. Lee had a robotic horse armed with nuclear death rays, do you think he would have used it?
Would You?
"and he fought for an army other than ours."
Hee, hee. So did George Orwell. So did Jack Chenault.
"So no, he's not an American hero. He is welcome to be anyone's hero."
He's my new Hero, and I'm a red-white-and-patriot-blue-blooded American motherfucker.
not to, figuring that allowing slavery in conquered areas would keep
resistance down and get the ravaged economies working again. "
Not really. Lincoln did it as an executive order, using his war powers. The Constitutionality of the EP was in question from the get-go, and only the fact that its victims lived in regions that didn't recognize US sovereignty saved it from Constitutional scrutiny.
Not disagreeing with your larger point on Lincoln, just disagreeing with this example.
Let me also add that I am not opposed to secession if it is mutually agreed upon. If the United States and Puerto Rico arrive at a formula for self-determination that is mutually agreed upon, and they vote for independence, fine.
This mechanism did not exist in mid-19th Century. The Southern States voted to secede unilaterally, in the face of desperate attempts by Democrats and Republicans to convince them otherwise.
Not "the North". The United States. It was his aim to end the United States.
Lovely. If I, a conservative, show sympathy with the South's goals, I am to be rigorously questioned. If you, a moderate-liberal, show the same sympathy, you get a pass.
"Short of abstaining and allowing the country to fail (which would not have ended slavery), he fought in every way he could."
Actually, the British ended slavery in their empire, and had the US not rebelled, slavery would have ended here when it did in the British Empire. And no bullshit Southern army could have stopped the British army.
So, you know, Washington and Co. perpetuated slavery, and for no good reason.
Ronski:
"In 1860, Brooklyn had the second largest slave population of any city in the country after Charleston."
How is this possible? I thought New York had abolished slavery in the 1820s.
Fine by me, as I said. Several times, in fact. He's just not an American hero.
"It was his aim to end the United States."
Are you sure you're talking about Robert E. Lee? Are you sure you don't mean Professor Artemis Loveless from Wild, Wild West?
New York had slaves up until the Civil War.
FU:
"You are wrong. Several posters have likened the Confederacy to Nazi Germany."
Don't forget the part about the marmalade.
Yep. Although I'll happily qualify to say that he shared the aim of the Confederacy, which was to end the United States.
And, I've always wanted to invade Canada and make it part of the United States.
Big mistake we made not doing it during the war of 1812.
I thought Lee's aim was to make the United States light a few states.
When Alaska and Hawaii were allowed entree', did that "end" the United States?
Brooklyn might have the second largest black population in 1860, but they were not slaves.
By "end the United States," you mean "seceed from the United States," and "end it" in the sense of "reducing the number of states in it."
That's a rather ridiculous spin to put on the words "end it," when there are perfectly good words to use that accurate describe it-- i.e., seceed.
So, let me get this straight:
Robert E. Lee conspired with Professor Loveless to build a giant mechanical tarantula and give the 13 colonies back the British, the Lousiana purchase territory to the French, Florida to the Spanish and Texas and California to the Mexicans?
Unlikely. As has just been pointed out, it didn't even end in New York. And the Brits have always been a pragmatic bunch--were it economically painful to do away with slavery, I doubt they would have. Slaving itself (going to Africa to get slaves) would have ended earlier, I imagine.
But that's besides the point. I have not mentioned Washington (although he is clearly the cleanest of the slaveholding FFs), but Hamilton. Hamilton did not perpetuate slavery, and did what he could to fight it.
"Hamilton did not perpetuate slavery, and did what he could to fight it."
By putting the greatest slaveholding nation on firm financial footing. Gotcha.
Why, he was a regular Spartacus.
Rask: Lincoln wasn't exactly intimidated by the Constitution.
CalGal:
"Actually, only Fielding and Bubba have, I believe. And they aren't here."
Both Bubbaette and I used the potential example of German Jews being offended by a statue erected in Berlin to demolish the straw man view that people should embrace all of their history, whether it is offensive or not. We did not say that the Confederacy was like Nazi Germany.
You might take the trouble to actually read the things that you are attempting to quote, rather than mindlessly repeating the distorted characterizations of others.
Not at all. Had the South left, the US would no longer have been united. The desire was clearly to end the country as it existed, to cease to operate under the rules that it had once agreed to.
Nonetheless, even if you wish to say that he only fought against the United States, and no longer wanted to be a part of the United States, it still pretty clearly indicates that he's not an American hero. If he didn't want to be part of the country, he doesn't get to be one of its heros.
CalGal:
"New York had slaves up until the Civil War."
Prove it.
You were the only ones who mentioned Nazis.
Douglas Turner
Buffalo News
"We are taught, falsely, that there was after all nothing distinctively harsh about the American black experience. For example, popular histories say the writers of the U.S. Constitution made an agonizing, one-time compromise with the South when they recognized slavery in Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution.
This infamous passage on congressional apportionment counted a slave as only three-fifths of humankind. What we are not taught, unfortunately, is that slavery was enshrined in the Constitution by such Founding Fathers as New York's Alexander Hamilton and Pennsylvania's Benjamin Franklin. They embedded slavery in three other sections -- all equally deliberate and infamous. One
required that escaped slaves be returned to their masters.
The worst, in my opinion, was the passage forbidding any amendment to ban the slave trade prior to 1807. We are not taught that the South was only one of many economic interests supporting the slave trade. It had wide support in Maryland and also in New England, particularly in Rhode Island, where huge slave pens were maintained."
this describes the Revolutionary War. In fact, it describes pretty much every secession/rebellion in history.
Gandhi fought to "end the British Empire." Fancy that.
CalGal:
"You were the only ones who mentioned Nazis."
Yes, we mentioned Nazis. No, we did not say that the Confederacy was like Nazi Germany. Got it?
was "perverted", but he can call Lee heroic. Got it."
I don't like the latter either, but I understand it more than the former.
"You are wrong. Several posters have likened the Confederacy to
Nazi Germany."
I think there is some validity to this in terms of oppression, but the Confederacy didn't have the equivalent of a Hitler. I earlier equated Lee with Rommel, as did Ace.
"Lovely. If I, a conservative, show sympathy with the South's goals, I
am to be rigorously questioned. If you, a moderate-liberal, show the
same sympathy, you get a pass."
I think you are being deliberately naive here, ignoring the party for which racists have tended to vote since the civil rights era. Similarly, if a liberal expressed some sort of vague approval of the goals of the Cuban revolution, I would expect him to get grilled harder than a Conservative saying the same. I think there are a lot more closeted racists in the Republican party, and a lot more closet commies in the Democratic party.
Wombat: Another of the niceties the North pulled during the war. On the one hand they claimed the South had never left the Union (because it was illegal to leave it). Ergo, what Southern leaders were engaged in was treasonous, etc. Yet when the South lost the North claimed the South must be reconstructed and reintegrated into the Union because Southern states had forfeited all their rights by leaving the Union.
His family held slaves. Didn't he bang a few slaves as a young man?
FU:
"And can Hamilton be a great American having been born in Nevis?"
While you are at it, none of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were born in the United States of America.
No argument. As a result, George Washington is not to be termed a British hero.
Ace:
"His family held slaves. Didn't he bang a few slaves as a young man?"
Not unless you can produce a stained dress.
"I think you are being deliberately naive here, ignoring the party for which racists have tended to vote since the civil rights era."
Ah. The General All-Purpose Universal Omniversal Distinction, always handy. "In case of Trouble, break glass."
Always, always, always. When defeated, Rask will always return to the General All-Purpose Universal Omniversal Distinction: "But you guys are racists. We're not. Thus, we're allowed to do and say things you aren't, because LBJ means "niggers" in a "good way" and Nixon means "niggers" in a "bad way.""
Hamilton's family didn't hold slaves; I don't believe they could afford to.
Hamilton did own one slave, I believe--name of Peter.
Silly. Washington ceased to be British. Robert E. Lee, and every other Confederate, became American again in 1865.
"Hamilton did own one slave, I believe--name of Peter."
So... he really was rootin-tootin opposed to slavery, eh?
No, but as I've said a few times now, the fact is that there are times when admiring references to Lee, the Confederacy, blah blah is meant purely as a nudge/wink to the racists of the party.
This is, I think, purely practical politics. But it means that more scrutiny comes down on the Republican than the Dem making the same comment to a different audience.
"No, but as I've said a few times now, the fact is that there are times when admiring references to Lee, the Confederacy, blah blah is meant purely as a nudge/wink to the racists of the party."
Idiotic. What reason do FU and I have to do it then? Are we winking at each other, trying to appeal to one another's Inner Racist?
Robert E. Lee and his robotic transforming cyberhorse Traveler-- my heroes!
But had we lost the war, he would not have been regarded as a British hero for his attempt. A few southern states would have lionized him as a hero, but not a British one.
Robert E. Lee, and every other Confederate, became American again in 1865.
And for the same reason, they aren't American heros.
I also think, FU, that the Brits have gotten over their passionate hatred of Washington. I think it's probably safe to speak well of Washington in Parliament.
But the Left, which does not believe in God, very much believes in the Devil, and it always needs the Devil to assume new forms. Robert E. Lee is the current incarnation, and I doubt the Left will get over this for a thousand years.
Look, obviously self-determination has limits. I can't have my house and the street in front of it secede from the state. Canadians would have similar legitimate concerns about how Quebec would split the country in two. As such, in most circumstances, secession has to be mutually agreed upon. Exceptions do exist, and the general criteria I would set for these would be geographic significance and concentration, strong democratic consensus to secede in that territory, and irreconcilable differences. Now, *with* slavery, the south loses on democratic consensus, as slaves couldn't vote and were a large percent of the population. *Without* slavery, there is no irreconcilable difference.
Yes. Do you read my posts, I wonder? I've said several times that Lee is not an American hero for his Civil War leadership, not any other battles he may have fought. The same is true for Washington.
What reason do FU and I have to do it then? Are we winking at each other, trying to appeal to one another's Inner Racist?
????
Not at all. The issue was the perception of Ashcroft, and why it gets greater scrutiny. I have never mentioned either one of you as racists--in fact, I have said that I don't think Ashcroft is racist.
I would say that there is more for the British to admire in George Washington, than there is in the former Confederacy to admire in Robert E. Lee.
There was hope when Martin Sheen portrayed him, but that window has closed.
Good day.
But Robert E. Lee fought for slavery!
But then, G. Washington was a traitor and murdered his former brothers-in-arms.
And yet the British (a more mature people than we) can now say, "Ah, well. What's done is done. Washington fought for his own notion of patriotism, and was courageous and moral in doing so."
I wonder when the Confederates will get such dispensation.
Again, I think I am being fair about this, as I freely admit that there are undesirables (socialists and marxists) in the Democratic Party as well.
Mighty white of you. Ashcroft votes for 26 out of 28 African-Americans for federal judgeships, sports an impressive record of diversity as governor, but you have some questions.
Good day, sir.
The point here, to revert to the earlier discussion, is that the reason Lee's "heroism"—which consists in his "heroic" deeds and nature combined with the admiration he receives from those who find him heroic—is still current, is largely that images and ideas of the Confederacy were reactivated in response to the civil rights movement. That's why all those state flags have the old Stars and Bars in 'em. They were put there by segregationist state legislatures in the '50s and '60s. And the image of Massa Robert as demigod has the same provenance; current in the aftermath of the Civil War and revived in the aftermath of Brown v. Bd of Ed.
Thus, it is not at all unrealistic for the citizenry, of whatever attitude toward the south or blacks or civil rights, to view a public figure's association with such romanticism of Lee as declaring a sympathy with those who more expressly flaunt resistance to the civil rights movement and (one of) its progeny, liberal efforts to raise the black underclass. Thus, for an AG designate to be so seen is disgraceful. If Ashcroft were genuinely prepared to administer justice impartially, he would not associate as much as he does with those who make a point of admiring Lee. Or with overt homophobes.
I think the reality is that he himself feels resistance to the civil right movement, and he is certainly homophobic (as he demonstrated in opposing that ambassador, I forget who he was, on grounds that as a homosexual, he was "inappropriate" [sheesh! I detest that term of political craft.]).
I refuse to believe that most Southerners are racists, simply because they revere a local hero.
You know the difference between Northern and SOuthern racism? Southern racism is more overt. But Northerners are just as racist. "White flight" didn't happen just because the grass was greener in the suburbs.
And yet the need for ostentatious displays of Moral Vanity by the Left. Why, we're less racist than you or those terrible southernors! yeah, fucking sure you are. I'm sure you all date a lot of black people, and have "lots of very good black friends" that you chat with at lunch but never actually meet during non-working hours.
If someone reveres Lee, he must be a racist. Must be! Why, such a person refuses to simply kow-tow to Northeastern Bourgeouis Herd-Mind Liberalism! How dare he! he *must* have a very nefarious reason for not accepting our wisdom.
This seems to be the real question at the heart of the Ashcroft matter. It is not enough that he is associated with Confederate apologists or that he is one himself to assert that he wholeheartedly accepts everything the supporters of the Confederacy advocated. It does not make him a racist per se. It does fairly raise the question of how wholeheartedly he could enforce some portions of existing Federal law when he is a position to shape that law more so than any other attorney not on the bench in the country. He has more important judgment calls to make on the direction of American law than anyone else and less guidance than perhaps anyone else in the practice.
Hopefully never. The principles that Washington fought for have since become almost worldwide principles, shared by the British. The principles that Lee fought for have become more odious over time.
But of course, to you, this means that I am saying Lee is worse than Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot all joined by a Vulcan mind meld, and you will now spend 10,000 words bravely and assiduously defeating an argument I never made. Have fun.
Self-defense and self-determination, you mean?
Oh--slavery, you mean.
But that's idiotic. Sure, a lot of Confederates fought for slavery. But many fought simply because they didn't like the idea of a government far removed from them making decisions for them.
Sound familiar?
Bear in mind, most Confederates -- and most southerners -- were too poor to own slaves.
Was a peon blacksmith fighting for slavery? Or was he fighting against what he believed was an unconstitutional invasion and an illegal infringement on the right to self-determination?
Or was he fighting for the right to say "Nigger" in polite company?
I rather doubt he was fighting for rich slaveholders, or even to keep blacks down.
That means we have four good seats for that event, but need two more. Oldest son will be somewhere else with Boy Scouts. He has to wear special jacket that SS is giving the boys who attend workshops next weekend.
My main man, Van Morrison is going to appear at another event that I've got tickets to. But only four. Damn difficult getting seven tickets for events. Problems of a big family. The younger kids don't want to go without their mother.
If you think I'm unpopular here, you should see me at the kitchen table when the old lady is mad.
In that case, does it mean there was no moral justification for the North to fight? Given that this is your requirement, I mean?
Now, I have been to Virginia. Fighting for Hawaii I can see, but Virginia?
I only wish we had moved there instead of Maryland.
The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. That doesn't mean that most people were fighting for or against slavery.
WWII wasn't really fought over the Final Solution, which was more or less an open secret until after the war. It was fought to prevent German domination of the continent.
But what were American soldiers and generals fighting for, precisely? Most of them, I'm guessing, fought because their country called upon them to fight. They fought because they were expected to fight, and would be cowards if they didn't.
And of course they were much more eager to fight the Japs, who'd actually attacked an American base.
So do we claim Lee is a bad man because he fought for his homeland, as most soldiers do? Do we claim it's a "racist code word" to express admiration for him?
Why, other than the political convenience of doing so?
Why do soldiers fight? I'm very unconvinced they fight for the reasons a government decides to go to war. Who the fuck really fights for "Freedom"? Ha, ha-- pull the other one.
Soldiers fight for reasons of honor, the code of martial honor, pure and simple.
If they fight bravely, we used to call them "Heroes," back when the term meant what it had for 2,000 years. Only in the pussified, pansified present can you claim that someone who dies in a space shuttle accident is a "hero"...
The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. That doesn't mean that most people were fighting for or against slavery.
WWII wasn't really fought over the Final Solution, which was more or less an open secret until after the war. It was fought to prevent German domination of the continent.
But what were American soldiers and generals fighting for, precisely? Most of them, I'm guessing, fought because their country called upon them to fight. They fought because they were expected to fight, and would be cowards if they didn't.
And of course they were much more eager to fight the Japs, who'd actually attacked an American base.
So do we claim Lee is a bad man because he fought for his homeland, as most soldiers do? Do we claim it's a "racist code word" to express admiration for him?
Why, other than the political convenience of doing so?
Why do soldiers fight? I'm very unconvinced they fight for the reasons a government decides to go to war. Who the fuck really fights for "Freedom"? Ha, ha-- pull the other one.
Soldiers fight for reasons of honor, the code of martial honor, pure and simple.
If they fight bravely, we used to call them "Heroes," back when the term meant what it had for 2,000 years. Only in the pussified, pansified present can you claim that someone who dies in a space shuttle accident is a "hero"...
But that isn't the point. The point is why Lee gets attention, today. It is quite certainly not because he was a tormented soul who determined only after great angst to fight for his native soil against an invasion. Nor is it because he was such a great tactician. Nor is it because his soldiers adored him for his noblesse, etc, as Massa Robert and wept when he traveled past them after Apomattox. It's because he is the most prominent and easily mythologized representative of the Confederacy, and the Confederacy has long been, and is still, widely seen as a symbol of continuing resistance to and disgust with the civil rights movement. Witness the SC flag thing. Etc. Ergo, with respect to Ashcroft....
That's what it is. Lee and Fort Sumter and all is ancient history.
For more information:
San Francisco IAC office
2489 Mission St. # 24
iac@a...
(415) 821-6545
http://www.iacenter.org/j20_orgctrs.htm
Cmboyce:
I don't agree. I'm sure some revere Lee as a semi-acceptable Hero of the Racist Cause, but most don't.
What little I know of the Civil War I know from, I hate to say it, television. And Ken Burns' Civil War, for example, treats Lee fairly reverentially. So do the historians whom he interviews, none of whom are racists (or at least I've never heard it so suggested).
Now, if these good educated (presumably liberal) academics have a certain admiration for Lee, why is it necessary to postulate that non-academic Southerners might also admire the man for reasons having nothing to do with race but rather having everything to do with patriotism (the local, blood-history-land sort of patriotism, not the sort of general "This land is your land" nationalistic patriotism)?
I dunno. Seems to me I read a review of a Lee biography every other year in the New York Times Review of Books, and the biography is generally a very sympathetic portrait, and the reviewer always seems equally sympathetic to Lee, if not reverential.
What do the liberal reviewers on the NYTRoB know that you don't?
I should say that if admiration of Lee is a sin or racist codeword of some sort, there are quite a few respected liberal historians who are racists.
Is that what we're saying? Why can a Shelby Foote gush over Lee and be warmly received by the liberal media/political gangbang, but a John Ashcroft can't say he's a patriot?
Could it be that John Ashcroft is running for office as a Republican and Shelby Foote isn't? Is that the difference, when you get right down to it?
How come the liberal media/political gangbang loves John "My grandfather was a Confederate officer, and I'm proud of that, and I consider him and those who fought with him to be true patriots" McCain, but yet pounces on John Ashcroft can't admire confederate soldiers' martial virtue?
Why is that, do you imagine? Come to think of it, let's poll all remaining Southern Democratic officeholders. Anyone care to guess what percentage will call Lee and other Confederate soldiers patriots? I'm guessing it'll be 90% or more.
But the Civil War was in fact fought by the South to preserve slavery perhaps for most, the right of the southern states to the sovereignty to decide when or if to abolish it.
Contemporaries understand their wars in a way that is often very different from following generations. The Civil War is a case in point. The Civil War and the institution of slavery almost immediately following its conclusion became inseperable in the eyes of most non-Southerners.
For most Southerners, however, states' rights remained the causus belli right up until the Second Reconstruction of the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's. Even the few liberals in the South before that watershed deeply resented desegregation not on the basis of race prejudice but Southern pride, together with a very real fear that Federal intervention in race matters would unleash violence and do mor harm than good. For most however, the notion of "States rights" was little more than a cover for bigotry right up until about 1970, just as it had been a cover for slavery earlier.
Sadly even today, many of the more extreme racist elements in the South today, Southern Patriot for example, glorify the Civil War with a sort of "in your face Yankee nigger lover" bravado which is well understood for what it is.
One last point:
Everyone loves a winner. But there's a dark, lovely mythopoetry about those who lose wars. Especially those doomed to lose.
Lee was doomed to lose. It's one thing to fight a war you know you can win. It's another to fight a war you know you'll almost certainly lose.
"The Charge of the Light Brigade"... do i remember right? Didn't they get wiped out?
Why is it that intellectuals so love the Red Sox?
But he's not being held in those circumstances as an American hero, or an icon. Just as a truly great general who was adored by his men (which is not generally in dispute).
CMBoyce's take on it is exactly right, in my opinion. I've tried to make that same point several times, although not as eloquently. It is the nudge and wink aspect of it--telling the racists obliquely "I share your pain, but this is as close as I'll come to saying so."
Mind you, I don't think he actually does share their pain. It's just pandering to a demographic that the Republican party needs--even if they'd rather not. Hey, racists have to vote.
the Alamo. There's another example.
No. Audience matters. Admiring Lee is not racist. Lionizing Lee as a political statement is slammed as racist, although as I said I think it's more likely that the accurate charge is pandering.
Is this the gay one? Do the Scouts know?
Sez who? I don't think he thought so until after Gettysburg.
Cal,
Sure. Okay.
Is Shelby Foote a racist then? Perhaps he's pandering to all of his racist readers. You know, all the three-tooth racist crackers who buy hardcover histories.
If one man can be guilty of no racism in his reverence of Lee, why can't another? Why assume racism when you're willing to accept that Specific Persons X, Y, and Z love Lee and yet aren't racist?
Is Shelby Foote a singularity? Is he, and no one else in the physical universe, capable of appreciating Lee without doing so as a racist taunt?
Perhaps, Cal, just perhaps, people who grew up in Virginny see things a bit differently than those who grew up in San Gomorrah.
Ah... The "audience" matters.
If Shelby Foote gushes about Lee on PBS, you know he's not a racist, because no racists watch PBS.
Mention Lee while campaigning for Republican votes, and you're a racist. Why? Well, du-uhhhhh!!!! REPUBLICANS!!! You see, they're racist!
And the General All-Purpose Universal Omniversal Distinction rides again!
He may be. But admiration of Lee isn't what makes him one.
The rest of your post misses the point, which is that the pandering is what makes it suspect. I've said so several times now, and you've not answered.
I didn't grow up in San Gomorrah. I grew up in Saudi Arabia, which is a bit more conservative than the South.
Fuck this ludicrous nonsense. You all are so fucking arrogantly intolerant and biased.
"WE KNOW BEST."
No. Because white racists (as opposed to those of other colors) vote Republican. The Republicans have to cater to them. This is known. It isn't pretty. Many of them would probably rather not.
The Republican requirement to pander to white racists is not considered as admirable as the Democrat need to pander to blacks, where they quite often use racist imagery. This may seem unfair, but given our history, it's pretty much unavoidable.
My agenda all right-wing? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A mandate of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the drug-oppressed brain?
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this boil that erupts.
Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going;
And such an instrument I was to use.
My tongue makes me a fool in others' senses,
Or else worth not a smirk. I see thee still,
And on my nominees sprout gouts of scandal,
Which was not so before. There's no such thing:
It is the Florida counting which informs
Thus to mine eyes. Now o'er the realm of Sunshine
Voters' rights seem dead, and frauds abuse
The curtain'd vote; Ashcroft celebrates
Pale racism's offerings, and wither'd Rumsfeld,
Alarum'd by his sentinel satellite,
Whose blip's his watch, thus with his stealthy pace
With Cold War's ravishing strides towards his design
Moves like a tank. Thou sure and firm-set earth,
Hear not my steps, which way they walk, for fear
Thy very stones object to Norton,
And take the present horror from the time,
Which now suits with it. Whiles I threat, Gore lives:
Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives.
I go, and it is done; the press invite me.
Hear them not, Cheney; for they are a knell
That summons not to heaven but to hell
You aren't reading very well. I have said several times that I don't think Ashcroft is a racist--more importantly, he clearly has not used his political capital in racist causes (that I've seen or heard of, anyway).
You are asking why it is an issue. I am telling you why it is an issue.
Frankly, I would much rather that the public dialog be based upon the Republican reliance on racists as part of their demographic--it'd be much more enlightening than pointless charges of individual racism. But the political landscape of this country has never been all that subtle.
Cal,
He "pandered" by making one remark in Southern Partisan?
It wasn't like was mentioning Robert E. Lee at campaign rallies.
If I'm asked what I think of Robert E. Lee, should I evade the question? Or am I allowed to answer truthfully?
Or will "the audience" determine the correct response? If my audience is Noble Tolerant Democrat Dickfaces, I can answer honestly; but if my audience is Republicans, egad, Republicans!, I'd best mumble "no comment" for fear of "pandering" and inciting racism-by-codeword.
Manassas.
Is this a code-word? Hell, I'm calling Bull Run by its Southern name. I suppose I'm safe, though, because I'm talking to you, and you are certainly no racist.
...but I'd better not say "Manassas" around JJ, Indy, or FU. After all, that would then be a code-word.
Pssst... Indy, JJ, FU: Manassas. Keep it low.
Yawn. No, merely that he intentionally "panders to racists" by daring to mention RE Lee in a single interview.
I am unimpressed by your "balance" on the point.
Cal, you think you're being "balanced" and "fair-thinking" if you merely dress up the most ludicrous challenges of the far left in slightly less gaudy digs.
There is a world of difference between Shelby Foote or any other historian of the Civil War and a good ole boy.
Believe it. The Southern Battle Flag appeared on Southern government buildings in the early 60's. As a child, I remember quite well the license plate of the White Citizens Council - the stars and bars.
It wasn't a history lesson, I'll tell you. These were the same people who regaled me with stories of how the "coloreds" brain was more like that of an ape. These people picked fights with me and called me "nigger lover" during one of my earliest political campaigns for governor of Louisiana, because I supported a candidate who was trying to integrate public facilities in New Orleans and had black support.
Things have changed since 1960. These yahoos are too shamed to be as blatant as they once were. Black urban political power also blunts much but out in the countryside, in the rural south where the KKK once held sway and Democratic populist/racists like Wallace, Bilbo, Barnett once ruled, things aren't much different.
"I remember quite well the license plate of the White Citizens Council -the stars and bars."
Oh, the WHite Citizens Council Richard Gephardt used to campaign at, I wonder?
Given the name of the magazine? Um, yeah. Probably.
If I'm asked what I think of Robert E. Lee, should I evade the question? Or am I allowed to answer truthfully?
If you're a smart Republican who doesn't want to give the Dems any edge, you answer with admiration but restraint. However, I doubt it matters in the long run. They'll squawk anyway.
But keep in mind, this is only in the south. Tom Campbell could wax enthusiastically about Lee--but then, I doubt he'd call him an "American hero".
Or will "the audience" determine the correct response? If my audience is Noble Tolerant Democrat Dickfaces, I can answer honestly; but if my audience is Republicans, egad, Republicans!, I'd best mumble "no comment" for fear of "pandering" and inciting racism-by-codeword.
Yes, the audience will determine the response. But it's not Republicans--as I've said many, many times, to the point that your failure to acknowledge it becomes dishonest. It is certain groups of Republicans. The ones that went Republican in the last 40 years, primarily due to their disgust with the fact that the overall Dem party started to care more about blacks then they liked.
So if you're at Bob Jones university, or talking to Southern Partisan, or the Southern whatever council that Spud gets upset about--then it would be wise to avoid looking like you are pandering to them. At least, if you want to get a national office or position without too much squawking.
I fail to see why this is such an awful thing. You asked a question; I answered it. You seem to think I'm speaking for myself. I don't know why, given that I've said otherwise some 20 times. Why is it an issue? Why doesn't everyone see it just like you do? Because of the Republican reliance on a small racist faction to deliver numbers in key states. Can the Dems use that to their advantage? Sure. That's why they do it.
Cal,
You know what? I really don't give a rat's red raw ass about what Leftist Democrats think, and I really don't think John Ashcroft gives a fuck, either.
Squawk all you want. No one cares.
Squawk very, very loud. The "American public" loves when lefties squawk. You guys are oh-so-persuasive. Why, Jesse Jackson gets on tv and the public swoons.
Fuck the left. You lost. You will lose again.
Quite true. It doesn't mean the opposite, either. It is irrelevant.
But as I said earlier, even if he is a racist his behavior makes it clear that he doesn't act on his beliefs as a politician, so it really doesn't matter.
Yawn. No, merely that he intentionally "panders to racists" by daring to mention RE Lee in a single interview
So what else is new eh?
Ah it must be such a joy to be such a simpleton. The rest of us are slaves to facts, messy and inconvenient.
But for the rest of us
-
I'm not squawking. And I said the same thing, which is that all this squawking will accomplish nothing. So you'll have to find someone else to squawk to about your indignation at the squawking.
Sure, Cal. Plenty of Democrats are "moderates." Almost all of them, in fact.
All Republicans aren't "right", either--in the directional sense of the word.
I realize it is more emotionally satisfying to condemn "the Left" rather than "Dems", but it's just not accurate these days. If the Dems were left, there would have been no need for Nader.
Well ... ummm ... OK, maybe he is.
n October 1998 Ashcroft gave an interview to the Southern Partisan magazine in which he lashed out at "revisionists" who make malicious attacks on America's founders, such as charging that George Washington was a racist. (The Q & A's introduction praises Ashcroft as a "jealous defender of national sovereignty against the New World Order.") "Your magazine helps set the record straight," said Ashcroft. "You've got a
heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Robert E.] Lee, [Stonewall] Jackson and [Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."
Setting the record straight? Is Ashcroft talking about the 1984 Southern Partisan article that argued that "Negroes, Asians, and Orientals (is Japan the exception?); Hispanics, Latins, and Eastern Europeans; have no temperament for democracy, never had, and probably never will"? Or did he mean that 1996 Southern Partisan article that cleared up that whole mix-up about slave owners not doing well by slave families? "Slaveowners ... did not have a practice of breaking up slave families," the article noted. "If anything they encouraged strong slave families to further the slaves' peace and happiness."
That last one has a familiar ring to me. Standard fare from my racist Southern fried grandfather who had a black helper and companion some of the cajun locals used to call "Nig De Vilas", who used to wipe the drinking fountain off in his office if a black had the temerity to drink from it and not go outside to the faucet.
I guess we'll just have to add Southern history and politics to the list, the astoundingly long and amazingly broad range of topics that Ace doesn't know fuck about.
Well, on his religious beliefs, in any event. But who's to say what the Republicans have to do to stay elected? Heaven knows that they need the homophobe vote, too.
Even though Ashcroft mentioned crime and capital punishment not race, the fact that White was black gave Ashcroft a "twofer" with his constituents.
Everything I have read says that his opposition was politically motivated. Ironic, of course, given how it turned out.
Riiiight.
nader who got 1% of the vote.
I guess that means there's no Right wing Republicans, either, since Hagelin, Buchanan and other Right Wingers combined for almost 1% of the vote.
Nope. You dems just want universal health care, higher taxes, more "social justice," partial-birth abortions and gay marriage.
Nothing left about that. Nothing. Very middle-of-the-road. Among the "right people," of course.
Ace, don't know shit #43789.
Actually it was Bush that lost Bush who will be BOTUS...Bastard of the United States
No matter the standard used, Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush did. Fact jack.
Try them sometime. You might not have to whine so fuckin much when people rub your nose in your poop.
Pesky freakin facts.
Ashcroft may not be a racist, but he is definitely opposed to the role of the Federal government in the vindication of citizens rights. That alone is enough to question the wisdom of appointing him to the post charged with husbanding the federal role in civil rights, as well as a host of other state vs. federal power issues.
Nuff said about that waste of time. Unless you care to read how Time magazine fried his fat ass?
Lefties, lefties everywhere Ace.
That's what I mean. There are plenty of Dems who don't want any of those things, some who just want one or two.
Likewise, there are plenty of Republicans who are pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro "social justice" (whatever that is), and so on.
And Nader was able to run at all because of the true left, which was strongly disaffected with Dems. There were quite a few who voted for Gore but felt strongly that their beliefs were neglected.
That's true, but that is true of many Republicans.
Still, I'm betting it's abortion that brings him down--if anything does. I still think it most likely he'll be confirmed.
Cal,
Grow up. The fact that their are hard leftists who aren't Dems doesn't mean that many Dems aren't hard left, or that most Dems aren't left to some degree.
This is like claiming that, because Candy Crowely exists and is fat, or fatter than you, then therefore YOU aren't fat.
Good "angry white man" though. I can see why he won in 1994 only to lose to a dead man.
Yes, the right of a citizen to get a job that another citizen is more qualified for, due to the color of one's skin.
That age old "right."
The same can be said of Gale Morton; a Sec'y of the Interior, charged with the maintenance and protection of the nation's natural resources should not be a person who has publicly declared her contempt for that mission. In her view, pollution should be dealt with by polluters. (They know their business best, I guess.)
As opposed to the American Way, of getting it because of who your parents are?
Jones:
Yes, yes. We're an evil rotten corrupt society, and we can only be cured by a stiff dose of racial preferences.
Sing it, brother, you jackass.
The fact that their are hard leftists who aren't Dems doesn't mean that many Dems aren't hard left, or that most Dems aren't left to some degree.
I never said otherwise. Your interpretations really are getting egregious.
However, "most" Dems probably aren't what is generally considered "left" these days. Not reliably. That's been true for a while.
Of course, what do I know? I'm registered Republican.
Free Ace!
As a white Christian, I want preferences over Jews, who are overrepresented in my profession (and most of the classic "professions").
This is my right, and I hereby demand it.
I think Morton is actually the more important mistake of the two. What an AG does can be reversed, even if it might not happen for a while. But if the riverkiller does another one, and more thoroughly, it may be permanent. And if she turns as many wetlands as she can, over to supermarket moguls, that too is permanent. This is like treating one's skin with motor oil.
Cellar,
Jews are overrepresented in the media, and I want your job.
500 years of oppression-- And COUNTING!!!
True. But this is true of any demographic. I myself would be much happier if NOW et al weren't powerful in the Dem party, because watching them get pandered to is very annoying. (No, they aren't like groups.)
The reason why I think the Republican reliance on racists should be more discussed is because I think that the party would discover they'd have more to win if they stopped pandering to them and started pandering to blacks. Not because it's the "right" thing to do, but because it would hurt the Dems more and would probably pick up more numbers in the long run.
I really do worry a bit about Morton. But they've picked off their chick for the term. (g)
I want some reparations from the Jew Oppressor Wombat, too.
I'll take $200. If you don't pay up, Wombat, I'll sue for more. "You people" have had it too good for too long. Good lord, you virtually own the garment industry!
No more. Reparations. $200, please.
Hahaha! Yeah, I'm afraid that's probably right. But maybe someone can discover that she once employed a bear and didn't file his ss taxes.
This is my right, and I hereby demand it."
Why is this so? Evidently there's a conspiracy at work. Right Ace?
I'm only half-Jewish.
But that's OK. You're only half a man. Isn't that right, Ace?
Ah, but we've decided that religious and racial factors are out of bounds.
Except in the case of blacks and hispanics. I don't say "minorities," because Jews and Asians do not get "plus factors" or "minority slots." Quite the opposite-- schools are beginning to treat Jews and Asians as they treat whites, as disfavored races, whose race counts *against* them.
1450. Rosetta Stone - 1/11/01 12:25:31 AM
Reading back posts, I think the new person "bbb" is our old friend TT's "andy," and if so, I want everyone to be very nice to him. I'll be watching.
Talk about the kiss of death.
Except in the case of blacks and hispanics."
That means me and Francis, correct?
Wonkers,
No, you're right. There are "Evil Ice People Races" and "Good Sun People Races," and the government should definitely reward the Sun People and penalize the Ice People.
Racial preferences are the way it's supposed to be... until your race starts getting penalized, at least.
Wonkers:
Well, if racial preferences are so good, let's start a program to give whites preferences in college and professional athletics.
After all-- we want maximum "diversity," right?
Oh wait-- an all-black basketball team is as "diverse" as you can get, right?
I don't know why "people like Ace" object. But in general, I do think it harms the perception of minorities if the majority of them simply couldn't get into the school based on academics and are only accepted by virtue of race.
We've done that. The game is better when we just let the coaches pick the best guys. That isn't to say that there aren't coaches that take things like whether the kids Dad is the chancellor into account when they pick their players. I would bet that a kid that is 20 and first applying for college after missionary work at BYU has a better shot than if he was looking at Notre Dame.
Yes. Certainly there are no self-interested reasons to oppose it. Only deep caring for minorities.
I mean, if your son's application to the college of his choice was disfavored due to his race, while other races were favored, that wouldn't bother you, right?
Nope. Only concern that that poor minority taking your son's slot might be stigmatized.
"Reality is that your race is still getting most of the preferences."
Oh?
People chose to hire me, or admit me to schools, because I'm white?
That's funny. I always refuse to answer "Race" questions on college applications, because I know that information will be counted against me.
I wonder if blacks and hispanics similarly hide their race.
Or, do you imagine, they play it up, knowing it's a plus?
But you see, I think that's what Ace is saying.
That's what you and Cal and Ashcroft, et al, are ignoring.
I'm not ignoring it at all. All things being equal, I think a school should take an underrepresented minority over an equally qualified white kid--or instead, set a baseline that all applicants, regardless of race, must meet. Same baseline for everyone.
I don't have the same requirement of employment, where I think the intangibles are many. I don't think it is outrageous to require that a company find black employees--and frankly, most of them do without reaching as low as the elite colleges have to.
But it is foolish to deny that the perception of minorities at elite schools is that they probably got in under lower standards.
????
Why are you doing this? What possible value does it serve, this sarcasm you're aiming towards me?
I fully expect my kid to have a tough time getting into an elite school because he's white, and no, I'm not particularly resentful of it. He'll do fine. My opposition to AA in colleges (which is fairly weak, btw) is because I think it is counterproductive.
Yes.
I'm not "patronizing" minorities. I really could care less whether a minority person agrees with me or not. My objection isn't on their behalf, it is an objection to AA as a social program, based on the problem that such bias creates.
Cal,
Because I think the "but it harms the minorities by stigmatizing them" argument is complete bullshit. Obviously, they want to be "harmed" in this way, because they'll demonize you if you vote against such "harm."
Maybe you won't be resentful about your kid being discriminated against. Maybe he will be resentful himself.
Maybe he won't be.
Whichever way, it's hardly fair.
Sure.
"Quick, get me a white guy!!!"
Riiiiiiiight.
Employers just loooooooove it when a white guy comes in. Certainly, they wouldn't be happier with a black or Hispanic woman with the same resume.
But as I said to wonkers, I really could give a shit whether they agree with me or not. Is it an effective social program? No, not if colleges have to skew as dramatically as they do. I also think it perverts the purpose of education.
"I also think it perverts the purpose of education."
So? They'll make more money with a perverted Harvard degree than an untainted BC degree.
Especially when he's an epileptic! Fills those "quotas" we've heard so much about.
Cellar--
You think they get similarly jazzed when a faggit walks in?
My freshman law school class had one black student. There was quite a competition for qualified minority students, and we couldn't compete. Art was clinically mentally ill. The students realized it, and a portion of the faculty as well. Nevertheless he graduated. He was intelligent, and graduated. He was approved as fit to take the bar. Not long after passing the bar, he took an M-1 carbine into a class on campus and tried to kill the instructor and other students. If he were white, he might have been eased out during school.
Yet, when I add these things up, and compare it to the benefits we have gotten as AA has forced employers to generate some articuable standards for hiring, and opened universities and professions to talent that was previously ignored; it was worth it. Hard quotas and set asides are all but dead now. I can live with the possibility that race will be a factor in choosing between otherwise qualified candidates for the immediate future, just as all the other little connections, personal politics etc have been in the past.
No, but they do when A faggot walks in. After all, this is Hollywood!
They'll make more money with a perverted Harvard degree than an untainted BC degree.
So what? I don't think past wrongs guarantees them the right to a degree for which they are unqualified.
Again, the skew that elite colleges have to use in order to accept minorities is considerable.
But it doesn't much matter. The states are doing away with AA on a case by case basis.
And already, you can see universities pushing for an end to SATs. Why? Because it will make it easier for them to hide the skew.
but why do you suppose most minorities don't feel that way?
Because they are self-interested--who could blame them for not wanting to give up an advantage? That's like saying that something is "feminist" just because a lot of women support it.
Jones--
Do you really imagine it's necessary for the government to force 95% of companies to hire minorities and 99% of colleges to admit them?
Fucking Puh-leeze.
But the larger issue is the social-cultural-economic advantage you have over blacks or hispanics. As Cal points out however, your superior advantages, test scores whatever do not neatly translate into performance. Academics and most employment are not anything like sport much messier. Moreover, I don't doubt for one minute that disadvantaged minorities have become dramatically less so because of AA.
And the shit about being denied all those jobs, that better school may sound good on the Rush Limbaugh Show, may get your dick hard, but its largely bullshit.
Now, once the baseline is met, I absolutely believe that a university should ensure that they have a diverse student body.
Boxer told Bush she would vote against Ashcroft because of his vehement opposition to the nomination to the federal bench of a black judge, Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White.
``I hate to use a charged term but it's my heart talking here. I really think it was a political lynching that happened there in the United States Senate,'' Boxer told CBS News.
That's MY Senator!
"As Cal points out however, your superior advantages"
Bullshit. The people most able to take advantage of quotas and soft-quotas (preferences, plus factors) are upper middle class children of upper middle class blacks and hispanics.
Check out any law school class. You won't see a lot of Boyz from the Hood there. You'll see some blacks who are largely affluent. Oftentimes much more affluent than many whites.
In my own law school class, there were two or three real underclass or lower class blacks. The rest of the blacks were pretty damn well off.
I don't begrudge them that. But let's skip the bullshit about having to give preferences to these poor impoverished blacks. The blacks and hispanics getting the advantage of these hard and soft preferences have only race to recommend them -- not the actual hard-luck stories of hardship that we imagine comes with a black or brown face.
No, it's patronizing to argue against it on the grounds that it's for their own good. I'm making no such argument.
Rather, I am saying that the perception that minority students aren't as qualified in the elite schools is, in fact, accurate--and that this is a problem. I don't have to "let" them worry about anything.
"without some pressure to support admissions and hiring decisions by objective criteria"
Oh?
"Objective criteria" must include racial preferences?
Really?
I couldn't just go by experience and record and test scores?
The government can patrol for discrimination, and demand objectivity, while at the same time forbidding racial preferences for minorities.
Or hasn't this ever occurred to you?
You assume that if we get rid of quotas, hard and soft, that means that of course it will be open season on discrimination again.
Huh?
by John K. Galbraith
With the events of late in the year 2000, the United States left behind constitutional republicanism, and turned to a different form of government. It is not, however, a new form. It is, rather, a transplant, highly familiar from a different arena of advanced capitalism. This is corporate democracy. It is a system whereby a Board of Directors- read Supreme Court-selects the Chief Executive Officer. The CEO in turn appoints new members of the Board. The shareholders, owners in title only, are invited to cast their votes in periodic referenda. But their franchise is only symbolic, for management holds a majority of the proxies. On no important issue do the CEO and the Board ever permit themselves to lose.
The Supreme Court clarified this in a way that the Florida courts could not have. The media have accepted it, for it is the form of government to which they are already professionally accustomed. And the shameless attitude of the George W. Bush high command merely illustrates, in unusually visible fashion, the prevalent ethical system of corporate life.
Now the trick is getting the Pretty damn well off ones to kill the underclass niggers! Neat, eh Ace?
Jexster's posting this article AGAIN.
Terrific, terrific.
How many times for this war-horse, Jexster? Five times? Ten times?
Why don't you save yourself some time and post it ten times NOW, so you don't have to bother reposting it again later?
It was an important warning, for almost immediately forgetting became the media order of the day. Overnight, it became almost un-American not to accept the diktat of the Court. Or to be precise, Gore's own distinction became holy writ: One might disagree with the Court, but not with the legitimacy of its decision. Press references from that moment forward were to President-elect Bush, an unofficial title and something that the Governor from Texas President-select?)( resident-designate?)(BOTUS) manifestly is not.
The key to dealing with the Bush people, however, is precisely not to accept them. Like most Americans, I have nothing personal against Bush, Dick Cheney, nor against Colin Powell and the others now surfacing as members of the new administration. But I will not reconcile myself to them They lost the election. Then they arranged to obstruct the count of the vote. They don't deserve to be there, and that changes everything. They have earned our civic disrespect, and that is what we, the people, should accord them. In social terms, civic disrespect means that the illegitimacy of this administration must not be allowed to fade from view. The conventions of politics remain: Bush will be president; Congress must work with him. But those of us outside that process are not bound by those conventions, and to the extent that we have a voice, we should use it.
In political practice, civic disrespect means drawing lines around the
freedom of maneuver of the incoming administration. In many areas, including foreign policy, there will be few major changes; in others such as annual budgets and appropriations, compromises will have to be reached. But Bush should be opposed on actions whose reach will extend beyond his actual term. First, the new president should be allowed lifetime appointments only by consensus. The public should oppose-and 50 Senate Democrats should freely block-judicial nominations whenever they carry even the slightest ideological taint. That may mean most of them, but no matter. And as for the Supreme Court especially, vacancies need not be filled. Second, the Democrats should advise Bush not to introduce any legislation to cut or privatize any part of Social Security or Medicare. Third, Democrats should furiously oppose elimination of the estate tax a social incentive for recycling wealth to the non-profit sector, to foundations and universities, that has had a uniquely powerful effect on the form of American society. Once gone, this ingenious device will never be reenacted.
Fourth, the people must unite to oppose the global dangers of National
Missile Defense-a strategic nightmare on which Bush campaigned-
that threatens for all time the security of us all.
The perception that jocks are stupid varies by sport. And even then, people of all races and genders are given preferences due to their athletic ability. So the skew isn't a problem there. The presumption is that they are bringing something to the table--in this case, their ability.
In the case of minorities who couldn't otherwise be accepted, all they are "bringing to the table" is their color. It is interesting that the elite universities genuinely feel that this is sufficient. But in any event, that's where the difference lies.
How is this relevant?
Why can't we simply insist on a regime of non-discrimination and objective criteria?
Wrong again buttwipe.
Why dontcha cry to RD?
Like I said, I could give a rat's ass.
Jexster, STOP POSTING THAT SAME FUCKING ARTICLE AGAIN, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!
"BECAUSE TO YOU "OBJECTIVE CRITERIA" MEANS WHITES ONLY AND SHUT THE FUCK UP, NIGGER!!!"
Yes, that's what it means.
Really, Cellar-- we whites really need to exclude you blacks to keep our high-paying jobs. I mean, we just can't compete, right?
Then go cry to Rubberfucky
The perception, and reality at my alma mater was that the foreign students were the most qualified as a group than any other. They were the ones who were most likely there on merit alone.
Cellar,
Do you really believe the bullshit you're peddling? Or does it just make you happy to say it?
Do you really imagine that Whites are all huddling in corners conspiring to keep blacks out, because damn! We'd really hate to compete fairly with blacks! We sure don't want them blowing the curve!
Give me a fucking break.
It's not about competition at all.It's about keeping the niggers in their place.And when you can get lawn jockeys like Condi Rice and Colin Powell out in front -- and they wouldn't dare to object to Ashcroft even if he came to dinner wearing his hood -- the triumph is all the sweeter.
Agreed about foreign students. As for athletes, I'm only saying that while it may or may not be "legitimate" for univerisities to make exceptions for those students with talents in non-academic areas, at least those students are perceived as bringing something in exchange for that deficiency.
Speaking of the collective myth-making of a downtrodden people.
"It's not about competition at all.It's about keeping the niggers in their place."
And... um... you think we need to "discriminate" and enforce "Whites Only rules" to keep "niggers in their place," if this is our objective?
So, like, if we don't have all this discrimination, you guys are gonna take over the country? Is that what I'm supposedly afraid of, Cellar?
This IS this thread at its best.
"Do you really believe the bullshit you're peddling? Or does it just make you happy to say it?"
Say what?
"Do you really imagine that Whites are all huddling in corners conspiring to keep blacks out, because damn! We'd really hate to compete fairly with blacks! We sure don't want them blowing the curve!"
Not at all. You just love looking down at the niggers.
"Give me a fucking break."
Hey I'd LOVE to break your fucking legs. And arms.
I mean who in his right mind would want a wetback lawyer like Niner when there are so many Jews!
"Damn! We have a black guy in our Calculus class! We better lynch him or he'll fuck up the curve for everybody!"
No, you're just afraid of my MASSIVE DICK!
Um,
yeah.
The educators are correct in saying that diversity benefits the educational process--including the athlete, the piccolo player, minorities and women and foreigners. I would go farther and say, based on my lily white (one black male and one black female out of about 2000) and mostly male freshman class and my experience since that it is not only beneficial but essential. A whole list of blue chip corporations agree with me and are supporting the University of Michigan in fighting the lawsuits attempting to overturn its admissions policy.
Cellar,
Seriously. I'm having trouble "getting" your rather poorly thought out view of racism.
You're claiming that I need to discriminate against you because that way I "keep you down" and thereby get the pleasure of "looking down at you"?
And I'm doing all this because I'm afraid of your big cock, and I'm afraid you'll bang my wife/sister/etc. en route to taking over the world?
So I just have to keep you in chains, right?
Do I have the incoherent Cellar-view-of-racism down?
You bait me -- I bait back.
Dipshit.
Who cares whether or not you are aggrieved?
But sociology....there's a white man's choice for ya.
Sitting at a bus stop one day, I had an illuminating chat with a lower socio-eco negro gentlemen. Very wise he was. He was pissed at how the Chinese were taking over and were so successful. Not exactly pissed AT the Chinese, for he was actually pissed at blacks.
He correctly discerned a great Chinese advantage, tight knit social and family groups and an homogeonous culture.
"Americans especially blacks but whites too....sheeet no body does nuffin for anybody but dem Chinese, man you in trouble, they help their own. We just cut each others balls off. Say have a nice day. But I gon fixem. This nigger's gonna learn Chinese before its too late"
No community consciousness here so I don't get all worked up about some black or hispanic that is marginally and arguably "less qualified".
We're all the better for it even me despite the fact that a negro undoubtedly took my seat at Georgetown Law and wrecked my life.
I'm sure your statement may be accurate insofar as some people's perceptions are concerned, but not serious people who have given much thought to education. I hope the remark does not represent your perception of the contribution of minorities to university education. That is an incredibly narrow and innacurate perception. I beg you to tell me it isn't your view.
I don't know that this is enough. The Vietnamese have an equally tight family group and it doesn't give them any advantages in math. Latinos have a solid family value system going, and yet this only seems to help Cubans not, say, Mexicans.
Because they are. Not only is it perception, it is largely reality. That's the cold truth.
College presidents are trying to re-take control of their schools from their athletic departments and alumni.
Whether or not the students perform academically once they are in the school is a different issue. College presidents are not ever going to demand that there not be an academic skew allowed for athletes.
I hope the remark does not represent your perception of the contribution of minorities to university education.
I said very clearly that universities perceive that the skin color alone brings something to the table. I've said myself that diversity is important. But it's not a minor skew that is occurring, and I don't think that diversity is so important that it justifies the academic distortions and contortions that take place in order to accept minorities.
Yes. I've mentioned that several times. The skew is substantial, and that is a problem. I think that a baseline needs to be set, I think everyone must meet that same baseline, and then within that baseline I see no problem with a priority given to diversity.
I also agree with Ace that economic preference is important.
My impression is that the skew for minorities is smaller than it is for athletes and about the same as it is for other groups that are getting preferences-legacies, children of VIPs and other special cases that somebody in the admissions department believes will add to the diversity of the campus.
Excluding VIP-preference (which I really would have no problem in disallowing, like that's gonna happen), the rest of those cases are ones in which the student brings something other than color to the table.
Also, I am not sure you are correct. There was a New Yorker article on this, though, and I'll check it out.
Athletes have a great skill, which is always prized, the same as artistic/musical skill is prized, despite the fact that neither artistic nor musical skill is strictly speaking "academic."
Silliness.
Further, since blacks dominate many/most college sports, or are at the least greatly overrepresented, it's fine by me (the Racist) if you want to end the 5,000 year old practice of considering athletic ability in admissions. The very notion of an Academy has always, since the Greeks, included the athletic & military (psuedoathletic) components, but if you want to change it, seems to me that would mean even fewer schwartzes stealing my precious White Women, and that's okay by me (the Racist).
Riiiiiiight.
Big time jocks getting on-the-sly money for convertibles? Cite please. This happens from time to time, and results in a big-time investigation and big-time suspensions.
I am indeed implying it. I don't think race is enough to bring to the table. All things being pretty close to equal, absolutely it should be taken into account.
I know. I've said so several times.
Seems they don't like us to be reminded that the Moron wasn't really elected to anything. Too fuckin bad assholes.
And he's an idiot to boot.
No, they don't. they just say this because it's becoming verboten to give racial preferences, so they claim they're not giving racial preferences per se, but merely creating a "diverse student body" which somehow helps students learn calculus.
"Diversity" is a legal magic word. No one believes it. It's just the right legal magic word to say when your racial preferences are challenged.
"And most companies who now recognize that diversity in their workforces is essential to them agree because they can't hire minority engineers if engineering schools don't admit and teach them."
Nonsense. Diversity doesn't help anybody work. This turns the idea of colorblindness on its head -- now we actively "need" blacks to help design a bridge. Why? Who knows. To give the calculations the proper Funkification quotient, I guess.
Kirk: "Scotty, I need warp power in two minutes."
Scotty: "I canna do it, captain! I donna have the right proportion of blacks, hispanics, women, and homosexuals! You've given me too many Chinese, Captain! I may be an engineer, but I canna change the laws of physics!"
Okay.
Bushies to Clinton: Shut the Fuck up or we're sending your Fat Ass to Prison for the Cisneros cover-up
The answer then is "yes you do need a black to design a bridge, appear in court, take out your gall bladder..."
And its more than a little ironic that Republicans who are ever fond of lecturing us on the evils of a welfare state are the first one's to howl over the non-issue of AA unfairness. Affirmative action provides its beneficiaries with a social and economic leg up that they really do need. AA is good ole American opportunity so why the whining?
The South. In the south you see, fear of the Negro and his wild uncivilized ways still runs deep especially among Bush/GOP voters in redneck land who have long chafed at their backwardness and all the fine help being given those niggers.
But as for any truth to Ace's argument, anyone care to raise their hand and tackle that one?
I mean if there was any doubt that being successful said anything about your intellect, character, drive only the truly clueless can buy that after....
Hello Ace!
"I would have to ask the questioner. I haven't had a chance to ask the questioners the question they've been questioning. On the other hand, I firmly believe she'll be a fine secretary of labor. And I've got confidence in Linda Chavez. She is a--she'll bring an interesting perspective to the Labor Department."--Austin, Texas, Jan. 8, 2001
"Ace, your views on race and diversity are reminiscent of the Third Reich or apartheid South Africa."
Right, Wonkers. Opposition to government-mandated (or government-allowed) racial discrimination against some races and preferences for others is just what Nazi Germany and Apartheid were all about.
Fucking shit-ignorant Clown.
In rare form there Acie - even for you!
"ace would obviously prefer to be venomous than cogent"
This, from the moron who invites others to "eat my runny shit" and "suck a viral load out of my [AIDS-infected] cock."
Jexster,
Aren't you dead yet?
Solipsistic. Racial discrimination for the advantaged, for the power group against the powerless group.
That's bad enough but to label AA as racial discrimination is absurd. To equate it with racial discrimination in South Africa or even here much less with genocide in Germany well that's fuckin clownish, worthy of serious ridicule.
Kid likes lookin the fool don't he.
The Moron Wonkers equated opposition to quotas to Naziism and Apartheid.
I merely summed up: Yes, opposition to racial discrimination and quoatas is precisely what put the "Zee" in Nazi.
"I'll settle for Larry Flynt and a million hookers in hell."
Looks like you have to.
So you say, Clown.
"We lost too much" when the South was defeated...Wannabe Interior Secretary Gale Norton...(WashPost)
In a 1996 speech to a conservative group, Interior Secretary-designate Gale A. Norton likened her struggle to preserve states' rights to the cause of the Confederacy, saying, "We lost too much" when the South was defeated in the Civil War.
Norton, then Colorado's attorney general, described slavery as the kind of "bad facts" that can undermine an otherwise powerful legal case. She made the speech to the Independence Institute, a conservative think tank in Denver on whose board of directors she has served.
"Affirmative action" is racist. It benefits people on the basis of their race and not on the basis of actual need. If you accept affirmative action I suggest you shut up, big mouth, little dick white boy, and let the brothers speak for themselves. Or, what right do you claim to speak for the opressed? Well to do dick head?
That reminds me of the joke: How do you double the value of a Yugo?
Answer: Fill it with gas.
I see its Teen Day here again.
I heard on NPR this morning that William Cohen briefed Cheney and comapny yesterday and mentioned the possible threat of Russia being forced to the use of nuclear weapons due to the age and breakdown of their conventional arsenal...I'm sure Cheney & CO. will see this as a green light to waste billions on an iffy SDI. Maybe Putin sees that, too, and has floated this idea to get us to waste those billions, knowing the chances of SDI actually being workable are slim.
RS:
BS
Frankenberry.
I think he would benefit more from Bran.
...and lots of it.
More brain wouldn't hurt either.
Rosie should at least keep what brains he has.
Thank you, Ronski. The only possible response to the word Frankenberry is Booberry
I also vaguely recall something called "Quangaroo". I believe it was orange flavored, and vile, even to little Fielding.
isn't there anything Political worth discussing today?
There was also a proto Nutella called "Koogle".
Ducks:
"isn't there anything Political worth discussing today?"
This is politics. We're discussing the breakfast innovations from the era of Dick Cheney's cabinet.
meanwhile, that bastion of innovation and freedom, Microsoft, works to ensure Democracy 2.0 will be available to all.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Unisys Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Dell Computer Corp. are teaming up to create new voting technology in the wake of the ballot-counting fiasco in the U.S. presidential election, Unisys said on Thursday.
Blue Bell, Pa.-based Unisys said its system will replace outdated systems that produce irregularities such as those reported in Florida in the November election.
The system will integrate election processes from voter registration to counting results, Unisys said.
One month after the presidential race divided his state and propelled his brother into the White House, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush faces a new round of questions from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as it investigates whether minority voters were discriminated against on Election Day.
As President-elect Bush crafts his new administration, the federal panel subpoenaed Bush's younger brother to testify today at the first in a series of hearings called to examine voting irregularities across Florida. Throughout the 36-day post-election dispute last year, black voters said they were intimidated, harassed or turned away from the polls in the Nov. 7 election that Bush ultimately claimed by 537 votes over Vice President Al Gore.
...
Civil rights leaders have blamed Jeb Bush and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris for overseeing a state election system they say allowed tens of thousands of black voters to be disenfranchised. Both Republicans deny the allegations.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights launched its investigation after collecting complaints filed after the election.
Commission Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry subpoenaed Jeb Bush to produce copies of any post-election correspondence, including "jottings" and "scribblings," that he may have had with the secretary of state and his brother, the president-elect. The Florida governor, who has formed a task force to study the state's voting methods, told reporters last week that he doubted widespread voting irregularities were racially motivated.
...
George W. Bush received only 8 percent of the black vote in the Nov. 7 election.
Clinton had the diminutive Robert Reich and then Herman. I don't think it's the specified "chick" appointment.
And given we've now had a woman Secretary of State, the only "man" seats left among the big ones are Defense and Treasury.
Atlanta Journal excerpt:
It is reasonable to believe Clinton was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline.
LAla Times version:
It is reasonable to believe he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline.
Ok, Lefties - to the chalkboard to write, 100 times: 'It is reasonable to believe Clowntoon is a rapist.'
What's a Carter Center 'Certification' worth - certainly not a 'Get Out of Jail Free' for Iranian hostages.
I was going back to Dole--the only guy Labor Sec in 12 years has been Reich? I'm just wondering if there's some sort of ghettoizing going on. (g)
concerned:
Ok, Lefties - to the chalkboard to write, 100 times: 'It is reasonable to believe Clowntoon is a rapist.'
Just as soon as you go up there and write "GW Bush has the IQ of a gym sock."
The US Constitution and the Law are bitches, aren't they?
It is reasonable to assume that George Will has the genitals of a three year old child.
It is reasonable to assume that he keeps them in his desk drawer.
Eloise Anderson is a top candidate for labor secretary. She's bright, she's black, she has the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
Wombats -
I find it reasonable to believe that if a sufficient number of Senate Democrats had voted to remove the WH Rapist from office that we would being calling Alphalfa Bore 'president' today. But, nooo-oooo - they had to go the instant gratification route.
You still can't make unreasonable assumptions. I'm not sure how accurate Will's usage is, either. If he means "a reasonable person can assume," maybe. If he means "a reasonable person must assume," then I disagree with him.
If I were Clinton, I would ask Will's publishers if they would be willing to drop to the "Public figure" defense to defamation. That might put an end to Mr. Will's latest foray into the tabloid diarrhea.
It's reasonable to assume that some idiots will find it reasonable to assume just about anything.
Imagine if Broaddrick testified and he lost (i.e., his law suit). It wouldn't of course prove anything, but it's not exactly something you want in the history books.
I've read that is why Clinton is so careful about speaking at all about the rape. If he says anything, Scaiffe will show up with Broaddrick in tow and file another lawsuit.
"If I were Clinton, I would ask Will's publishers if they would be willing to drop to the "Public figure" defense to defamation. "
It's not a defense, per se. Public figures *can* be libeled. Only the dead can't be.
But a public figure must prove that an alleged libeller acted with malice as to whether the statement made was true or false. Malice can mean either knowing the charge was false, or most likely false, or not caring at all whether it's false or not.
Since we have a solid witness against Clinton, I doubt he could ever prove libel. He'd have to prove both that Broadrick's charge was false and that either she or someone repeating the allegation believes it to be false or doesn't have a good faith basis to believe its truthfulness.
BTW:
Clinton did rape the woman. You really should grow up.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Three of the world's top computer companies have teamed up to vaporize the paper chad by developing an electronic voting system that would overcome the kind of ballot confusion that wracked the U.S. presidential election.
Blue Bell, Pa.-based Unisys Corp. said on Thursday it will bring together hardware from No. 2 PC maker Dell Computer Corp. and software from Microsoft Corp. in the new voting system.
Is she really a "solid witness?"
My understanding is that the alleged victim gave at least one affidavit that said nothing happened.
Does anyone know about the 'public figure' defense to libel?
lisajolie
Um, for the second time, yes, I know about the public figure "defense" as you term it.
376 U.S. 254
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.
No. 39.
Argued January 6, 1964.
Decided March 9, 1964. *
Respondent, an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspaper.... The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department. The trial judge instructed the jury that such statements were "libelous per se," legal injury being implied without proof of actual damages, and that for the purpose of compensatory damages malice was presumed, so that such damages could be awarded against petitioners if the statements were found to have been published by them and to have related to respondent. As to punitive damages, the judge instructed that mere negligence was not evidence of actual malice and would not justify an award of punitive damages; he refused to instruct that actual intent to harm or recklessness had to be found before punitive damages could be awarded, or that a verdict for respondent should differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found for respondent and the State Supreme Court affirmed. Held: A State cannot under the First and Fourteenth Amendments award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" - that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292.
Ace got the "Public Figure" test right.
If a defamed person is a public figure, the plaintiff must show malice in addition to defamation. Malice is generally defined as "reckless disregard for the truth."
My point was that Will and his publishers would never waive their right to assert that clinton is a public figure, because otherwise their only defense would be that Will's statements were true, something that they could never prove.
Even the WH Rapist admitted having sex with Broaddrick. And we all know how heavily the Clowntoon administration was into threats and intimadation of women who spoke up with unfavorable allegations.
Ace:
"Clinton did rape the woman. You really should grow up."
I generally ignore your over-the-top partisan wailings, but this one sickens me enough to respond. Do you really think the supposed evidence that Clinton "raped" Broadrick is stronger than the evidence that Clarence Thomas harrassed Anita Hill and Angela Wright?
Really? I hadn't heard this.
lisajolie
Hmmmm.
I see now that the seminal case, NYT v. Sullivan, only deals with alleged libel re: a public official's official conduct.
However, I'm pretty sure a later case extended the same sorts of protections to the press for non-official conduct. For some reason, I remember a Jewish name being the libeled party there.
BTW, if there is still any doubt about whether Ace got the test right, note that he actually cited to the seminal case.
"I generally ignore your over-the-top partisan wailings, but this one sickens me enough to respond."
Maybe you should put some ice on it.
"Do you really think the supposed evidence that Clinton "raped" Broadrick is stronger than the evidence that Clarence Thomas harrassed Anita Hill and Angela Wright?"
Yes.
By preponderance of the evidence, I would say Clinton appears guilty because he has offered no refutation or evidence to the contrary. By reasonable doubt, I would have to vote not guilty.
He doesn't strike me as a rapist, but I thought the Monica Lewinsky charges were probably made up when they first broke, too. He didn't strike me as that stupid.
Ms. Jolie:
I don't know how new you are to this thread, having joined The Mote less than six months ago myself. But in case you are new, let me just caution that some people in this thread are occasionally accused of stretching the truth.
Rather than cast aspersions at any specific individuals, I'd prefer to leave such conclusions to your own good judgment.
How does one prove a negative? In offering a defense, wouldn't Clinton be giving credibility to the charges?
lisajolie
Thank you. I shall be on guard.
lisajolie
I'm just tired of the whole mess and will be glad when we can put it all behind us. Say about a week from now.
It turns out that The L.A. Times edited out the sentence: "It is reasonable to believe that he was a rapist 15 years ago before becoming president...."
However, The Washington Post printed it.
But to me the last paragraph is the strongest:
"Clinton is not the worst president the republic has had, but he is the worst person ever to have been president."
The LA Times was a true stalwart... it never reported the Juanita Broaddrick rape allegation, nor did it report numerous other Clinton scandals.
A great paper: "All the news we think our readers can handle."
"Moreover, given his track record, it would be pretty useless to appear on national TV and swear to the American people that he had not "raped that woman.""
Chiefly because he doesn't have to, thanks to a press that pretty much refused to report the charge.
Sure, it's an explosive charge... but then, no one seemed to have any trepidations about reporting Anita Hill's silly charges.
I'm not a fan of Clinton's but to say he is the "worst person to be President" is farfetched. Has George Will ever heard of Nixon? Harding?
lisajolie
Nixon... the guy who obstructed justice, lied to the American people, and who tried (unsuccessfully) to sic the IRS on his political foes?
Oh, yeah. He was muuuuuch worse than Clitnon.
It's annoyed me since the first time I saw it.
AceofSpades
How do we know that Nixon felt shame?
lisajolie
It looks like my timing was impeccable.
Please stop.
AceofSpades
Fitts:
"And lisa... cut out the name after each post. It already annoys me"
You get irritated awfully easy.
Fielding
by TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President-elect Bush will nominate Elaine Chao, a
former Peace Corps director and the wife of a Republican senator, to become
secretary of labor, Republican sources said Thursday.
Terry Carmack, chief of staff to Rep. Anne Northup, R-Ky., confirmed the
nomination.
Bush also was to name Robert Zoellick, who served in the state and treasury
department of earlier Republican administrations, to become U.S. trade
representative with Cabinet rank.
The president-elect appointed Chao two days after his first choice for the labor
post withdrew to quell controversy over the disclosure that she had provided a
home and financial support to an illegal immigrant who performed household
chores for her in the early 1990s.
a) Blabbermouth-itis (Clinton just says whatever comes into his head because he can't stop talking)
b) Playing to the crowd of Demo faithful
c) Genuine outrage over the result
d) Political calculation
e) Something else?
He's more or less impugned the Supreme Court and previously called Buchanan an anti-Semite here in his waning days. Pretty careless language for the POTUS. What's causing his diarrhea of the mouth?
return to the transportation department, where she served as deputy in the
administration of former President Bush.
That nomination went to Norman Mineta, now commerce secretary, the one
Democrat in the prospective Bush Cabinet.
Chao became director of the Peace Corps in 1991, headed United Way of
America from 1992 until 1996, and now is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative think tank.
Bush was expected to make the announcements shortly before ending a two-day
visit to Washington and returning to his ranch at Crawford, Texas.
Fielding,
And you get "sickened" rather easily. ("I generally ignore your over-the-top partisan wailings, but this one sickens me enough to respond.")
AceofSpades
Chao is another minority. Bush deserves credit for choosing such an ethnically diverse cabinet.
Whereas Clinton only raped da White Women.
AceofSpades
Ace:
"Fielding,
And you get "sickened" rather easily. ("I generally ignore your over-the-top partisan wailings, but this one sickens me enough to respond.")
AceofSpades"
I will you give credit, though. They are often funny, and not always in an unintentional way. Other times they make for good performance art. Still, I wish you'd make some effort at objectivity, if only as a gesture.
Fielding
Fielding,
Put some ice on that.
AceofSpades
Wombat,
You'd whine if he didn't have any minorities; now you whine that he has too many.
Dope.
AceofSpades
Nonsense. He should stand on principal, and nominate only the best.
Wombat
Wombat:
He has nominated the best. Don't be upset that Republican minorities are actually talented folks with great experience in the private sphere, whereas Democratic minorities are political hacks who by and large have done nothing except hold cushy government sinecures.
AceofSpades
I challenge you to turn up any whining on my part about affirmative action, one way or the other.
Moron
Bite Me
Wombat
Erratum:
Ron Brown was a strong nominee... unfortunately, he was almost as corrupt as Clinton.
The rest of Clinton's cabinet (excepting Rubin) were non-entities, political hacks, people who weren't qualified to do jack-shit. Which is partly what Clinton wanted-- he's a deeply insecure man.
AceofSpades
Plan B for John Ashcroft.
That nomination for DOT went to Norman Mineta, now commerce
secretary, the one Democrat in the prospective Bush Cabinet.
Bite me
Wombat
Just wanted to show my name.
PelleNilsson
Bush has produced something completely opposite: a Cabinet of people so obviously more skilled and experienced than he is that it is pretty close to embarrassing. It either takes an extraordinarily secure man or a completely clueless one to have gathered such an assembly of superiors. My gut tells me it's the former--and that this shrewdness is far more important in politics than any sort of bookish intelligence and may lead to small increments of progress. W.'s Cabinet obviously has a mandate to act rather than to talk, which makes it the most structurally powerful Cabinet since Dwight D. Eisenhower's.
--Andrew Sullivan, who is a homo
Wombat
Jesus, Ace, you and Rosetta are awfully touchy today. Someone compliments your guy and you call it whinning; someone has an automatic sign-off on their posts and you guys get all exercised over it....lighten up already.
Judith:
Eat my shorts.
AceofSpades
Ace:
W.'s Cabinet obviously has a mandate to act rather than to talk, which makes it the most structurally powerful Cabinet since Dwight D. Eisenhower's.
Mandate, schmandate....nothing about this administration has a mandate.
Elaine Chao is sorta... hot.
Me likey. Me so horny. Me love Elaine Chao long time.
Private Joker
lisajolie
Ace:
Eat my shorts.
No thanks...and nothing close to them, either.
JudithAtHome
That's "plivate" joker
Wombat
Ace:
I'm surprised you signed your post "--Andrew Sullivan, who is a homo"
I thought that you hated gays.
Fielding
This is the new smoking gun against a Bush appointee. Huh? She's for federalism, states' rights and a rollback of federal power. She explicitly distances herself from any idea that she supports or would have supported slavery. But she regrets in some part the federalization of the American polity that occurred after the Civil War.
Does this make her the moral equivalent of David Duke? Apparently it does. 'Her deeply divisive remarks suggest she lacks a vital instinct to protect what needs protecting, whether it's wilderness or the rights of people of color,' says Kenneth A. Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an activist environmental research organization.
I don't know where to begin in dissecting that statement. Any remark staking out a political position is inevitably divisive, since it splits listeners into supporters and opponents. And how on earth does a support for states' rights in an environmental context mean either neglect of the environment or thinly veiled racism? The illogic is as remarkable as the moral posturing. At this rate, any candidate for office is going in future to have to be a tee-totaling, amnesiac virgin with the rhetorical flair of Jim Lehrer.
I think I just became a fervent supporter of Gale Norton. (1/11, 12.15AM)
--Andrew Sullivan, who is still a homo
Ace:
oops, you did it again.
Fielding
Hey, you called it first.
CalGal
He is a political hemophiliac, surviving at the mercy of his adversaries. You have to feel compassion for the guy. He's empowered to do as president exactly what he promised to do as a candidate: nothing.
I don't want her as Interior Secretary because I disagree with her and her boss and don't trust them with public lands. But, hey, my guy lost the election.
Agnes Angst
The bitch is a freakin james watt in a skirt. That she hates fags is the least of our worries...
Those jokesters bust my chops!
According to the Moron Jexster, Bush's cabinet is staffed entirely with James Wattses.
It shows how fucking old and out of touch this deranged coot is: He thinks the name "James Watt" carries some kind of powerful frisson.
Dipshit.
AceofSpades
Elaine Chao is 100 times better than Herman.
Colin Powell is 500 times better than Marie Anna Korbel.
John Ashcroft is 50 times better than Janet Reno.
Anyone is 10 times better than Bill Richardson.
Lookie Poppy No Dick!
"John Ashcroft is 50 times better than Janet Reno."
Only 50?
Has there ever been a more unqualified & corrupt AG in history?
Does anyone remember the cover of Esquire magazine with James Watt in a wheelchair wearing a skirt and in black face?
I see you put a lot of effort into your empirical calculation.
Norton:
See yesterday's debates. At least she didn't write it in Southern Partisan.
--That Stalin had the right idea, except for those "bad facts" about collectivization and antikulakization.
--Hitler's policies really put Germany back on its feet after WWI. Pity about the "bad fact" concerning the jews (and others).
"Does anyone remember the cover of Esquire magazine with James Watt in a wheelchair wearing a skirt and in black face?"
Does anyone remember Jean Carnahan's dead husband appearing three times in blackface minstrel shows?
You must admit that Bush's cabinet picks have been politically dumb. Even before he takes office, he's going to forced to expend political capital to get his nominations through. That doesn't make upcoming agenda items, like tax cuts, an easier task.
Bush could have easily nominated conservatives who would would have sailed through confirmation hearings with 'nary a peep. It's almost as if Bush were looking for a fight.
lisajolie
Corrupt?
She's got more balls than all of her wignut detractors put together.
Unqualified?
What the fuck does Ace know about the qualifications for AG? About competence for chrissakes!
I wait with baited fuckin breath for Ace to make himself look ridiculous - again
Well, I didn't expect YOU to remember it, Ace, after all, you were probably in the third grade.
But that's entirely the point, dipshit. Hitler got the "trains running on time." You cannot claim that trains running on time is a bad thing merely because Hitler then went on to exterminate millions of political undesirables.
Similarly, slavery was too obscene to be protected by the concept of states' rights. But the mere "bad fact" that it was once so used does not mean that states' rights are inherently bad.
You want "bad facts"? The New Deal Era Supreme Court struck down dozens of laws claiming a conflict with "implied" clauses of the Constiution. If you don't like this practice, then I assume you don't like Roe v. Wade, which did the exact same thing.
AceofSpades
Its gonna be fun to watch this disaster unfold. Real fun
Nonsense. There is the private sector (from whence Clinton got Rubin) and there was the state governments, which Democrats owned...
...before Clinton.
ELIAN BE FREE!
Yeahp. Sure. The most experienced and qualified cabinet in recent history, according to most analysts.
Moron.
AceofSpades
She certainly could have made her point using another example.
lisajolie
The claim you think nonsense is - SURPISE - ACCURATE!
Man you've been on a helluva losin streak lately....even for a loser of your caliber
When you post from the Mote to TableTalk, how about a link? We could use the advertising.
Indiana Jones
Name 'em you idiot....most news analysts...those guys...
name 5
I'll start
1. Rush Limbaugh...
Such statements only highlight Clowntoon's essentially sophomoric mentality and arrested emotional development.
Lookie, Lefties - no link.
No, it wasn't. It's perfectly phrased. Lawyers speak of "bad facts making bad law" or "Hard cases making bad law" all the time, and this is PRECISELY the sort of thing they're talking about.
Like, hypothetically, a family rapes its children for ten years. So the state passes a law giving the state the right to come in to any home and make snap inspections of children's genitals. The Court gives the law it's okay, due to the recent horror of the raping family.
But it's a bad law. Bad facts have led to a bad law.
Only idiotic liberal partisans could pretend they didn't get Norton's point. Only dishonest corrupt lying cocksuckers -- or the terminally moronic and uneducated, the Democratic Party's constiuency -- could mistake the statement as "trivializing slavery."
Quite the opposite-- it's the horror of slavery that leads to the "bad law."
"She certainly could have made her point using another example."
Yeah, sure.
AceofSpades
Ace:
Hitler got the "trains running on time."
Technically, El Ducé got the trains running on time; Hitler built the autobahns.
Anyone who has anything on the ball understands "bad facts make bad law."
If you don't understand the saying -- if you don't understand that Hitler and slavery are among the common examples of "bad facts making bad law" -- you really should shut your mouth, get an education, and come back in three or four years.
AceofSpades
Another Famous "Bad Facts make Bad Law":
The Nuremburg Trials.
Many liberal (as well as conservative) legal theorists thought the Trials were obscene-- when in history has anyone been subjected to laws created after his supposed crime and by a jurisdiction he never entered? What authority does a state have to invade another and then put the leaders of the conquered state on trial for violating the newly-minted laws of the conquering state?
But then... the horrors of the Final Solution demanded we do something, even if it was a tad... oh, what's the word? Extalegal?
Now, would we want to use the "precedent" of the Nuremburg Trials as justification for, say, kidnapping Fidel Castro, putting him on trial in NATO courts, and executing him?
"Bad facts make bad law."
Speak for yourself asswipe, not for lawyers as you aren't one....
Exhibit 1 - your hypo to illustrate what you fancy is a point in what you think is an argument....
Is ignorance really bliss Ace?
The equivalent of "no controlling legal authority."
I wonder if the truncated transition period of the Bush administration is contributing to the poor quality of the vetting process.
lisajolie
"Just a terribly, terribly dumb statement about "bad facts." Norton had her pick of tens of millions of examples and she picks the worst one."
No, because the "bad law" she was speaking of -- the denigration of federalism and states' rights -- was created by the "bad fact" of slavery.
Many liberal (as well as conservative) legal theorists thought the Trials were obscene-- when in history has anyone been subjected to laws created after his supposed crime and by a jurisdiction he never entered? What authority does a state have to invade another and then put the leaders of the conquered state on trial for violating the newly-minted laws of the conquering state?
The only people who made an argument in quite such overstated, distorted, and stark a fashion were the fucking Nazis and a few wingnut Bircher types.
Ask Manuel Noriega about personal jurisdiction....
Yes the Nuremberg Trials were ex post facto law -arguably...but what what authority is there for barring prosecution of the greatest mass criminals in history? NONE. And that's the very point, the nail in the coffin of your revisionist Neo-nazi coffin.
which...."
The Rehnquist Court would not have a handle with which to overturn affirmative action by state and local governments.
(Did those who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment intend such a result?)
Today's Sophistry Award for the most self-serving and circular reasoning on the mote....
By such logic any laws to ameliorate slavery effects are bad....boy mind like a fuckin steel trap.
And funny thing, that's been the argument of Southern-fried racists well nigh onto 150 years now....
If you call me a Neo-Nazi again... well, let's say it will get ugly. I am sick of you stupid motherfuckers feeling free to toss out such slurs with impunity.
And I don't say we shouldn't have hanged the Nazi leaders. But it was extralegal or, less charitably, illegal.
With Europe in ruins, who cares about such niceties? Kill 'em. But any claim that we killed them with legal authority is specious. Moral authority, yes. Legal authority, definitely not.
And the point, dipshit, is that a crazy law you invented to cover a singular situation can then be used as precedent for more mundane situations... such as hanging Fidel Castro. Which is the point of "bad facts making bad law."
You get a gold star for answering correctly!
Boy dem bad bad cases, dat bad bad law....
Hey Ace you can inspect my genitals any ole time!
So shit-for-brains....LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL! Knock yourself out...be even uglier than usual
Go fucking die already, AIDS-coot.
State: Powell v Christoper. winner: Powell.
Treasury: O'Neill v. Bentsen. winner: Bentsen.
Defense: Rumsfeld v Aspin. winner: Aspen.
AJ: Ashcroft v. Reno. winner: Ashcroft.
National Security: Rice v. Lake. Winner: Lake.
Interior: Norton v. Babbit. winner: Babbit.
EPA: Whitman v. Browner. winner: Browner.
HHS: Thompson v. Shalala. winner: Thompson.
Education: Paige v. Riley. winner: Paige.
Agriculture: Venemen v. Espy. winner: Espy.
Transportation: Mineta v. Pena. winner: Mineta.
The argument assumes falsely that there was no legal basis for the war crimes charges (Hague Conventions)...this is not correct in the first place but even if it were, so what?
You think law is handed down from God or something? The point is that against any ex post facto charge, there was no international law which prohibited ex post facto law, but most importantly, no international war crimes laws either well other than rights of rape and pillage perhaps
Let me explain to AIDS-Coot:
1) Slavery was bad, and states rights cannot protect such an obscenity.
2) This does not mean, then, that states' rights are a nullity, and that states cannot make state law over other local concerns, such as abortion or the availability of pornography. Slavery was extraordinary, and its value as precedent should be deemed as such. You cannot claim that simply because states' rights cannot protect the "right" of a state to allow slavery that a state therefore has no right to enact a 75 mph speed limit.
3) Similarly, I agree with killing Nazis. I'm all in favor of it.
4) But this does not mean, again, that we can take the Nuremburg Trials as a precedent for hanging Fidel Castro. To do so would be to take an extraordinary situation (Nazis) and apply it to a much more ordinary case (Castro's penne-ante political murders and oppression). To do so would be, yes, furthering bad law out of bad facts.
State: Powell v Christoper. winner: Powell.
Treasury: O'Neill v. Bentsen. winner: O'Neill. Bentsen was an old coot, like Jexter (though without AIDS), and a stogy Senator who was well-known chiefly because he had been there a long time.
O'Neill was a CEO of a huge multinational company and a one-time wunderkind at either the CBO or GAO.
Defense: Rumsfeld v Aspin. winner: Aspen. No, winner Rumsfield. Aspen was so weak that Clinton replaced him within two years.
AJ: Ashcroft v. Reno. winner: Ashcroft.
National Security: Rice v. Lake. Winner: Lake. Nope, Rice.
Interior: Norton v. Babbit. winner: Babbit. Norton again.
EPA: Whitman v. Browner. winner: Browner. Whitman. Who the fuck is Browner, anyway? You like him because he's more pro-environment, or at least that is your thesis. But we're talking about qualifications and experience, not whether you simply agree more with a liberal Democrat than a moderate Republican.
HHS: Thompson v. Shalala. winner: Thompson.
Education: Paige v. Riley. winner: Paige.
Agriculture: Venemen v. Espy. winner: Espy. Yeah, Espy. Whatta guy. Hee, hee. Whatever, Rask.
Transportation: Mineta v. Pena. winner: Mineta.
Treasury: O'Neill v. Bentsen. winner: Bentsen.
Defense: Rumsfeld v Aspin. winner: Aspen.
AJ: Ashcroft v. Reno. winner: Ashcroft. For AJ perhaps but AG? ludicrous
National Security: Rice v. Lake. Winner: Lake.
Interior: Norton v. Babbit. winner: Babbit.
EPA: Whitman v. Browner. winner: Browner.
HHS: Thompson v. Shalala. winner: Thompson. (toss-up)
Education: Paige v. Riley. winner: Paige. (Reily by a mile. Do you know anything about Paige? He's got no political experience to speak of - the #1 requirement for that job - he was the default choice of the HISD for school supe when the BD couldn't find any qualified applicants....he does have an education degree - whoopee!
Agriculture: Venemen v. Espy. winner: Espy.
Transportation: Mineta v. Pena. winner: Mineta.
However, I don't care. the centralization or decentralization of power is not something which makes sense to me as a "principled" argument. Instead, it is a matter of "what works", and that varies depending on the situation.
"Ace: first, we are talking about qualifications based on time of appointment. No fair using future information about performance to disqualify the Clinton cabinet, as they haven't been tested yet."
Don't be absurd. Les Aspin had an advisory role in defense, being on the Armed Services Committe (or whatever). Rumsfield has actually ran the agency before as its executive, and has been a mentor to a great many minds (Cheney's included).
Aspin was weak. We do know this due to subsequent history. But so what? We know it just the same.
coot, like Jexter (though without AIDS), and a stogy Senator who
was well-known chiefly because he had been there a long time.
O'Neill was a CEO of a huge multinational company and a one-time
wunderkind at either the CBO or GAO."
Bentsen was head of the Senate Finance committee for quite awhile. But I defer to the comments from Wall Street on this one, and Bentsen was received much more favorably than O'Neil has been.
"Defense: Rumsfeld v Aspin. winner: Aspen. No, winner Rumsfield.
Aspen was so weak that Clinton replaced him within two years."
See above comments on future information.
"National Security: Rice v. Lake. Winner: Lake. Nope, Rice."
Lake had much more experience. Foreign service, worked for NSA under Nixon, and had academic experience on par with Rice's.
"Interior: Norton v. Babbit. winner: Babbit. Norton again."
Your hackery is showing.
"EPA: Whitman v. Browner. winner: Browner. Whitman. Who the
fuck is Browner, anyway? You like him because he's more
pro-environment, or at least that is your thesis. But we're talking
about qualifications and experience, not whether you simply agree
more with a liberal Democrat than a moderate Republican."
Now your hackery is really showing. You don't even know who Browner is yet you easily conclude that *she* was less qualified than Whitman? Browner was the head of Florida's equivalent of EPA for many years. Whitman was a governor who largely ignored environmental issues. Whitman is more famous but less experienced.
"Agriculture: Venemen v. Espy. winner: Espy. Yeah, Espy. Whatta
guy. Hee, hee. Whatever, Rask."
Again, you are going by future information of performance. Espy had much better qualifications than Venemen has.
Senate Finance Committee...extremely well liked and respected by colleagues both sides of the aisle...very bright
AND most significantly, not someone that someone that Nanny Warbucks would ever choose for the simple reason that he had balls and a political following
Bush needs eunnuchs because his Nanny needs eunnuchs to have a prayer of salvaging what will most likely turn out to be the greatest administrative blunder of all time....The defacto Cheney presidency...
At bottom, that's why the Bush cabinet is filled with mediocrities top to bottom save maybe Thompson & Mineta
Aspen?
"Foreign service, worked for NSA under Nixon, and had academic experience on par with Rice's."
Perhaps you are forgetting that Rice served as Undersecrety of State for the Big Enchilada, Russia.
for the Big Enchilada, Russia."
Not according to any bio of her that I have seen. She did work for NSC, however.
Happened often in the 19th and 20th centuries..called "nation-building"
To quote that darling of the looney left, Shelby Foote "Before the Civil War we were South Carolinians, Virginians, New Yorkers, after it we became Americans"
Trouble is the South's internal political structures remained, for the most part, underdeveloped and in many ways still are...
She worked as a flunky for Scowcroft and has a largely unremarkable academic record and a simple-mind
Oh ah wish I was in the land of cotton...
There is somthing terribly familiar about Gail Norton. . . 
Oh, I seem to do all right with you.
Former Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton's 11-year-old suggestion that property owners have "a right to pollute" is turning heads in Washington as she prepares for confirmation hearings next week on her bid to become President-elect George W. Bush's interior secretary.
Environmentalists say the remarks prove Norton is a "property-rights zealot." But Norton's friends and political backers say the remark was taken out of context.
...
Norton's comment, which came at a 1989 symposium at a Golden think tank, has surfaced just as environmental organizations are banding together to block her nomination.
...
Environmentalists fear that Norton will turn over the nation's 500 million acres of public lands to oil and mining companies and open them up to more recreational activities such as off-road driving. They note her past work with "wise use" advocate James Watt before he became a polarizing interior secretary and her current affiliation with property-rights organizations.
...
Norton's suggestion in 1989 that government recognize property owners' "right to pollute" came in a speech at the Independence Institute, a conservative think tank in Golden. She was a fellow at the Pacific Research Institute between serving in President Reagan's Interior Department and her election as state attorney general in 1990.
She argued that government should compensate property owners when their property values are decreased by regulations, such as those to protect wetlands or endangered species.
In discussing different approaches, she said, "Interestingly, we might even go so far as to recognize a homesteading right to pollute or make noise in an area."
"The mere fact that you form an opinion about Browner without knowing shit about her (including her gender) says quite a bit about your tendentious political instincts."
I know I haven't heard of her.
I know she hasn't made a single paragraph of news.
What more do I need to know?
I never heard of YOU, either, Rask, which also leads me to suspect you are unqualified for a cabinet post.
Precisely.
This is the problem with liberals: They want to pass laws effectively taking away land from landowners, but they refuse to actually compensate those land-owners as required by the constitution.
If you want something, PAY FOR IT.
From the reigning Mote current events champion to God's ears...
Bets anyone?
"The mere fact that you form an opinion ...says quite a bit about your tendentious political instincts."
Then don't talk to me, Rask. I'm not knocking on your door begging for your opinion. Why do you care so much about mine?
I should also note my great mirth when you accuse others of "hackery." Like Cal, you believe you are politically "balanced," and to prove this to yourself you admit the obvious (e.g., Powell is much more qualified than Christopher or Albright) and then deny the less-obvious but also true (e.g., a fucking GOVERNOR is more experienced and qualified than a mid-level political hack).
When people say, "What the fuck?" to your vapid pronouncements, you declare them to be hacks.
"Look at the balance I have shown!" you whine. "Why i admitted that Colin Powell was a qualified Secretary of State! Ergo, each of my subsequent pronouncements must be accepted as the Gospel!"
Nah. I hear from the media that Wall Street is very impressed with Paul O'Neill, as are the careerists at Treasury, who are surprised that they don't have to teach the nominee his job (as they usually do).
What bullshit newspapers are you reading which say differently, Rask? The Liberal Jerkoff Tribune?
For reasons previously stated....Paige has very weak qualifications for the job, and being school supe is not the best training ground for education secty....
funny I heard differently but whose to quarrel with Rush Limbaugh...I heard he's got zero experience with capital markets...I heard he favored Clinton's tax increases....I hear he's there because Cheney can control him... but hey I haven't listened to Rush in a decade or so
"(e.g., a fucking GOVERNOR is more
experienced and qualified than a mid-level political hack)."
I take it then that this statement means you believe that Babbit and Riley were more qualified than Norton and Paige?
The question is whether land owners had a property interest in the regulated activity to begin with. Your approach - assuming the ability to pollute in specific ways is an interest in land - is legally indefensible. Not even Scalia will broach it.
Rask:
Thompson over Shalala?
"I take it then that this statement means you believe that Babbit and Riley were more qualified than Norton and Paige?"
I must confess-- I give not a shit about the Department of the Interior.
But, sure, if it will make you happy-- Babbit was more qualified, both in administration and bribery/corruption.
Riley was a non-entity who did not do jack-shit. I assume Paige will do more. But perhaps my expectations will be dashed.
Based on qualifications? Yes. Thompson had something like 13 years as Governor (following a long stint as state senate minority leader) with a consistently strong interest in human services issues. He knows the politics, he knows the issues, he has lots of legislative experience, lots of administrative experience, and knows every governor in the country. Shalala's qualifications were undersecretary of HHS under Carter and high level experience in college administration. I think she was qualified, but not to Thompson's level.
That, of course, opened up an entirely new mess.
Ace:
"Nah. I hear from the media that Wall Street is very impressed with Paul O'Neill, as are the careerists at Treasury, who are surprised that they don't have to teach the nominee his job (as they usually do)."
You lie. Wall Street wanted Marron. Wall Street is aghast that someone who doesn't know jackshit about international capital markets will be running Treasury. What the hell is he going to do when the Rupee (or whatever) crashes?
Buy curry on the margins.
Rask:
"Based on qualifications? Yes. Thompson had something like 13 years as Governor (following a long stint as state senate minority leader) with a consistently strong interest in human services issues."
Damn, Rask, that's the same logic that led to President Bush.
do more. But perhaps my expectations will be dashed."
They probably will be. Education Secretary is one of the most irrelevant political posts in Washington. Education is primarily a state issue, and only 5% of funding comes from the Feds. That being the case, they have no financial leverage, and being Republicans, strongly pushing national standards is anathema anyway, so Education will basically just continue to administer inconsequential Federal education programs.
Now, Bush campaigned strongly on education issues, but his specific policies were pretty empty with the exception of his "vouchering" Federal money to failing schools. Considering how minor Federal funds are, even if Bush succeeds in getting this passed it will be inconsequential, except *maybe* as a wedge for future state-based voucher efforts.
Ace:
Buy curry on the margins.
Come on, Ace. The phrase is "on margin". You know as little about finance as the President-elect.
Nah, Gore was more qualified than Bush. But qualifications aren't the be all and end all anyway. I would certainly trade almost anyone less qualified for Ashcroft, for instance.
Politically, of course, she is terrible. She has a sympathetic life story and opens up some difficult issues by focusing on the unique disadvantages affirmative action can cause Asian Americans. She will be hard for liberals to handle personally, but she is a political naif. She is a poor leader, lacks real-world experience, and is beholden to McConnell.
Potential controversies:
She accepted a several hundred thousand dollar parting gift from the American Way when it was considerably in the red.
She has close ties with the Chinese diplomatic community, a strange feat for a conservative Taiwanese woman. She has long been an advocate of increased trade relations with mainland China.
She is a strong supporter of the tobacco industry.
Her family, which she will not hesitate to tell you came from Taiwan dirt poor, gives exorbitantly to political figures. That money might be questionable.
She is married to Senator Mitch McConnell, a pariah among several factions of the Senate.
I fully expect her to be approved, though.
Rask:
"Nah, Gore was more qualified than Bush."
Yeah, but Ace and his minions over-rated the experience of being governor.
Rrrrrrrreally, Rask? You're so full of facts which conservatives have been telling liberals (like yourself) for twenty fucking years.
"That being the case, they have no financial leverage, and being Republicans, strongly pushing national standards is anathema anyway,"
Except, of course, that GWB has made testing a centerpiece of his education package.
You're such a dope. Yes, Bush doesn't necessarily want NATIONAL standards. The state can promulgate its own testing standards; they will be reviewed by the feds for adequacy, however.
I did not go to law school in NY or DC.
I opened my law books quite a bit... at the very end of each semester.
The Indian restaurants of DC are inferior to those in New York. Actually, DC restaurants in general suck, although they have improved in the last few years.
Has anyone been to that stretch on sixth or seventh street, down near the Lower East Side, where there are, no exaggerating, thirty Indian restaurants side-by-side and atop one another?
It's fucking nutty.
You're telling me. I walk to "chinatown" daily, and it is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen. All of a block long.
Ace -
I was under the impression you went to either Catholic or American? I didn't even buy my textbook for evidence last semester. My takings law class, on the other hand...
been telling liberals (like yourself) for twenty fucking years."
Given our many exchanges, you can hardly fault me for not assuming that you actually knew anything about the Federal budget.
"You're such a dope. Yes, Bush doesn't necessarily want NATIONAL
standards. The state can promulgate its own testing standards; they will be reviewed by the feds for adequacy, however."
Meaningless unless the Feds are actually going to have approval. I forget whether Bush is planning on pushing for that level of control, but I doubt whether he will succeed.
DaveM:
No, not Catholic or American. Though I once visited either Catholic or American (can't tell them apart) on a road-trip in college.
The dorm I was staying in burned down.
"Given our many exchanges, you can hardly fault me for not assuming that you actually knew anything about the Federal budget."
Yawn.
Repost your dissertation on Reagan's budget deficits again. I don't think the Nobel Committee saw it the first time around.
And yes, Bush will have "control."
I can't tell their students apart. Underage girls from both schools dominate every bar I go to it seems.
Catholic is in a relatively bad part of town, American in a relatively "good" part (it's more suburban).
That sounds crazy to me. What did you buy, a nutshell? Personally, I liked my Evidence textbook. It was loaded with "problems"-- sort of like little games. I learned most of evidence from those freaking little bar-exam type questions.
It was informative--and fun!
Ace:
"Has anyone been to that stretch on sixth or seventh street, down near the Lower East Side, where there are, no exaggerating, thirty Indian restaurants side-by-side and atop one another?"
Been there, done that. I used to hypothesize that they were all connected to the same kitchen.
"
What a shame. I hate drunken underage Catholic girls swilling cheap beer.
Well, power to him if he does. I could never get a clear sense of his plans from his policy proposals - he was characteristically vague. But a clear and meaningful role for the Feds in education is to oversee state or national standards. However, given the resistance to Goals 2000, I am skeptical whether a GOP proposal will actually have any teeth.
The entire latter third of the class was spent talking about the election.
I did crib a few outlines we had on file at Law Review, in my rather terrible last semester, in which I broke my own admirable records for laziness and failure to study the materials.
I was in Louisville over New Years - $1.50 for a Beam and coke.
What about the Rathskeller, by CUA? Does that still exist or have they closed it down?
I remember it being a huge basement, wet and stinky, with $1.00 beers and filled with drunken Catholic girls.
Not sure if it's there. I don't make it over to CUA much. There is a "socialist" bar called Common Share where everything's two bucks (everything - good beer, mixed drinks, bad beer), but it is a hike.
There is a bar called Brickskeller, and it's in a basement, but it's near Dupont circle and is outrageously expensive. They claim to have the largest beer selection on the east coast.
Hmmm. Here are the bars I've been to in DC:
The Third Edition (or the late edition?)
The Yard (or something like that; they sell yards of beer; "Yardley's"?)
Irish Times, of course
And the Rathskeller by CUA, which cannot be the one you mention.
Plus a couple of others I forget the names of.
Last night I had a pulled pork sandwhich from the Irish Times. All of my liberal friends sat around and bitched about Bush.
She's a cutie, all right.
Tonight on PrimeTime on ABC, Diane Sawyer interviews Katherine Harris.
email address since last I was here.
Whats this beer as politics you are running here.??
I have found a new ( for me) beer called Carlsberg, Danish .
??
He didn't move to NW DC just to be close to dear ole Hil...
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10
— President Clinton gave
a bit of a glimpse this week of one
of the roles he is likely to play
once he cedes the White House to
his successor: that of partisan
provocateur.
At a raucous rally of Democratic
faithful in Chicago on Tuesday
night, Mr. Clinton said that Vice
President Al Gore had really won
the presidential election and that a
faulty court decision halting the
recounts had resulted in
President-elect George W. Bush's
ultimate victory.
And today, at a fund-raising
luncheon for Senator Max Baucus,
Democrat of Montana, Mr.
Clinton referred to the
whisker-close Senate race in
Washington State, which Senator
Maria Cantwell, a Democrat, won
after a recount.
"They have this unusual system in
Washington State — they actually
count all the votes," Mr. Clinton
said sarcastically to laughter and
applause from the partisan crowd.
In praising William M. Daley, a Chicagoan who had served in Mr. Clinton's cabinet before he became Mr. Gore's campaign chairman, the president said, "I think he did a brilliant job in leading Vice President Gore to victory."
Bringing up the election controversy again, the president said, "By the time it was over, our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida."
they closed it down?
I remember it being a huge basement, wet and stinky, with $1.00
beers and filled with drunken Catholic girls.
And not a few young Catholic boyz, yummy horny drunk...
GO CARDINALS!
Which reminds me...Did I ever tell you guys about the wild time I had one night in a Stanford Court Suite....one right next door to Henry K...moans and groans loud enough to wake the dead.
jexter's toysgone
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Indonesian billionaire James Riady has agreed to pay a record $8.6 million criminal fine and plead guilty to
using corporate funds from his foreign Lippo Group to reimburse contributors to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign for the presidency,
the Justice Department announced Thursday night.
Riady, a key figure in the campaign finance scandal, pledged $1 million in 1992 to support the then-Arkansas governor's campaign, the government said.
Under terms of a plea bargain filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, Riady agreed to surrender and come to this country at an
unspecified future date even though there is no extradition treaty between Indonesia and the United States.
An FBI summary released last year said democratic fund-raiser John Huang, a Riady employee, alleged that Riady had told Clinton, while he was Arkansas governor, during a limousine ride that he wanted to raise $1 million for his campaign. Huang himself pleaded guilty to a campaign financing felony and has been cooperating with the government since August 1999.
Last April, Clinton told federal investigators
that he did not have ``a specific recollection
of what the conversation was, or this fact of
the car ride.'' He said he only remembered
seeing Riady ``sometime in '92 after I
became the nominee,'' and that Riady
pledged to help his campaign.
Riady agreed to plead guilty to a felony
charge of conspiring to defraud the United
States. Foreign campaign contributions are
illegal under U.S. law.
I
The world has room for more cub scout reporters, people who largely post the words of others. At some point, however, you ought to graduate from the pee wee league to venturing something resembling a post of your own. Or, do you plan to have someone else father your children as well?
Jexter is one of those same sexers who refuses to go back into the closet.
Auto, we're not worthy!!
Auto, we're not worthy. Please have mercy!!!
THAT is the question..stay tuned for the next exciting episode of AutoDaffy - Death from Above 
excerpt:
According to the investigation sources, Ray and his prosecutors are convinced the evidence against Mr. Clinton is strong enough to get both an indictment and a conviction in front of an "unbiased jury".
Well, then; Demorats are going to have to insist on a biased jury, won't they? I'm confident they can wangle one. They found a pack of brain-dead kangaroos in the SCOFLA, didn't they?
Almost exactly eight years ago, then-President-elect Clinton held an economic summit in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was an unabashedly wonky, academic affair, at a time when such attributes were considered virtuous in a president. The conference was noted for its length (19 hours) and for its openness, which permitted Clinton to show off his economic expertise before the C-SPAN cameras and the national media. In retrospect, though, the meeting's lasting import was its ideological disunity. Its attendees, several of whom had not voted for their host, included corporate chieftains, unionists, economists, and small-business owners. The free-flowing discussion helped persuade the new president to scale back his plans for a fiscal stimulus package--the traditional Democratic response to economic sluggishness--and instead put greater emphasis on reducing the deficit. (George W. Bush's recent economic conference, by contrast, was limited to three dozen business leaders--of whom nearly two-thirds had contributed to his campaign--and was closed to the media, all to ensure it produced unanimous support for the president-elect's tax cut.)
The intellectual heterodoxy of Little Rock blossomed into a full-blown economic philosophy that helped bring about a run of material uplift virtually unlike any the country has ever seen.
Now What Does Ole Bill Have In Store for the Bastard Successor?
Woof Woof Big Dog!
....
One little-noticed but important virtue of the Clinton administration was its honesty in economic analysis and reporting. In general — and in contrast to some of their predecessors — Mr. Clinton's economists avoided misrepresenting the facts, using convenient but specious arguments, or employing scare tactics to sell their policy ideas.
But it's already clear that henceforth things will be different. It seems that the incoming administration regards it as perfectly acceptable to say things that are demonstrably untrue, and even to abandon conservative economic principles, if by so doing it can sell its preferred policy.
Paul Krugman
What atrocities have the Repugs committed today? I see the Repugs aren't very interested in appointing an Independent Counsel to investigate Linda Chavez with regard to obstruction and lying to the FBI.
The Rule of Law only applies to Democrats, apparently.
Meanwhile, Curious George timidly introduces us to Elaine Chao as noiminee to be the next Secretary of Labor. He portrays Elaine as an "immigrant to this country" who "didn't speak English" and gained "the American Dream."
Curious George left off the part about Elaine's father owning a shipping line and being a multi-multi-multi-millionaire when he came to this country. It's a terribly inspirational message. You, too, can achieve the American Dream, provided your parents are as wealthy as Croesus.
On the bright side, it does indicate that Curious George will fold under the least bit of pressure.
Ashcroft's on deck.
Though Norton did not often walk the anti-federal line in her administration, she has held to it rhetorically. In outside legal work, speeches and writings over the years, Norton has:
-- Supported opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the coastal plain in northeastern Alaska.
-- Called the Endangered Species Act an example of "excessive regulation."
The act is enforced by the Fish and Wildlife Service, an Interior agency.
-- Filed an amicus brief in 1980 on behalf of the Virginia coal-mining industry, arguing the federal Surface Mining Act, designed to minimize environmental damage caused by strip mining, should be declared unconstitutional.
-- Said the government should compensate property owners for losses of property value or income as a result of regulation or endangered-species laws.
Two years ago, Norton helped launch the Coalition for Republican Environmental Advocates, an industry-funded group aimed at improving the GOP's environmental image.
Environmental groups have labeled the effort a "greenwashing."
"Gale Norton is most definitely the wrong person to be in charge of our endangered wildlife, our parks [and] our priceless national treasures," said Brock Evans, director of the Endangered Species Coalition.
Despite the united environmental front against Norton, those who have worked with her -- even some Democrats -- say she is not a radical.
"Of the people I know who are Republican, she has been one of the most pro-active and positive with regard to environmental issues," said Washington state Attorney General Christine Gregoire, a Democrat who worked with Norton on a number of issues affecting their states in the 1990s.
She does sound somewhat Libertarian. I don't think that overseeing millions of acres of public land is the best position for a Lib.
Based on her record in Colorado and her speeches, it sounds like Norton would allow commercial interests to run rampant, and would fail to enforce environmental regulations on public land.
Its kind of a shame. Both parties should agree not to nominate a fox to guard the henhouse (either way), but such an agreement is best made before the election, not after.
I've been labelling Bush simian for some time and it's wonderful to see some illustration.
the double post was deleted
"Both parties should agree not to nominate a fox to guard the henhouse (either way), but such an agreement is best made before the election, not after."
Why should both parties agree to anything? I advocate political trench warefare. Wound as many nominees from the other party as possible. Bayonet them if they fall.
Never forget about the Impeachment.
Impressive hosting. Very smooth.
The Democrats, the party of Clinton.
HAHA! LIVE WITH IT!
George W. Bush, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso have all died.
Due to a glitch in the mundane/celestial time-space continuum, all three arrive at the Pearly Gates more or less simultaneously, even though their deaths have taken place decades apart.
The first to present himself to Saint Peter is Einstein. Saint Peter questions him. "You look like Einstein, but you have NO idea the lengths certain people will go to, to sneak into Heaven under false pretenses. Can you prove who you really are?"
Einstein ponders for a few seconds and asks, "Could I have a blackboard and some chalk?" Saint Peter complies with a snap of his fingers.
The blackboard and chalk instantly appear. Einstein proceeds to describe with arcane mathematics and symbols his general theory of relativity.
Saint Peter is suitably impressed. "You really *are* Einstein!Welcome to heaven!"
The next to arrive is Picasso. Once again Saint Peter asks for his credentials. Picasso doesn't hesitate. "Mind if I use that blackboard and chalk?" Saint Peter says, "Go ahead."
Picasso erases Einstein's scribbles and proceeds to sketch out a truly stunning mural. Bulls, satyrs, nude women: he captures their essences with but a few strokes of the chalk.
Saint Peter claps. "Surely you are the great artist you claim to be! Come on in!"
The last to arrive is George W. Bush. Saint Peter scratches his head. "Einstein and Picasso both managed to prove their identity. How can you prove yours?"
George W. looks bewildered, "Who are Einstein and Picasso?"
Saint Peter sighs, "Come on in, George."
"Set an honest and honorable example, just as I did," advised George.
The next night, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson moved through the dark
bedroom.
"Tom, what is the best thing I could do to help the country, now that I am President?" Bush asked.
"Cut taxes and reduce the size of government," advised Tom.
Bush didn't sleep well the next night, and saw yet another figurem moving in the shadows. It was Abraham Lincoln's ghost.
"Abe, what is the best thing I could do for the country, now that I am President?" Bush asked.
"Go to the theater," replied Abe ...
by LIB QUAID Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The widow whose husband posthumously defeated
John Ashcroft will introduce him at confirmation hearings next week in what
the nominee's allies called a favorable signal to other Democrats.
While she did not commit to support him, Sen. Jean Carnahan, D-Mo.,
agreed to the introduction at Ashcroft's request, her top aide told The
Associated Press.
You're time is prologue, and you're a better memory than reality.
You should get therapy to stop lying and start using a browser that works, Sphincter.
They're both good links, you pathetic moron.
Jade: Who is tommydemoron?
<snicker>
Why don't you and Sphincter just go fuck yourselves?
Is that a nice way to welcome your intellectual superior?
You must be grumpy about Chavez. Fear not, soon Ashcroft will be joining her.
Anybody going to protest in DC on 20 January? I understand it will be the largest protest since Nixon in 1973.
How can a cretin like you who cannot even use a browser properly be the intellectual superior of, say, my gonads?
it might interest you to know our very own Rosetta Slide will be hosting a virtual inauguration protest thread starting in a few days.
Will Curious George bite the head off a chicken at the inauguration, tommydemoron? I need to know in case I have to bring extra film.
I mean, someone would have to be paying pretty close attention to this board to figure that one out. It's not like you could just pop up one day and instantly know it, you know?
As far as fucking myself, though, please note that my post was in no way a complaint about the fine sucking you're currently giving me. Try not to talk with your mouth so full, though, okay?
Hahaha!
count on it!
What gave it away the concerned was tommy d?
Is that a nice way to welcome your intellectual superior?
Think of how you greeted him. And after not posting here for years...
Sphincter seems to brings out the worst in certain Motiers. You're a case in point, from what I've seen.
toys?
Fitts:
"You're time is prologue, and you're a better memory than reality."
I didn't know that you were into William Burroughs.
You must live in a parallel universe.
Gore received more votes than Curious George. He even beat the Kennebunkport Hillbilly in Florida.
Curious George hasn't even taken the oath and his proposed administration is already biting the dust.
Never forget about the Impeachment.
amen. First rule of politics -- what goes around comes around.
This is George
He lived in Austin
He was a good little monkey and always very curious.
One day he saw a man with big yellow teeth.
The man saw George too.
The man with the big yellow teeth thought he might take George away to live in the White House.
Good to see you here Jade & good jokes, btw.
Sphincter -
You'd better have your meds adjusted. The only question is as to which Demorat will be thrashed in the 2004 election by GWB. Especially with the Greens going for their > 5% of the popular vote.
Of course, demented whackjobs like yourself will always be publicly soiling themselves and whomever else is unlucky enough to be be caught within their fecal spray. But that's just a burden that responsible, 3 digit IQ people such as myself will have to accept, I suppose.
I thought that was your shoe size, bubbaette, not your IQ.
Even Curious George realized, albeit after 40 years, that the sauce was bad for you.
Thanks, but Jade doesn't need my help to look foolish. She succeeds all on her own.
That’s because you have class,taste and a good eye for ironic hypocrisy, Bubbs!
Like Democratic lies and deceit. 
I thought for sure that he'd be touring with N'Sync. What was that band's name?
Just Water.
Sounds like just the prescription for tommydemoron.
Probably somebody named "Tucker."
We seem to be inundated with nutjobs named "Tucker" lately.
We've been having some real fun knocking the Waste of Ace et al about lately...
Welcome back!
Only here for a brief time. I'm midway between Tampa and Orlando on a borrowed machine. After naptime, it's off to see Dr. Seuss at his themepark.
Keep fighting the good fight but take it easy on BobaFett. Too much stress can trigger one of his attacks.
jexster -
Well, I'd be surprised if ol' Sphincter could come up with anything requiring any actual creativity. She's nothing if not an obsessive idiot.
Who, exactly, requested your poorly informed comments?
Niner already driven off the deep end. Ace not far behind. One or two more of his "attacks" and I'm betting on a committment order!
Go easy? naaaaaaa
Are those... live rounds?
Seven-six-two millimeter. Full metal jacket
Stick around.
To bad he doesn't have anything to say.
The Inferno feels like air conditioning next to this thread.
I'm gettin hopefuller and hopefuller that TD will make it.
Their President-Select is a moron. A dunce.
We know it. They know it. It shames them.
Bush or Chimp?
That's how you link, tommydemoron.
I don't believe that Sphincter will be posting in this forum too often. Considering her infantile tone, a good thing.
Boy, have you got that one right. Kind of like the Summer of Love compared to the Watts Riots.
TAKE THE PLEDGE!
"I will give our new president the same level of support and encouragement that was given to the current administration by such luminaries as Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh, Richard [Mellon] Scaife, Ted Olson, [Paul Greenberg] and, of course, George W. himself. In other words, I will badmouth the president daily, I will work in whatever small way I can to defeat and undermine his programs and agenda, I will believe every scurrilous lie told about him and I will criticize and ridicule his wife and children at every opportunity."
What are you blithering about, you festering cesspool of idiocy and dishonesty?
An Israeli doctor said, "Medicine in my country is so advanced we can take a kidney out of one person, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in six weeks."
A German doctor said, "That's nothing! In Germany, we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in four weeks."
A Russian doctor said, "In my country medicine is so advanced, we can take half a heart from one person, put it in another, and have them both out looking for work in two weeks."
The American doctor, not to be outdone, said, "Ha! We are about to take an asshole out of Texas, put him in the White House and half the country will be out looking for work the next day."
Where's ya been ? Are you the same Jadegold that also knew her/his baseball ? Welcome back!
I hope you are here to stay this time ? Yes ? No ?
I'm here for just a brief time as I do my best to boycott Florida. With the exception of the Dr. Seuss themepark, of course.
As you can see from my work with the criminally insane here on the Mote, mine is not an easy cross to bear.
BTW, have you passed those tiffany cuff links yet?
Any connections?
bbb -
What's really peculiar is that many Mote Lefties eat Sphincter's puerile drivel with a spoon.
Guess there's no accounting for tastelessness.
You're not letting bbb drink from your bottle, are you?
What's with Curious George? Why is he so intent on bringing back the Confederacy?
You have to marvel at Curious George though. He gets less than 10% of the black vote which is lower than any Repug in the last 50 years. What's he do to fix that? He nominates a racist to be Attorney General. Smooth move, Curious George.
Jade,
Boycott those Cuban reactionary groups down there, but why all of Florida ? And what's Florida have to do with you posting here on a regular basis again ?
Fitts:
Keep giving us that play by play. Maybe you could also add some running commentary on the Jerry Springer show. I'm sure everybody loves the value you add.
I can see that your posts here on the Mote are criminally insane.
*yawn*
You ought to be happy that we're putting a respectable, competent person into the office of US President.
'Confederacy'? Tell that to the most ethnically diverse cabinet in our nation's history.
Ask Curious George.
He slept through the first 40 years of his life.
What's competant about nominating someone who was running a sweatshop out of her home?
GWB was 'asleep' while obtaining his Harvard MBA? The man must have even more awesome potential than I thought.
I am always correct. It's a gift.
W's only got four years, and there's lotsa deregulation and degradation that his backers want to get in place. I'll say this, he's sure got some cheek, asking the dems to tone down the rhetoric on his nominees after 8 years of unrelenting gop mudslinging (that Texas sun done shined all the thinkin' outta that boy...)
She's not real.
Beautiful Linda Tripp will be on ABC 2Night talking about the Clinton legacy.
...And she still knows a lot that hasn't been revealed..
????
Who are you talking about?
If what you have was a gift, you'd better hope the store has a liberal exchange policy.
No amount of cosmetic surgery can reverse the ugliness within.
Anybody ask who is paying for all that work?
W's only got four years, and there's lotsa deregulation and degradation that his backers want to get in place. I'll say this, he's sure got some cheek, asking the dems to tone down the rhetoric on his nominees after 8 years of unrelenting gop mudslinging (that Texas sun done shined all the thinkin' outta that boy...)
JJ -
IOW, to qualify as a minority to Lefty a person has to be firmly on their ideological plantation. Otherwise, they become living repudiations of the ideologically bankrupt Lefty dependencies on fascism, racism and racialism.
What's really ludicrous is the thought of what a Pinocchio Bore cabinet would have looked like. To sustain his pathological lies, we would probably have a Ministry of Truth. To lend a spurious justification to the breaking of international laws and to provide cover for violating other countries' hegemony, a Department of Peace.
Pinocchio Bore is one scary Orwellian fucker.
Why? She is the source of such amusement. I agree you can't possibly take her seriously, but her posts are too funny to pass up.
Of all people, you would know.
You must mean lefty 'logic' - and you've only posted the same thing twice so far, so I guess you would think that you need to do it once again.
Democrats only require something to be said once for it to be true (as long as it is against a Republican).
And a case of Four Roses.
Be honest. We all know that Curious George is just there for the photo ops. He can barely handle those. It is the man with the big yellow teeth, Dick Cheney, who calls the shots. The man with the yellow teeth who refused to vote for a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela.
I don't look anything like your mom.
I just have a hard time imagining that you look more than vaguely humanoid. I imagine you as more of a stunted Sasquatch having a face that is strongly reminiscent of the perineal region of a baboon.
Yes
Like Chad in florida.
HaHaHa!
I really have my doubts, JJ. How attractive does one need to be to make a withdrawal from a sperm bank?
Concerned - I think you are mistaken regarding Jade's physical
appearance. I would assume she is at least marginally attractive. I
don't believe God could be so cruel as to make her ugly and inflict
her with that personality.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even a very difficult task for God,indeed.
Pinocchio Bore is one scary Orwellian fucker.
Connie's almost cute when he's critiquing things he made up.
Seriously, Tom. If Shrub could get on the wagon, so can you!
I pretty much depend on my personality for birth control.
OK, Since we have now been welcoming back Jade for quite some time and since this is supposed to be the Politics, may I respectfully suggest we countinue this in the Inferno? Thanks.
By the way, I think it's abundantly clear that JadeGold is much more clever and amusing than is Cazart.
Sphincter set the rules when she started insulting me with her trademark crap about 'drinking'. If my descending to her level bothers you, deal with it.
Actually, virtually anything she is likely ever to post in relation to politics belongs in the Inferno, and AFAIC, I hope you both take your insults and mutual admiration there.
Me too. Like the attacks on Katherine Harris' appearance. Or Linda Tripp's. Or Paula Jones'. . . . .
Stooge Reno is the worst, most corrupt AG in history. The Left believes that the Wh Rapist cannot be held responsible for his actions, no matter how egregious they might be.
If Clowntoon machine gunned a tourist group of senior citizens on the WH lawn, Lefties would claim it was a 'VRWC' plot if there was an attempt to bring him to justice. Fortunately, this untenable state of affairs is about to end.
"Earlier yesterday, the president paid a similarly nostalgic visit to Dover, N.H. He recalled how that seacoast community was the site of a February 1992 speech in which he pledged to work tirelessly if voters gave him a second chance in the New Hampshire primary. At the time, he was being dogged by reports of infidelity and draft-dodging. 'I promised you in that now famous line that I would work my heart out for you "until the last dog dies,"' Clinton told about 2,000 people in the Dover High School gymnasium. 'After eight years, and with almost exactly nine days to go, the last dog is still barking.'
Woofs rang out from the audience.
Howard Kurtz
I heard the bushies will have cops at eight-foot intervals along the inaugural parade route.
Please sign their e-petition at
PFAW STOP ASHCROFT PETITION
Record of a Freak and an Extremist (PFAW)
WASHINGTON (AP) - John Ashcroft, President-elect Bush's nominee for
attorney general, told a conservative South Carolina college two years ago that America was founded by deeply religious colonists and ``we have no king but Jesus.''
Sign the petition!
onlly "lost" by 5 or six electoral votes,
probably he lost because of one or two smaller states
which should have been tallied for gore but probably were
stolen. anyone know which states?
WSJ Editorial Page (!!!) Excoriates Bush for Dumping Linda the Freak (gigot)
onlly "lost" by 5 or six electoral votes,
probably he lost because of one or two smaller states
which should have been tallied for gore but probably were
stolen. anyone know which states?
But Florida where he DID WIN, would certainly have mattered...the Corrupt 5 on the US Sct made sure it didn't
And he's a NIGGER too. You must have forgotten that spitball.
FREAK 
Mission accomplished.
If cutting and pasting the work of others is smart, you are a genius. If, on the other hand, you realize how trite your borrowings are, you should go back to the crack whore who has jade and gold inlaid in her teeth for further instruction on how to use a toilet.
If It Walks Like A Crypto-racist Freak, Talks Like....It Might Lose To A Dead Man
FREAK
When you grow up and perhaps marry the troll who will tolerate you, she instruct you that lower is not necessarily better, nor volume better than technique.
Hmmmm... Ascroft won two elections for AG, two elections as Governor, one election as Senator, and would have won another term for Senator had "Slappy Blackface" Carnahan not attempted to land his plane on an elm.
So... is the entire state of Missouri made up of right wing extremist freaks?
If so, why did Al "I hate fags" Gore campaign there? Why did he get 48% or so of the vote there?
Explain, Jexster. If Ashcroft is a right-wing Xtian (as you say) freak, then how come he won five statewide elections in Missouri? Doesn't that mean that 51% of Missourians are right-wing Xtian freaks?
Are any of your liberal hatchet-men in the Senate willing to say so? Will Barbara "Somebody Please Fuck Me" Boxer say so? Will Al "No Controlling Legal Authority" Gore say so?
Why didn't he say so before the election?
Questions, questions. Questions which my little drooling freak can't answer.
Tough break for RR...
SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) -Former President Reagan broke his right hip in a fall at his home Friday afternoon and will have surgery Saturday morning, his spokeswoman said.
Reagan, who turns 90 on Feb. 6, was taken from his Bel Air home by ambulance to St. John's Health Center, where he was resting comfortably, said his chief of staff Joanne Drake, who described it as ``just a simple fall.''
The former president's wife, Nancy, was taken with him to the hospital in the midafternoon, Drake said.
``He is fully alert, in good humor and in stable condition,'' she said in a statement.
Drake said the surgery would likely involve installing a pin in the hip.
freaks?
If so, why did Al "I hate fags" Gore campaign there? Why did he get
48% or so of the vote there?
Explain, Jexster. If Ashcroft is a right-wing Xtian (as you say) freak,
then how come he won five statewide elections in Missouri? Doesn't
that mean that 51% of Missourians are right-wing Xtian freaks?
Ashcroft's base is substantial. Its in the Southern part of the state, a place well stocked with FREAKS - posse comitatis etc etc...
And isn't the answer to your stupid ass question obvious?
Not all Missourians voted for Ashcroft. Not all Missourians are like you.
Thank God for that eh scumbucket?
Now go have another of your "attacks"....get mental get REAL mental you neo-nazi fuckwad
The point of the exercise is to work the Freaks into a frenzy,.
So let's get it on!
ALL Praise to Jesus
Ashcroft's nephew got probation after major pot bust...Salon...
Jan. 12, 2001 | The nephew of Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft received probation after a felony conviction in state court for growing 60 marijuana plants with intent to distribute the drug in 1992 -- a lenient sentence, given that the charges against him often trigger much tougher federal penalties and jail time. Ashcroft was the tough-on-drugs Missouri governor at the time.
If I were a liberal Democratic activist, what would be the most effective way for me to discredit the notion of a new, compassionate, inclusive conservatism? Make Jesse Helms George W. Bush's secretary of state? Put Phyllis Schlafly in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services? Deport all illegal aliens within one year? Repeal the Voting Rights Act? Or nominate John Ashcroft to be attorney general?
Tough call. Ashcroft is about as good as it gets for the polarizing purposes of the cultural wars. The special interest left has been given the post-Christmas present of its dreams. NARAL's fund-raising department is probably only now recovering from its post-nomination champagne blowout. Ralph Neas must already have sent out several million direct-mail letters. Elizabeth Birch of the Gore campaign--I mean the Human Rights Campaign--must be thrilled to bits. Not since Matthew Shepard was murdered has her direct mail been so lucrative...
Two words for you Ace
Crisco Oil
Those were the days before the Freaks took control of the GOP asylum, the days of decent Republicans - Mac Mathias, Jake Javits, Nelson Rockefeller...the days when George Bush styled himself a centrist and spoke of "voodoo economics"
The days before Crisco Oil, Jerry Falwell, the Imbecile of the United States, Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, militias and John Ashcroft
Banana Republicans 
My oldest daughter, the beautiful and talented Katie (without the braces), is to sing for her country and President-elect George Bush next Thursday evening at the Lincoln Memorial.
We just found out last night. Her school's 30-person chorus (Herbert Hoover, Potomac, MD) was picked to sing at the Opening Ceremony for the 2001 Inauguration.
With another chorus from a differnt school, they will sing a premiere composition by Andrew Lloyd Weber and will be working 24/7 until next week to get it down pat.
Again, the Secret Service wants her Social Security number, so the big and wonderful W will be near.
Rosetta:
My oldest daughter, the beautiful and talented Katie (without the braces), is to sing for her country and President-elect George Bush next Thursday evening at the Lincoln Memorial.
We just found out last night. Her school's 30-person chorus (Herbert Hoover, Potomac, MD) was picked to sing at the Opening Ceremony for the 2001 Inauguration.
When someone comes in here and mentions your child and her school and her sisters braces, don't go whining for them to be banned for daring to say things about your RL family...you put it out there, buddy.
headline in today's Washington Times:
"Just like the Clintons, Gores plan to stick around."
Al and Tipper Gore will move into their old Arlington home on 26th Street near the airport in seven days, marking the first ime both the president and vice president will stay behind after their terms end.
As I've said before. No way was Tipper going to move back to Tennessee. She hated it when she lived there in the mid-1970s. Tipper is a local girl and all her girlfriends are here.
Do we, the public, actually expect Congress to act in a bipartisan spirit for the next few years? I would place my bet on a real donnybrook of partisanship. The House has to be reconfigured following the census. Redistricting may wind up worse than the Florida attempt to count some of the ballots all the time and some of the ballots none of the time. Think the courts are going to be real busy dealing with all the suits about district lines.
Do we, the public, actually expect Congress to act in a bipartisan spirit for the next few years? I would place my bet on a real donnybrook of partisanship. The House has to be reconfigured following the census. Redistricting may wind up worse than the Florida attempt to count some of the ballots all the time and some of the ballots none of the time. Think the courts are going to be real busy dealing with all the suits about district lines.
I think you might be right. I read that New York is going to lose something like two congressional seats. We add one. Nyah, nyah.
Yea a real barrel of laughs that Bush Bitch is...wonder which foreign government will be privileged to host her act?
Anyone have a webcam?
Last month, two of Landover's principal political action committees petitioned the Iowa state legislature to revamp the state's election code so all statewide elections are modeled after the Electoral College. The impetus for the proposal came from the nation's recent Presidential election in which Godly George W. Bush was elected President despite the fact that heathen Al Gore received half a million more votes.
"God was telling us something," observed Pastor Deacon Fred during a press conference last Sunday. "He was telling us that His will must prevail over something as innocuous as the will of the majority. Gore's people keep emphasizing that he received five times as many votes as Kennedy did when he defeated Nixon in the nation's previously closest election. But when the analysis is limited to the relevant votes – those of True Saved Christians – Bush won hands down. Rest assured, it was God who kept the fingers of those Floridian Jews, Negroes, etc. from pushing those needles through the cards. We'll probably never know why God didn't do the same for Nixon 40 years ago."
The real issue, the decisive issue is whether we can trust this guy to enforce laws that he vigorously opposes.
To put it another way, would Ashcroft vote against confirming a nominee for AG who was against the death penalty? Would Ace and AD be frantic and forthing over such a choice?
The questions are rhetorical obviously.
By Robert Kaiser (I had sex with his brother) and Walter Pincus:
During six years as a U.S. senator, John D. Ashcroft of Missouri frequently voted and spoke against laws, regulations, practices and court decisions that he would be responsible for enforcing if he is confirmed as the next U.S. attorney general.
From gun control to affirmative action, from Roe v. Wade to FBI eavesdropping on e-mail sent to criminal suspects, from drug treatment programs to executive orders protecting gay federal employees, Ashcroft as attorney general would have to uphold positions he has criticized or even denounced.
"I believe it wrongheaded," Ashcroft said of the 1994 ban on assault weapons, for example. "It. . . has severely restricted the rights of law-abiding citizens to participate in many activities involving guns." The Supreme Court decision that allowed states to impose restrictions on protesters outside abortion clinics, he said on
another occasion, "weakened the First Amendment's speech guarantees."
While many senators confine themselves to several subjects of special interest, Ashcroft's one term in the Senate produced a rich record of forceful positions on crime and drugs, foreign policy, defense policy, education and more. He once proposed tax cuts totaling nearly $5 trillion over 10 years and the abolition of the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Energy and Commerce.
Most relevant to his nomination are his views on a wide range of legal and constitutional issues, which were clearly expressed in a series of hearings Ashcroft held as chairman of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee. Those views put him at odds with current law, government practice, prevailing court opinions and members of the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court. He described one decision supported by three Republican appointees on the Court as "illegitimate."
Ashcroft has opposed all forms of affirmative action and efforts to extend the protections of anti-discrimination laws to homosexuals. Being gay is "a lifestyle" and "a choice which can be made and unmade," he has said. In the ratings of members of Congress calculated by various interest groups, Ashcroft has consistently ranked among the most conservative members of both houses.
The liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave him a zero rating for 1999; the conservative John Birch Society ranks him higher than Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). On many controversial issues before the Republican-controlled Senate, Ashcroft voted on the losing side with a bloc of 25 to 35 of the most conservative senators.
The other three are Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and Don Evans.
Someone in McKinnon's media shop mailed the Bush prep debate tape to Gore's headquarters.
I like the guy and hope he's not guilty of being the Algore mole.
Gale Norton has devoted her life to undermining the mission of the agency she has been nominated to lead," said Greg Whetstone of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "And we have every reason to believe that she would continue this crusade as the secretary of the interior, with disastrous consequences for our forests,parks, wildlife and public lands."
From The American Political Journal: 
The Bush administration promises to be as artistic as it is qualified. Second lady Lynne Cheney, after all, has written three novels, and Attorney General-in-waiting John Ashcroft shows promise as a songwriter-poet. (Chatterbox recently celebrated Ashcroft's lyricism.)
So Chatterbox was surprised and dismayed to learn that President[sic] Bush will not continue the quasi-custom of an inaugural poem.
Chatterbox invites readers to write their own poem (or repurpose an already written poem) for the Bush inauguration. It should capture the majestic, soaring promise of the new president and the coming four years. Any form of poetry is welcome--including haiku, limerick, sonnet, epic, and, the president-elect's[sic] own favorite, blank verse.
All entries should be sent to Chatterbox@slate.com and received by noon EST on Wednesday, Jan. 17.
Posted in Poetry Thread too.
1 on poetry
1 on the Wiz
2 on Norton
Perhaps Fun with Phonics to start
1 on Clinton's Stellar environmental record
2 on Landover Baptist Church
3 on Ashcroft
TIED NOW with
3 on CalGal!!!
Don't fret Cal, I'm done for the next several hours. Enough material there for about a week of very topical discussion on any number of topics
Living well may not be the best revenge...but it will do for now...
It looks like the West Wing is relocating to the West Side.
At the Carnegie Hall Tower, Mr. Clinton will be taking digs befitting a post-POTUS. While his office will almost certainly be square, not oval, from the top of the 60-story tower "the views are to die for," said one person who has offices there. Central Park South and the verdant expanse of Central Park lie directly to the north, and Times Square, Rockefeller Center and the rest of the city’s skyline soar to the south. And if Mr. Clinton finds himself going stir-crazy, he can always head downstairs and hang out with his pal Barry Diller; the entertainment mogul has offices on the 40th floor.
Newsweek poll on Ashcroft nomination...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than 40 percent of Americans say the U.S. Senate should reject President-elect George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s choice of John Ashcroft for attorney general because he is too far right on issues like abortion, drugs and gun control to be effective, according to a poll issued on Saturday.
The Newsweek poll of 1,000 people said respondents were opposed to Ashcroft by a narrow margin of 41-37 percent, although Bush received good marks for his Cabinet selections in general.
To be divorced. 
Make up your own caption...
Live with it.
South Park had it right about the Baldwin brothers. Bad Irish seed. The sooner they move back to Europe, the better.
Rosetta:
There is a difference between "mention" and "threaten," Judith. Watch me ignore you like you claim you want to ignore me, asshole.
There's no need to get snippy, dimwad. You made a huge mistake posting your daughters name and school; you've no idea who might be reading this thread and you aren't exactly Mr. Popularity in cyberspace...you piss people off 9 times out of 10 on a good day and then you go posting personal info on your children ?
Psych Prof suggested you gave out too much info and you ignored his suggestion to ask for the post to be deleted; I suggest the same thing and you call me an asshole. Well, I would say it's easy to spot the asshole in this and it's not PP and it's not me.
She should have left him for failing to follow through on that threat.
The papers cite "irreconcilable differences."
I'm wondering whether it was Chuck Irreconcilable Differences or Cynthia Irreconcilable Differences.
Alcoa Plant, Rockdale (an hour northeast of Austin), the state's single largest point source of grandfathered emissions: more than 100,000 tons a year. Former Alcoa chairman Paul O'Neill is George W. Bush's nominee for secretary of the Treasury.
(photo by Alan Pogue)
A Thousand Points of Darkness: Bush's Voluntary Pollution Reduction Program Reduced No Pollution...(The Austin Chronicle)
The current case in point is the "Voluntary Emissions Reduction Permit" program. The VERP air pollution control initiative was announced with great fanfare by then-Governor Bush in November of 1997, enacted as Senate Bill 766 by the Legislature in May of 1999, and was the subject of enthusiastic self-congratulation during the Bush presidential campaign. As required by the law, the VERP program was recently evaluated by its institutional promoters, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. According to the TNRCC's draft report to the Lege (due Jan. 15, available at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us), Voluntary Emissions Reduction Permits have thus far resulted in zero reductions in air pollution.
That's right, nada.
A Thousand Points of Darkness...continued:
Since 1971, under the Texas Clean Air Act, more than a thousand industrial facilities have been entirely exempted from modern air pollution controls, and even from standard permitting procedures (and the public hearings these would entail), because, in the words of the TNRCC, "At the time, it was anticipated that these 'grandfathered' facilities would eventually need operational changes that would require them to obtain air permits, or they would shut down when their useful life came to an end." Such an optimistic outcome was "anticipated" because that was the solemn promise made by the industry lobby (primarily oil & gas and utility companies) and their legislative spear-carriers. Instead (perhaps they had their fingers crossed behind their backs) grandfathered facilities became instantly and increasingly more valuable: They could be run more cheaply than their "permitted" competitors, because with the help of the Lege their owners had effectively transferred the costs of emissions, pollution controls, health effects, and cleanup to the community at large. This is known as state capitalism: Socialize the costs, privatize the profits.
"Socialize the costs, privatize the profits," Banana Republicanism at its best.
:-)
bbb's post no. 2125
You're welcome.
try bracketed, A HREF=
Who cares? Seriously. It's not like "proof" (as if what you cite is proof) makes any difference. The damage is done, Dems will ever after be able to make snide remarks about Florida. When the recount is done, it will make the news. Until then, must you clog the pipeline with these pictures?
It happened. I saw it happen. No one cares if some so-called propaganda organization see pregnant chads when others want abortions.
In fact, that vote count which will probably show that Gore won by a couple thousand votes was conducted under uniform standards as the official FL count would have been.
When finished, it will be the time bomb under the Bastard Regime in Washington.
First time the shit hits the fan...Oh my Gawd, no body elected that imbecile etc etc
Now there are one or two shit for brains Motiers who claimed, who staked their worthless lives in fact, that Gore would not have won even had an accurate count been performed.
They were wrong.
Did I miss something?
The election was stolen by 5 malefactors working at 1st and Constitution NE...
It was in all the papers....
Do I really need to post the intro to The Gore Exception?
Would be delighted to and will no doubt do so on Bash Bush 2001....
Let the good times roll.
Bouffant Boy
It will be lovely if the recount shows that Gore won, and it will be fun watching the discomfiture in that event. But so what? All you are doing is foaming and frothing, posting ludicrous nonsense from hack sites. It's a waste of time, it's boring, and while I can't stop you from doing it I think it does this thread and the forum no good. God forbid someone should peek in this thread when you're going off on one of your spasms.
Its absolutely relevant to the thread. Moreover, it is relevant to those who do not fancy themselves part of some vapid cyber Koffee Klatch but who, naively to be sure, believe in democracy.
Now you know as well as anyone, that I don't really give a rat's ass whether you or anyone else likes or dislikes what I post.
From the good old days on the Fray until now...through the Impeachment nonsense through Kosovo right up to the so-called 2000 Presidential election.....
Your lectures are nothing but a waste of time.
"The nation's politicians and editorialists and television pundits have had a lot to say lately about the need for all Americans to unite around George W. Bush, whom five members of the Supreme Court recently appointed to the presidency.
I have decided, even though I voted for Mr. Gore, the man who got more votes than any of the other candidates, that I will honor this loud call for unity.
Accordingly, I will give Mr. Bush the same respect and support that his party gave President Clinton these past eight years.
In other words:
I will not let a single day pass without badmouthing President Bush to everyone in my presence.
I will work in every possible way, no matter how small-minded or petty, to undermine his every effort, no matter how sensible or worthy or necessary it might be.
I will make common cause with any enemies of the United States, foreign or domestic, who are willing to criticize President Bush.
I will never let pass an opportunity to accuse President Bush of the worst crimes known to humanity, even treason and murder.
I will believe, and eagerly repeat, every scurrilous rumor about President Bush, no matter how ridiculous and patently false it might be.
I will ridicule, defame, and slander President Bush's mother, wife, and children at every opportunity.
And, lastly, I will give my support to every effort to humiliate President Bush and destroy his good name, to drive him from office and pursue him until the end of his life, to leave him bankrupt and hated and utterly destroyed.
After all, fairness is a virtue, and it is only fair that President Bush and his party receive what they have been so happy to dish out to others for these many years."
You're our witness.
Cellar,
Yeah, the escalation continues. Frankly, why promise to badmouth Bush in the event he does something sensible? The odds are unlikely that he'll ever do anything you approve of, and the promise just makes the writer look like a moron.
Rosetta Stone:
"My oldest daughter, the beautiful and talented Katie (without the braces), is to sing for her country and President-elect George Bush next Thursday evening at the Lincoln Memorial."
What are you, nuts? There are a lot of people who strongly dislike you, and you post this kind of info on the internet? Use some common sense!
I won't taunt you anymore (if I can restrain myself). I now realize that you just don't know any better. :-(
Rosetta:
Being called a "dumbfuck" by Calgal is a badge of honor.
This is serious and relates to the near-death condition of American Democracy.
While the Bastard of the United States coup undoubtedly did much to hasten the death of democracy in America, the Shornstein Center at Harvard has just released a two-year study "Doing Well and Doing Good: How Soft News and Critical Journalism Are Shrinking the News Audience and Weakening Democracy"
The most prominent example -The Imbecile of the US who never watches the news (only ESPN) and has contributed mightily to weakening what little is left of democratic government in this country.
PDF Format
I can think of many ways that you can amuse yourself....I've a large one you are free to borrow any old time
Arrrrroooooo....
OW, OW,
Arrrrooooooo....
I have decided, even though I voted for Mr. Gore, the man who got more votes than any of the other candidates, that I will honor this loud call for unity.
Accordingly, I will give Mr. Bush the same respect and support that his party gave President Clinton these past eight years.
In other words:
I will not let a single day pass without badmouthing President Bush to everyone in my presence.
I will work in every possible way, no matter how small-minded or petty, to undermine his every effort, no matter how sensible or worthy or necessary it might be.
I will make common cause with any enemies of the United States, foreign or domestic, who are willing to criticize President Bush.
I will never let pass an opportunity to accuse President Bush of the worst crimes known to humanity, even treason and murder.
I will believe, and eagerly repeat, every scurrilous rumor about President Bush, no matter how ridiculous and patently false it might be.
I will ridicule, defame, and slander President Bush's mother, wife, and children at every opportunity.
And, lastly, I will give my support to every effort to humiliate President Bush and destroy his good name, to drive him from office and pursue him until the end of his life, to leave him bankrupt and hated and utterly destroyed.
After all, fairness is a virtue, and it is only fair that President Bush and his party receive what they have been so happy to dish out to others for these many years."
Your friend Quentin Compson wrote that?
Ummmmm... Gee willickers, Cellar, that sounds an awful lot like Gene Lyons' most recent column.
If counting them is the only way that one can claim that Bore won the popular vote in Florida, Bore did not win the popular vote in Florida. Again, pregnant/dimpled chads do not legally count.
It appears that a very small minority is simply too wilfully dense to admit this.
That reality just blows them away.
Let's hope that Castro dies soon and the Cuban boy gets to attend the second W Inauguration in 2005. If sure he would like to see Washington, DC, without his handlers.
I know the Cuban vote hurt Gore in FL, but I seem to rem that he came out in favor of Elian staying. Was I dreaming, or did the Cuban-American community discount this? Whatever, hope they enjoy their revenge (?!)
Living on the other side of the world, I only got news reports on the Elian thing. So here's my question: How many here think he should have ben allowed to stay? Sorry to plough old ground, but I'm curious.
click on photo 
Are you living there?
Yes, Gore came out in favor of Elian staying in what was pretty much considered to be a naked pander.
I was very surprised to see that politics trumped parenting on this issue. Republicans thought he should stay, Dems thought he should be sent back.
What's up with that?
I am so sick of Bush describing people as "having a good heart". The only person he hasn't descibed thus is Cheney.
I envision his handlers as having sat with him for days with a list of about 100 short phrases he's allowed to say and had to prove memorization of before they let him back in front of a mike.
Oh, he's been on and on about "good hearts" since he first ran for Governor. I wish just once he'd tell the truth and say of someone like, oh, I don't know, Bill Bennet? "I admire that mans black heart! He has an evil that can only be described as EBON in his heart and I'm in awe of it!" 
Yes, I work in Dubai, the ONLY place to live in the middle east. Very western-I had a beer with my ham sandwich for lunch 
I played in a jr. high softball tournament in Dubai back in 1976 or early 77.
Republican opposition was justified one of two ways: either the father wasn't a "real" father or the father had originally wanted Elian to come to America and was now lying to save his ass. In fact, neither was true. A number of Republicans withdrew their opposition once the father came to America. I thought that was unnecessary and offensive--but it is true that some folks said "okay, he's here, let him have the kid."
I don't think it was pandering to the Cuban Republicans so much as an odd vestige of the Cold War. I've never understood the notion that communism was worse than other oppressive regimes, but that seems to be their skew. Of course, lord knows there are folks on the left who praise communism.
Sen Johnston's Wisdom in Refusing Bush Energy Offer Confirmed
So go play with yourself
Jexter hates everybody, and everybody hates Jexter
> So go play with yourself
But what if he was your dad?
LOL.
I've spent many years in the ME but for some reason I've never been to Dubai, or anywhere else in the Emirates. Colleauges tell me it's a very OK place except that it's too hot in summer.
Bush tends not to talk about Democrats much.
Bush tends not to talk about Democrats much.
Or much else of any importance unless it's been written for him by Condi Rice, so he can understand it. (His claim, not mine.)
And I'm sure you just hate it that the last one was right a large part of the time...
I hadn't heard that his advisers were idiots, among all their attributes.
"The environment is one of the areas where the fact that the Republicans were not ready to be a majority has come back to haunt them."
...
Most Americans generally support entrusting the protection of the country's natural resources to Washington. About 70 percent annually tell Gallup pollsters that environmental protection should be a priority -- even at the risk of curbing economic growth. And a GOP poll taken after Gingrich's remark revealed that, at the time, only 45 percent of registered Republicans trusted their own party to protect the environment.
This is something relatively new in Republican history: Consider Theodore Roosevelt's landmark legacy of national parks, Barry Goldwater's conservationist views, and Richard Nixon's decision to sign the Clean Air and the Endangered Species acts. Nixon even created one of the right's current favorite targets -- the Environmental Protection Agency. "There is nothing more conservative than conservation," argued Martha A. Marks, president of the Illinois-based Republicans for Environmental Protection, in a letter last year to candidate Bush.
But from the Reagan presidency onward, the party's conservative wing has derided environmental regulation as symbolic of the heavy hand of Washington. Over the past two decades, free marketers have struggled with ways to sell their environmental views to a broader public. In the Reagan years, the preferred sales pitch was "cost-benefit analysis," as in: Does the dollar benefit of preserving pine trees outweigh the economic costs of restricting timber harvesting?
By the spring of 1995, Republican revolutionaries had made clear they intended to gut the EPA's enforcement budget, turn federal lands over to Western states and open up more protected territory for resource development. In their zeal to deregulate, these Republicans -- who claimed they had come to Washington to clean up the capital -- openly allied with business lobbyists. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) even organized a Capitol "war room," where lobbyists staffed his blitz on behalf of a moratorium on federal regulation.
Environmental groups, which enjoy broad support in Congress, mobilized to make a persuasive case that the Republicans were carrying the water for polluters. In the House that spring, Republican moderates began distancing themselves from the deregulators, opposing one bill that would have opened parts of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and another that would have severely restricted the EPA's authority to enforce water and air pollution laws.
Meanwhile, the congressional Republicans' job- approval rating, which was 52 percent after the '94 election, dropped to 41 percent by June. (It would slide into the 30s during the summer, when the Medicare battle moved into full throttle.) Some of that early slide could be attributed to other factors, but the environmental issue was so destructive that by autumn, Republicans, including Gingrich, were openly worrying about a serious fallout in the '96 elections. Some conservative thinkers expressed concern that the deregulators in Congress were harming the purity of their movement by failing to distance themselves from business interests.
I didn't repost the whole article, which is what I object to. I've never minded excerpts.
Just don't bitch when Niner and Ace do it.
I think the GOP will do itself big harm by undoing EPA reg's. When the public leaves town for the weekend they like bucolic scenery.
Mostly people seem to have forgot that everything starts out being harvested or mined.
The west coast power crunch is going to be a nightmare come June. Unless the weather turns wet and snowy here in the NW, generating enough power will be difficult. And with the Salmon listed as threatened and endangered a lot of water will go to their salvation and not power.
You really are an inbred moron. Have your children read my last post again. No doubt they'll be able to explain it to you.
Lem,
I agree that polls on the environment demonstrate only that Americans like to think of themselves as a pale pastel green, not the depth or strength of their support. That said, the Republicans never seem so much interested in the economy as they do in not being treehuggers (and aiding developers)--and given their constituency's rather tender sensibilities, they might do better to change their rhetoric.
On the other hand I find most enviros to be rather low on the reality score. Deal with them often. Question of semantics. What they call a forest, I call a tree farm.
The real problem is that we inhabit a size 9 planet. And we have a 10 population. So things are a little tight. We know we need to lower the population and consume less. But we are all at the door saying 'no, after you'.
That's what we've got around here in this part of AR. The forests have been long gone.
The forests in Michigan - for which Michigan has always been famous, as a matter of fact - were completely decimated in order to build Chicago, and then rebuild it after the fire.
Today, there are more trees in Michigan than there were before Chicago was built.
What the heck is the difference between a tree that was planted manually, and one that's gotta wait for a bird to crap out its seed or a squirrel to bury a nut before it gets going?
If Weyerhauser and the like want to clear cut trees they planted on land they own for the purpose- have at it and I will applaud. However, that is not the way these things work. Most of the harvesting they want to do is in forrests WE own collectively as citizens. They also want to harvest without paying what they would have to pay if they were cutting in privately owned land. When they clear cut they either destroy outright or isolate stands of trees that have grown under quite different condidtions than those they would harvest from second or third growth. Its not just the trees, it the understory plants, the animals etc that bear the impact of the harvest.
We can have enough lumber to keep the lumbermen busy and our economy supplied with the wood products it needs; the question is whether we do so by using up a resource that we cannot yet replace with existing technology- old growth forrest, or by a replacable one, second and third growth trees.
I agree that most environmentalists are a pain in the ass, and completely unrealistic. But just because their solutions are stupid doesn't mean their priorities aren't worth considering.
There is a difference in the quality of lumber taken from first and second growth forrests as well. There is a guy in Wisonsin who has made a bundle of money salvaging logs from the bottom of a cold lake in northern Wisconsin. They were sinkers from logging operations in the 1800's and early 1900's. The cold water and lack of oxygen preserved the logs and they have a much finer grain than trees that grow in second growth forrests, having much stiffer competition for light and food. Thus the annular growth rings are tighter. Furniture makers, instrument makers and artists pay top dollar for the wood. Especially the instrument makers, as apparently there are some changes to the wood by being waterlogged for so long in those condidtions make it more resonant.
When Bob and I married, it was soybean fields down to the bottom land. Helicopters used to fly over rural people's houses and then offer to sell painted pictures of the aerial views. We bought one and got the photo to go with it, and it's really amazing how different every thing is. The older trees were planted, but were very tiny.
Arky:
There's a lot of difference between hardwood forests and pine. And the differences are important environmentally.
Who said anything about pine? (although a great deal of the trees that were cut to build Chicago were Michigan white pines). Environmentally, I don't think the actual tree cutting had much effect. As I said, there are more trees now than then. The deer herd is also over 10 times what it was 100 years ago, and the elk herd is largely reestablished in the UP. The animal species that have all but vanished from the forests of MI were victims of the fur trappers, and even these -beaver, mink, wolverine, bear, are making strong comebacks.
They don't care how old the trees are.
As far as pines, I'm talking about them--fast-growing ones, which are all that's being planted--no regrowth of deciduous trees. The number of trees isn't all that's relevant, and it's one thing that really gripes me about the timber companies' ads. Who cares if they plant a zillion fast-growing pines and ring every great oak in the county?
"Most of the harvesting they want to do is in forrests WE own collectively as citizens. They also want to harvest without paying what they would have to pay if they were cutting in privately owned land."
That is out and out wrong... most timber cut in this country is in private or industrial hands.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sev/rpa/skog_files/sld012.htm
Planted pine is by no means taking over the landscape, even in the South. Even far into the future it's only projected to comprise 1/4 of the entire forested land base in the South.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sev/rpa/skog_files/sld015.htm
ib:
Well, if the Democrats had been able to keep declaring everything a National Forest, that claim might not have been too far off in a couple more years.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sev/rpa/skog_files/sld019.htm
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sev/rpa/skog_files/sld020.htm
Arky:
I'm not speaking only of deer. Bobcats, eagles, bears, fox, wolves, and many other formerly endangered species have made dramatic comebacks in recent years - not only here in MI, but in many other states. The fact that the majority of these are fairly far-ranging animals is a good sign.
And, speaking of mountain lions, there have been several reported cougar sightings not far from here in recent years.
Old growth on the other hand is destined for sawtimber. You don't let those stands do much of anything except get old. Treatments are kept to a minimum with the possible exception of thinnings, but even then you have to consider what final stand composition is desired.
Good article on Bush and one on the dynamic duo of Rice and Powell in today's NYT Mag. Looks like we'll be spending jillions on our armed forces but not using them to fight. We'll have the best equipped and highest paid do nothing military in our history.
No more namby pamby humanitarianism. Garden variety genocide isn't enough. A Bush adviser, Dov Zakheim, has written that the scale of atrocities in places like the Balkans is often exaggerated, and violating another nation's sovereignty threatens to "unravel the entire fabric of international relations"...we should "intervene only when genocide is so manifest that refusal to act would destroy our moral leadership of the free world."
Rice doesn't believe in humanitarianism as a goal of foreign policy....Bush foreign policy will be a strange combination of timidity and arrogance....the core issue is not whether Bush is smart enough to grasp the nuances of a complex world--he has smart advisers for that--but whether he cares enough....Rice is crispy, knowledgeable, self-assured and quite posibly bionic. She has spoken in the past of having no time for a wide range of normal human activities, including recreation, family, introspection, 'life crises."...
So what happens if the Russians refuse to rewrite the ABM treaty? Bush will unilaterally abrogate it....a French commentator says: "There is a feeling that there will be uncoupling between the American destiny and the European destiny...with more arrogance and more unilateralism."
The scorn for the emerging framework of international norms looks especially disturbing, when combined with a pugnacious commitment to missile defense....On the one hand there's a disengagement from most of the issues and most of the international frameworks; on the other hand, a willingness to say to the Russians: "You don't like it? That's too bad."
Good article on Bush and one on the dynamic duo of Rice and Powell in today's NYT Mag. Looks like we'll be spending jillions on our armed forces but not using them to fight. We'll have the best equipped and highest paid do nothing military in our history.
See? This is exactly my point wrt airbags. Why should I have $200 added to the price of my new car, when I have absolutely no intention of ever using the darn things - and in fact go way out of my way to see that they remain right where they are...
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sev/rpa/skog_files/sld012.htm
What do the figures look like when you take pulp out of the equation? I notice that the slide referenced referred to "recycling" as 23% of the forrest products produced. This takes those pine farms out of the picture. How much sawwood are we talking about?
The 23% referes to sources of raw material, not material produced. In other words, 23% of what they need are satisfied by recycled material.
Taking pulpwood out of the equation is irrelevant to you statement that _most_ of the harvesting done in this country is on public land. It isn't.
Todays Army: All Dressed Up And No Place To Go...
HUH?
DAR?
ERG?
Probably not since everything he does will have to approved by Karl Rove first. That way, Rove can politicize it...
be approved...
I also remember that the Patriot was an anti-aircraft weapon, not an anti-missle weapon.
The BBC just did a special that reveals that there was not a single successful interception.
That's funny since we saw missle interceptions on live television. I wonder how the define successful.
But in the aftermath, let's not fall into the trap of believing our own lies and throwing hundreds of BILLIONS at a useless system.
You're right. We should do absolutely nothing to protect ourselves and our families. Then when a ballistic missle from one of our enemies destroys a city and kills millions of Americans, we can pat each other on the back and commend each other on how much money we've saved the taxpayer. Brilliant!
Mr. John Hinkley St. Elizabeth Hospital Washington D.C.
Dear John,
Hillary and I wanted to drop you a short note to tell you how pleased we
are with the great strides you are making in your recovery.
In our country's new spirit of understanding and forgiveness we want you
to know there is a bilateral consensus of compassion and forgiveness
abroad throughout the land. Hillary and I want you to know that no
grudge is born against you for shooting President Reagan.
We, above all, are aware of how the mental stress and pain could have
driven you to such an act of desperation. Hillary and I are confident
that you will soon make a complete recovery and return to your family to
join the world again as a healthy and productive young man.
Best wishes,
Bill Clinton
P.S. George W.Bush is banging Jodie Foster
There is a difference. One party knows how to use public lands responsibly to promote America's prosperity now and in the future, and the other runs in circles and clucks about how the sky is falling.
JJ:
BS
JJ:
That's what I've been trying to tell you for ages...
JJ: are you fully aware of the sheer flackiness of your diction?
And JJ, the sky is falling. (Falling up, falling out, falling down...) I take it you haven't seen it yet.
Absolutely. It's intentional.
And JJ, the sky is falling.
Right.
It's just that your opinion is wrong. (g)
From what derives the simplistic fallacy that armed forces must always be at 'war'? That is a very scary, dangerous assumption.
...flack.
Concerned:
From what derives the simplistic fallacy that armed forces must always be at 'war'? That is a very scary, dangerous assumption.
No more scary than that we should throw away gazillions of dollars on a defense system that will never be needed or even work if it is...
Actually, it is very much worse for a number of reasons. First, it leads to an overextended military, with loss of morale and attendant talent. Secondly, becoming mired in a number of foreign conflicts ultimately will require more military expenditures and risk more loss of US lives and terrorist reprisals on US soil. Also, unnecessarily invading and/or occupying foreign countries antagonizes major powers in other parts of the world.
SDI, however, is a win-win deal. Besides providing a nuclear missile shield, it provides an avenue for the US to test and develop the practical expertise to move into the next frontier, space. Plus, such programs are virtually certain to generate technological spinoffs which benefit people in general. Anybody who thinks that is 'scary' is thoroughly clueless, to put it mildly.
His successor pled guilty to Federal charges of misuse of public funds for similar activities.
Con:
Besides providing a nuclear missile shield...
And anyone who thinks this will work is thoroughly clueless as well.
Sorry, JAH. I'm not buying that ignorant Lefty spin from Luddites who know nothing about technology. That's the same malarky that they've been spouting since the early days of the Cold War.
Face facts. Defensive technology is continually advancing (although seriously slowed by Lefty ignoramuses), but the size of missile needed to propel a given yield warhead over a suborbital trajectory hasn't significantly decreased, nor has its speed changed over the last few decades. Multi-stage defensive systems also drastically reduce the odds of penetration of the defensive shield.
Are you serious? We can make out the features of a person standing on the ground from a sattelite in orbit. We can't knock a missle out of the air? Even if we can't do it at the moment, it is certainly possible technologically. In 1960 is was silly to suggest we could land on the Moon, but we did it in 1969. Given some time and funding, SDI is certainly possible.
Concerned, I suppose you know best...all those scientists who say the thing won't work the way it's supposed to or will be incapable of handling multiple onslaughts of missles are just Lefty wingnuts who know absolutely nothing or far less than you do. I feel much more secure knowing you in on the real info and happy to share it with all of us clueless morons out here.
JJ:
I thought you knew the Moon Landing was a hoax...
Is there no end to this woman?????
Clinton Changed the World
"The transformation from the domestic, inward-looking candidate of 'It's the economy, stupid,' to the first globalization president was quite amazing," said Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy magazine. "Clinton understood earlier, better and more profoundly than most the challenges of the new world of globalization. He had the intellectual grasp of it and the political instincts to assess its larger implications and act on it."
See a pattern?
Nobody said our armed forces must always be at war. The issue is what kinds of situations justify using our military power. Bush's advisors seem to be considerably less inclined to use military power than previous administrations, Democrat and Republican. When we tell the world this it diminishes our influence because other countries assume we won't back up our diplomacy with force. Iraq is a famous case of this when U.S. April Glasby all but told Saddam Hussein we wouldn't do anything to stop him if he invaded Kuwait. Another was Acheson's speech leaving Korea outside of U.S. sphere of vital interests which prompted the Korean War. More recently, Clinton erred diplomatically and militarily when he took the option of using U.S. ground troops off the table in Kosovo.
The best little book on this subject is Power and Diplomacy by Harold Nicolson. Poker books are also useful. Telling the world in advance that we won't use military force in a given situation or type of situation is like telling everybody at the poker table that we only bet when whe have the cards. Leaders around the world don't do what we want them to do merely because we convince them of the logic or fairness or morality of our position. They do it because of our economic and military power and that of our allies.
When Reagan said this, he was called a war monger.
JJ:
Scientists are just as likely to be wrong as anyone else.
Ah, I see the error of my ways now...I should put my trust only in economists when dealing with the scientific. Gotcha!
Powell opposed Desert Storm.
JJ:
But isn't that what you do?
JJ:
Four words: Garbage in, garbage out.
Not by me. He had a great Secretary of State, George Schultz, writing and cuing his lines for him. But he went astray whenever he listened to Caspar Weinberger, the pardoned perjurer.
The sad thing is that Powell not only opposed Desert Storm, Poppy effectively froze him out of decision making....it got so bad that Schwartzkopf had to intervene to salvage the mess and in the process Powell's ass....
Powell is nothing more, nothing less than a bureaucrat, a DoD bureaucrat at that ...the worst kind of bureaucrat
The task was completed. Iraq was removed from Kuwait. That was the mission as defined by the President, the Congress and the United Nations. Had Bush continued the operation and remove Hussein from power he would have been cruicified politically. Democrats would still been calling him a war criminal and worse. It is hypocritical in the extreme to take him to task for doing exactly what he authorized to do and no more.
Of course there is. It requires an understanding of physics beyond the high school level which may be where you are having problems.
Jeez, yes, he might have lost the election.....oh wait! {blush}
But jex, where's the report from the economists who probably know more than the scientists about the subject? 
Now I have to find something to eat
Seems a whole host of people who know what they are talking about have their noses up clinton's rectum....
2284. jexster - 1/15/01 6:45:04 PM
The rest are kissing it.
Perhaps jexster ought to create a Church of Clowntoon where his disciples can parade their obeisance. All that the rest of us ask is that it be well sound proofed so that we don't have to endure listening to all of the slurping and smacking sounds.
jexster -
Where will you be when SDI/NMC really takes hold? Denying you ever posted what we're seeing from you today. 
I am also a veteran, and in favor of a strong defense, but it jut makes me sick to see the ignorant swallow the GOP propaganda without any thought or reason. Spend money on defense, but don't WASTE money on corporate welfare and get nothing to show for it.
...No, we don't spend enough on those lovely expensive white elephants, while some servicemen and women need foodstamps to get by.
You haven't considered lasers, the technological spinoffs of NMD research, or boost phase NMD systems. There is also the deterrent value of having such a system in place. This will keep the US largely immune to the nuclear blackmail we could also be subject to by pipsqueak nuclear powers.
Plus, what will the Left have to say if they succeed in making the US so dilatory in NMD research that some other country or consortium of countries takes the initiative in putting such a system in place? 'Sorry? I guess we were wrong.'?
Well, that simply won't cut it.
Lasers would have to be space-based. You can't put enough power through a laser in the atmosphere. And you can't easily put a large enough power plant in orbit unless it's nuclear. Bad idea. Boost-phase interception has its own problems, mainly target discrimination and timely decision-making. Plus a boost-phase interception system would also have to be space-based. Either system would require LOTS of satellites. As I said, it is theoretically possible. But to expect that it will be technologically feasible in less than 20 years is unrealistic. If anyone suggested spending that much money on any other area, with such a small likelihood of actually needing it, you'd laugh in their face. My contention is that the GOP doesn't believe in the project any more than I do, they just see a great opportunity to give money to their defense industry buddies, and are laughing at how easy it is to convince people like you that it's a reasonable idea.
Time Magazine's Cover Boy
There are Democrats publicly denouncing Ashcroft and privately praying he survives, so they can raise money and inflame partisans for years to come.
A prayer, I have phrased here in various ways for two weeks.
BUSH WAS SAID TO HAVE LIKED Racicot’s resume: he was a former state A.G. and knew how to run a legal bureaucracy. When Racicot balked, Bush sent a private jet (lent by Sinclair Oil) to Montana to fly him to Austin. Among his reasons for hesitating, Racicot said, was the opposition sure to come from Republicans on the hard right, who viewed him as an insufficiently ardent foe of gay rights and abortion. The president-elect, Racicot later recalled, advised him to ignore them.
Newsweek's Cover Boy
Concerned:
Plus, what will the Left have to say if they succeed in making the US so dilatory in NMD research that some other country or consortium of countries takes the initiative in putting such a system in place? 'Sorry? I guess we were wrong.'?
And just which country do you think will be capable of doing that sort of thing? They can't even develop nuclear weapons that go straight and now all of a sudden, they become sophisticated enough to launch a sheild in space? You've been watching too much Star Trek, my boy. But it's touching to see you have bought the party line hook, LINE, and sinker...watch that money flow into this hopeless cause while the infrastucture of our country crumbles.
"...watch that money flow into this hopeless cause while the infrastucture of our country crumbles."
Giggle. Second verse, same as the first.
All this talk of a "crumbling infrastructure" is sooooo 1992. Clinton's been in office 8 years; hasn't he fixed it? Oh, I forgot-- he hasn't done frigging anything.
And now, after the "crumbling infrastructure" nonsense has been retired for eight years -- because we wouldn't want to embarass our Democratic Fatboy President with such talk -- suddenly Crumbling Infrastructure is called back out of retirement.
Hoooookay.
PS, Gore & Clinton supported the NMD, Judith.
PPS, it works.
Well, consider that there were no real utilitarian reasons given for the race to the moon in the '60's. It was simply a matter of hubris for the US and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the US space effort was plagued with discouraging failures for the first eight years, until 1965. It was not only until a decade or two later that the US really began reaping the full technological reward of this initially pointless effort in terms of semiconductor and materials technology.
Or, let's look at the 5 trillion dollars or so in transfer payments over the last 35 years which has which resulted in little more than the destruction of the AA family and the increased impoverishment of poor children.
Compared to these, a serious NMD program looks not just like a truly forward looking as well as humanitarian idea, but a great bargain.
Bush’s rocky transition is important for another reason: it’s all the evidence we really have of which kind of presidency he will run. The signs point to a White House in which the president doesn’t get bad news in a hurry (he didn’t know about Chavez’s housekeeper problems until 24 hours after the news first circulated); in which Dick Cheney has an enormous role; in which Bush and his aides long to spring surprises in a leakless world; in which losses are cut with coldblooded speed, and in which the strategists don’t mind—and perhaps even relish—picking a fight for the sake of securing Bush’s conservative base in a way his patrician father never could.
That's one helluva Moron nobody elected!
Guys,
Why fuck around? Why not cut right to the chase and declare the NMB to be racist?
I mean, that's the Alpha and Omega of every other argument you make. Why be shy here? You claim everything is racist, much like the Waterboy's mother declares everything is "The Devil."
National Missile Defense -- Selma all over again.
Kinda catchy, right?
Actually, the ABM Treaty was reached with the defunct Soviet Union. Additionally, Henry Kissinger, the architect of the ABM Treaty, is on record as describing it as, effectively, an obsolete artifact of the Cold War, in a bygone era of MAD and a bipolar world nuclear alignment.
That's the ticket. If JJ can sell the idea that NMD discriminates against AA's, the Lefties can claim another great victory!
'balanced on the backs of AA's'
'AA's do all the work of NMD and Honkies get all the rewards.'
that NMD would somehow be an unprecedented great new entitlement to military contractors. Consider that, under Clowntoon, the US has trebled its sales of weapons systems to other countries and terrorist groups.
As I say, I hope the whackos bring this up and right smartly too. The Wingut is the best friend a democrat could ever have.
That's why I love Ace so much
You miss the point. The ultimate goal of NMD is to cause countries to scrap their nuclear arsenals. Show me how they're going to find some superpropellant that makes ICBMs travel any faster or miniaturize warheads any more without sacrificing explosive capability. Them's hard physical limits that simply don't apply to NMD development.
Ohio -
Said countries are going ahead full steam on building up their arsenals already.
President Clinton DID NOT endorse NMD. What he ACTUALLY SAID:
A final decision to deploy NMD must await satisfaction of four criteria:
1) there must be a real threat
2) we must have the technological means to address that threat effectively
3) our response must be affordable
4) NMD deployment must not do unacceptable damage to the stability of current and future international security arrangements
The Bushies have essentially said that they don't care whether a real threat exists; have assumed on faith that we have the techno means; do not care whether its affordable, and do not care whether NMD damages international security arrangements.
For them its balls to the wall, taxpayers, $300 billion please, check payable to Boeing
But really I see more problems with that than a space-based system. Just for starters, lots of trajectories go over the pole. Not a very good place to have to deploy sailors. Brrr! And there is no polar geostationary orbit, so again you're talking lots of satellites. And lest you forget, a boost-phase system would have to recognise, designate, aquire, and hit an ICBM in about two minutes. At the end of the boost phase, an ICBM is travelling as fast as it ever will, making that the hardest time to hit it. Plus, boost phase is the most difficult time to predict its path. as simple a thing as variable-thrust boosters would make it effectively impossible to intercept in boost phase.
And I'm really not saying stop all research. What I'm saying is that to be talking about deployment now is silly. I think this is a)going to take 20+ years to get right, if ever b)not likely to be needed c)corporate welfare for the defense industry.
You want to throw a lot of money around, spend it on the ISS and a replacement for the shuttle, deep sea exploration, whatever. I'm all for spending money on science, yes the spin-offs pay off, but there are lots of more attractive and more useful projects than NMD/SDI. Give those kids a few billion a year to play with and wait until they can show us something more than they have to date, which is nothing.
Let's hope the suits with the electric balls say no, no, no.
Of course Gore tried to have it both ways during the campaign. But it sure sounds as though he supports NMD here:
"The NMD system which the Clinton-Gore Administration has under development is meant to be deployed in a timely way...."
As for the "four criteria," yes, it's true that jexster is correct. Unlike the Clinton-Gore administration, which carefully worded all its statements (such as in the linked document), Dubya has indeed "essentially said" (boldly, I might add):
"I don't care if there's any threat. I don't care if it works. I don't care how much it costs. I don't care if it pisses off all our allies and enrages all our enemies. I shall deploy it."
That's how Bush talks on foreign affairs, alright. Confident, kick ass, take names. I remember it well from the second debate. When George W. Bush introduced the soon-to-be-ex-Senator John Ashcroft as his choice for Attorney General, he noted that the first trait he desired in an AG was "unquestionable integrity," and he proclaimed Ashcroft "a man of enormous integrity." As Ashcroft, a favorite of the religious right, is assailed for defending the leaders of the South's slavocracy, for proclaiming that in America "we have no king but Jesus," for his pure-as-it-gets opposition to abortion and even some forms of contraception, and for much more his advocates use Ashcroft's supposed integrity as a firewall.
.........
The pro-Ashcroft line is: You may disagree with him on the issues--his defenders have to concede that--but you can't question the man's integrity. But when Ashcroft was governor in Missouri he rendered a decision that reaped a campaign contributor millions of dollars--and the probity of the deal was indeed questioned by a prominent newspaper and citizens in his state.
In 1992, the city of Branson--a tourism mecca visited annually by millions who attend the country-music halls there--was burdened by traffic congestion. Thirty thousand cars a day were jamming the town's Country Music Boulevard in peak season. Ashcroft declared the situation in the Ozarks an "economic emergency" in order to build a road. This was the first time this gubernatorial power had been used to facilitate construction of a highway, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Ashcroft's declaration opened the way for the quick approval of a $140 million, eighteen-mile bypass promoted as the solution to Branson's traffic mess--a claim challenged by some locals, who blasted the Ozark Mountain Highroad as an "Ashcroft pork-barrel" project.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch- Highway 21 south of St. Louis was one of the ten most deadly stretches of highway in the nation, and its upgrading and repair was delayed.
There are simply too many ways around it now if it is aimed at sophisticated powers- Russia, Britain and France. There is time to prepare for the second line threat- China. It is overkill and easily avoided if it is truly aimed at rogue nations. Why bother with missles when you can simply sail a decrepit steamer into port many of the largest cities in the nation and detonate a nuclear bomb from there? It would be child's play to hide the crudest first generation bomb in a ship. Hell, a good sized yacht would do. Or place it in cargo in an airliner. You get the point. If you are North Korea, and suddenly are seized with an overwhelming need to bomb the US, why fly the damn thing through space so NORAD can pinpoint where to send the retaliatory strike? Keep 'em guessing is your only survival strategy.
Yet, even so, the Lefty whackjobs are trying to change the rules and evade the truth of GWB's win.
JAL -
Detonating a nuclear warhead at or near ground level is far less effective than an airburst, since much of the energy is reflected into the air. This makes your 'decrepit steamer' scenario much less than compelling. Initially, NMD would be for defense against blackmail or actual nuclear attack from rogue countries.
I also am dismayed at the readiness that so-called Liberals embrace the idea of retaliation for an attack rather than a pro-active defense for same. It is unquestionably far better to preserve the lives of US citizens with a NMD than to lose them willy-nilly and destroy foreign nations in an unworthy atavistic spirit of retaliation which would do great damage to the US's stature around the world and result in many millions of unnecessary fatalities and radioactive despoliation of the environment.
(from concerned's London Times link above):
The painstaking, unofficial examination by hand of 10,600 ballots that were not counted by voting machines because they had dimpled, or hanging, chads found an additional 251 votes for Mr Bush and 245 for Mr Gore...
...The Palm Beach Post looked at all the undervotes in Miami-Dade — votes that had been rejected by the machine but had the slightest dimple or partially detached chad.
...and still counting.
Army Drops Case
Jan. 16, 2001 | PHOENIX (AP) --
The Army on Monday said it has dropped efforts to dismiss an Arizona lawmaker from a reserve unit because he said during a legislative debate that he is gay.
An Army spokesman said the case was dismissed after Rep. Steve May, a reserve lieutenant, agreed not to re-enlist once his current term expires May 11.
"Given my record of service, I should be allowed to complete my term, regardless of my sexual orientation," May said.
...
May, a Republican who was re-elected in November, acknowledged his homosexuality during legislative debate in February 1999, while arguing for extending health benefits to same-sex partners. He was an honorably discharged civilian reservist at the time but was called back to the Army a few weeks later, during the Kosovo crisis.
funny, isn't it, that the Army has to create a stupid new slogan to try to get more recruits while at the same time conducting a witch hunt for gays who only want to server their country?
There was an excellent profile in GWB in Sunday's NY Times Magazine. Whether one likes him or not, it puts him within a context that is much more understandable to me.
funny strange or funny ha-ha?
i meant strange, but they both fit now that i think about it. i hope, though don't believe, a 'good' outwardly gay Republican will be good for all GLBT people.
GLBT people? Who are they?
Gay...
Lesbian...
Bi...
Transgendered...
People
GLBT people? Who are they?
Rose is T
So terrorists place the weapon on a small simple missle to give it the needed altitude. This is so simple any rogue nation or terrorist organization with backing from some nation could accomplish it.
Second, what does NMD do in this instance? Space based systems are severely hampered in the atmosphere, and even destruction of the warhead scatters radioactivity far and wide. It also does nothing to the cargo/commercial airliner scenario. Even WWII technology as simple as a V-1 rocket would be damned difficult for NMD to defend against.
If we are to have safety from rogue nations and terrorists sponsored by them, it is not hardware that we need. What we need is an effective CIA, appropriate covert operations, psychological warfare; and a well directed foreign policy aimed at cutting off the leadership of such organizations, and the popular support they play for.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 16, 2001 ; Page A03
HOUSTON, Jan. 15 -- James Moore stepped outside of his home this morning and, seeing dozens of police cars, instinctively ran back inside. "Then I thought,
'Wait, I didn't do anything,' " Moore said. He ventured out to learn the cause of the commotion: President-elect Bush, who had come to Moore's poor, black
neighborhood to commemorate Martin Luther King Day.
"He came to a nice little black school to take some pictures," said Moore, 27, who is African American and voted for Vice President Gore. "It's a front. It ain't gonna make no difference."
Moore's anger was echoed by the other curious locals who police kept away from Kelso Elementary School while Bush delivered his remarks to an invitation-only audience inside.
Bush, in his remarks today, continued his tradition of innovative English. Pointing out a state senator in the crowd, Bush noted: "If I always agreed with [him] you might hold me somewhat in suspect." The creative phrase followed his recent interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw, in which Bush referred to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as "Anthony" and "Antonio".
The boy can't help it.
So, what's supposed to be the point? 'White Boy' Bush doesn't have a right to give a speech there?
Ashcroft hit from both sides
A multi-denominational religious organization has raised questions on whether former Sen. John Ashcroft regarding religious liberty and civil rights -- specifically the rights of religious minorities and his willingness to use the Department of Justice to promote or advance his personal religious beliefs.
...
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance said, "I have grave concerns about Senator Ashcroft's ability to serve as Attorney General of the United States, a position in which he would be charged with upholding and fully enforcing the constitutional rights and liberties to faith groups that he clearly judges to be wrong and in need of correction."
...
The Senate Judiciary Committee will convene hearings on Ashcroft's nomination Tuesday afternoon. Three days of hearings are scheduled.
The Interfaith Alliance, formed in 1994, is a nonpartisan clergy-led grassroots organization "dedicated to promoting the positive and healing role of religion in the life of the nation."
well, better the religious folks question it than those godless liberals. hope they understand they have 'no king but Jesus' soon...
Well, IMO, if Bush must pardon the WH Rapist, it should only be after any indictment is made, and it should be for that indictment only.
She's just trying to make sure Anthony gets a good meal--Antonio.--On Laura Bush inviting Justice Antonin Scalia to dinner at the White House. NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Jan. 14, 2001
a right to give a speech there?
That's a fair way of puttin it. More accurately, don't believe that assholes shuck and jive, take a look at what he did for OUR schools.
Not want any pardon? What's wrong with the man, anyway? (as if we didn't already have a clue) Is Clowntoon so anxious to treat the nation to the spectacle of him perjuring both sides of his face off in court yet again?
SO do I.
That's their compassion in action, jexster. But, much preferably after any indictment.
If he was so unprincipled as to wave the flage while running for a deferment, maybe the man who says "Jesus is his only King" will run away from his anti-abortion views and enforce the law.
I was born at night, but not last night.
You just want a cheap admission of guilt without having to prove it.
Bring that bullshit on - again.
WASHINGTON--Under Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, the Justice Department has
moved aggressively on several fronts to protect abortion rights.
It has filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to preserve women's access to abortion services. It has vigorously enforced the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994. It formed an interagency task force dedicated to preventing violence at clinics. It has even taken the unprecedented step of assigning federal marshals to provide round-the-clock protection to abortion doctors and clinic workers when their lives appear to be at risk.
Will John Ashcroft do the same?
"Jesus is my only King. Would you pleas pass the crisco oil?"
for growing 60
plants could have
landed him in
federal prison, Alex
Ashcroft was tried
in state court and
avoided jail,
despite his uncle's
crusade for tougher
federal drug laws
and mandatory
prison sentences
I'm constantly amazed at the number of guys who want to run the country and hold sway over the military and yet never served that country or military in any way, shape, or form.
concerned:
You ain't seen nothin' yet.....
FYI: Letterman Top 10 list for Clinton's post presidency plans is at the bottom of linked page.
Ashcroft was another Classroom Commando? I'm shocked.
Mindy Tucker, a spokeswoman for President-select Bush who has been fielding questions for Ashcroft, said that SMSU was "pretty adamant" about having the new law school graduate teach there. "He was not seeking to avoid military service," Tucker said.
Of course not.
Strom Thurmond is alive, right? I couldn't tell, from the presentation he's giving.
That's ol' Strom for you. Still 'going like 60'. What a grand old man of politics.
Well, that's how it works. If a party is in power for too long, they get uppity. Then they are tossed out by a united opposition, who desperately wants power, and the whole cycle begins again.
Newsflash: Clinton has skin cancer.
But it's about the least serious kind. Not nearly as worrisome as McCain's melanoma.
I love this sparring with Leahy and Hatch. Hatch is being bested easily.
I tuned in just at the end. That's good news--I was thinking it'd be ironic if all this talk about "What Clinton will Do Next" would be answered by "Get Cancer and Die". I'd miss him.
Judith,
All the speeches thus far are pretty solid. DiFi's up right now.
Diane Feinstein just made a GW worthy blooper:
"I've worked with Sen. Ashcroft on many committees; one I was on methamphetamine."
Yeah, I didn't know until now that sparring that the Heritage Foundation was a left-wing group ? ;-)
...Give me a few more minutes, huh ? I am still trying to discipher what it was that Thurmond mumbled.
I won't. Unfortunately, he'll insist on hanging around DC, becoming more unwanted by the moment.
Remove now.
I'm surprised Thurmond isn't busy sitting watch over Ronald Reagan. Just in case the latter needs a transfusion or a kidney.
concerned:
We should all be able to make as much money as Clinton will make speaking to groups who don't feel as you do...you are letting your personal bias color reality here. He'll be fabulously successful in whatever he attempts to do in private life, just as he was in public service. Had he not been hounded to near death by you guys, who knows what he might have done for this country?
Serving in the CSA?
Of course I guess when he served he was still a Democrat.
McVeigh Execution Set for May 16:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An execution date of May 16 was set on Tuesday for Timothy McVeigh (news - web sites), who was convicted in the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people.
The U.S. Bureau of Prisons set the date after McVeigh last week did not change his mind about his decision not to appeal his death sentence.
McVeigh, has given no reason for his surprising decision to stop his appeals. McVeigh could become the first federal prisoner executed in the United States since 1963.
McVeigh was found guilty and sentenced to die in 1997 for the explosion that ripped through the Alfred P. Murrah federal building (news - web sites) on April 19, 1995.
another reason, on a list that's innumerable, why i support the DP
I guess that depends on how you define successful and public service. If you mean successful in that he survived as President in spite of being involved in illegal activity, then I guess he was successful. Since his "public service" has been little beyond an attempt to write himself into the history books, I don't see how the term can apply.
Had he not been hounded to near death by you guys, who knows what he might have done for this country?
For this country or to this country? I am just glad that we won't find out.
EIGHT years ago, as Bill Clinton took office, The Economist wrote a leader entitled “The Trouble with Mr Fizz”. We liked Mr Clinton’s energy and optimism, and we had endorsed him largely on the strength of them. But something bothered us. Not the whiff of scandal; we played that down, wrongly, as it turned out. We were bothered that Mr Clinton was naturally prodigal, that he wanted too much to be all things to all men, and that he lacked the discipline to get things done. Now that the eight tempestuous years are up, is that our closing judgment too?
In many ways, no. Mr Clinton’s presidency has been both better, and worse, than we foresaw. Begin with the economy, where Mr Clinton’s two terms have spanned America’s longest peacetime boom. Happy coincidence, you could say—all thanks to Alan Greenspan’s skilled work at the Federal Reserve, and to Silicon Valley. That is mostly right, but Mr Clinton played a part with budgets that became increasingly responsible, until by 2000 (when he proposed almost no new spending, despite the forecast of huge future surpluses) they were positively virtuous. It is true that Newt Gingrich’s Republicans set the pace. But by the late 1990s it was the Republicans who were flirting again with deficits by proposing giant tax cuts, and Mr Clinton who was standing firm.
JJ:
I knew when I posted that you would be lured to it as though by a sirens song. You do not disappoint!
Ted Kennedy is getting very forceful in the hearings...
Skin Cancer was Removed From Clinton's Back
Tests show a lesion removed from President Clinton's back was a common form of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, the White House announced Tuesday.
Clinton underwent surgery a week ago to remove the flat lesion from his back.
It was "a relatively common form of skin cancer, 800,000 to 1 million cases a year" are reported nationwide, White House spokesman Jake Siewert said.
Pathology results confirmed the diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma.
The flat lesion was discovered at a Jan. 12 physical at Bethesda Naval Hospital in suburban Maryland.
"The lesion was removed, so while the president, it can be said, had skin cancer, that has been removed and he no longer has it."
...
After the exam, Dr. David Corbett, retired chairman of the hospital's dermatology department, said Clinton has had "sun-damage spots" before, but this is the first time such spots raised suspicions of skin cancer.
Basal cell carcinoma is the most curable form of skin cancer. It is a slow-growing cancer usually confined to the surface of skin — and thus doctors almost always can remove it all with a shallow incision.
the reason Clinton never released his medical records?
Ducks:
the reason Clinton never released his medical records?
I don't think so...if he'd had it all this time, wouldn't they have removed it long ago?
could be they were worried about the 'sun-damage spots' and what they might become? i dunno - just a thought
These picks raise a question about Bush's judgment: If he were in charge of selecting a Pope, could he be trusted to pick a Catholic?
For the Department of the Interior, he has selected a woman who apparently views a forest as an elaborate storage facility for boards.
Funny cartoon today in the paper:
An x-ray of a woman with James Watt inside her body; "The Interior of Gale Norton"
Is that to say he took the shaking lessons.....?
concerned:
A new low for you...shame!
He's just your garden variety chicken shit.
Four years of this whack job wimp will do QUITE nicely.
...after electing him five times previously. 
The President...of the Senate
Of course he'll be confirmed but you have to let everyone have their say. After all, GW wants him and have him he shall!
But I say to the Senate Dems, save your fire for Interior! There's where the real damage can be done. AG's are reversible; riverkillers are not.
Sort of like the Republicans did during the Impeachment, huh, JJ?
Why the "new" Ashcroft? From what I heard on the hearings, that seems to be the positions he has held. Of course, ideas of what is "gun control" differ as do ideas on most issues.
Ashcroft will be confirmed, but the Democrats need the opportunity to suck up to their various constituencies. They have worked with him for 6 years and they know the accusations against him are bullshit, but they have to make it look good for the folks back home.
Arrogant and dismissive of legitimate concerns, as usual. None of his white fellow Senators probably got a very good idea of how he truly thought about minorities. He certainly wasn't elected out of Mo. on the strength of the minority vote. He made a decision which he knew would appeal to the latent racism in his state in the White imbroglio, and he has a long record of racial insensitivity which colors that perception.
That aside, it is good democratically for Senators to question nominees' public records during the nomination process and not rely simply on private experience.
But DaveM, JJ has met the man and he swears he's a decent guy....
That is not true. He is very highly regarded by the Senate, and is not considered a racist. The issue regarding race is his support for affirmative action.
He certainly wasn't elected out of Mo. on the strength of the minority vote.
I doubt you could name a single Republican who was elected on the strength of his minority vote.
He made a decision which he knew would appeal to the latent racism in his state in the White imbroglio, and he has a long record of racial insensitivity which colors that perception.
This is nonsense. He doesn't have a long history of racial insensitivity at all, and if you are referring to his decision to oppose Reggie White it is almost universally agreed that it was done for political reasons to do with "law and order", not pandering to racism.
1. The feeling of his associates in the senate should be irrelevant (though, of course, it isn't). First, personal relationships rarely reveal latent racism - the "I have plenty of black friends" rejoinder is laughable. Second, the claim lacks political merit because, if you haven't noticed, there aren't any black Senators.
2. Bob LaFollette.
3. The Ronnie White incident is hardly the only indicator of latent racial hostility. The comments in Southern Partisan, the refusal to treat largely black St. Louis voters similarly to largely white suburban voters and a whole host of other comments indicate a lack of racial sensitivity.
I'm clearly not calling him a "racist," because the word has been coopted by conservatives to refer only to people that harbor explicit racial animus. He is simply an insensitive cad.
That Castro comment stings.
I didn't say it wasn't.
The feeling of his associates in the senate should be irrelevant (though, of course, it isn't).
Then you shouldn't have brought it up, should you have? And yet: None of his white fellow Senators probably got a very good idea of how he truly thought about minorities. Which is what I responded to. I didn't say it was relevant. You did.
The Ronnie White incident is hardly the only indicator of latent racial hostility.
Also not the point. You were referring to that decision and you declared that it was clearly playing to racial prejudices. It was not. The Southern Partisan comment indicates a play towards racial prejudices, I agree. But not personal latent racial hostility--rather the need to pander to the racist wing of the Republicans. I don't disagree that it is done, it is just that his vote White's confirmation hearing is not an example. (nor is the St. Louis situation, btw)
If you mean progressive Bob LaFollette (father or son, then you don't warrant further comment. "Republican" means something quite different than it did pre-Roosevelt. You made an assertion about him as a Republican that is true of probably every single Republican elected nationally in the past 30 years. That does not prove racism.
Dream on. The woman is incapable of thought. Dumber than a fucking stump.
I was referring to fighting Bob LaFollette (the father), whose biography (by Nancy Unger) I just finished. It was a joke.
Second, you are splitting hairs and not doing a very good job of it.
The feeling of his associates in the senate should be irrelevant (though, of course, it isn't).
*Then you shouldn't have brought it up, should you have?
You should note that I was responding to JJ's Message # 2437. JJ said that Ashcroft's fellow senators knew he wasn't a racist. I said that their personal feelings should be irrelevant.
The Ronnie White incident is hardly the only indicator of latent
racial hostility.
*Also not the point. You were referring to that decision and you declared that it was clearly playing to racial prejudices. It was not. The Southern Partisan comment indicates a play towards racial prejudices, I agree. But not personal latent racial hostility--rather the need to pander to the racist wing of the Republicans. I don't disagree that it is done, it is just that his vote White's confirmation hearing is not an example. (nor is the St. Louis situation, btw)
You should re-read my Message # 2443. Knowing that people think of you as having a suspect record on race issues, playing on racial fears for political gain should be viewed even more skeptically than usual. Your understanding of racial hostility is simply different than mine. You should also, note, of course, that I simply said there were legitimate concerns about his positions on some issue; not that he was "racist."
I agree that no nationally elected republican since Nixon has been overwhelmingly supported byu minorities. Indifference by minorities has undoubtedly swayed many elections, of course.
Carol Mosely Braun has a good heart.
Hail to the Bastard Boob!
He opposes affirmative action. He opposed the confirmation of Clinton's well qualified African American nominee for Surgeon General. Of course, he now says that none of these actions which African Americans perceive as contrary to their interests were racially motivated. He is now an Apostle of racial equality and progress. Wonder why nobody believes him?
Moreover, I'm not sure what your definition of racism is. It must be pretty narrow. Many would call pandering to racist voters in an effort to get elected a racist act. His action on Judge White is just another variation of racist Willie Horton politics. I say if it acts like a racist and walks like a racist it probably is a racist. But who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Maybe he's a closet admirer of Malcolm X and just did whatever it took to be elected as a Republican in Missouri.
Finally, having spent your formative years in Saudi Arabia, your antennae may not be the most reliable on this kind of an issue. Or at least not as reliable as others who lived in the United States during and before the civil rights revolution. Excuse the ad hominem comment. No offense intended.
No, you didn't. You said that to me. To JJ, you said, essentially, that they need time to establish their personal feelings, that they didn't know what they were. I said that was nonsense. I actually agree that their personal feelings are irrelevant.
And you are missing the point. Your Message # 2443 had several inaccuracies and irrelevancies. I corrected them. You responded with several other reasons why Ashcroft may be racist. I disagree with some, agree with others, but the problems with your original post still remain.
Reporter: Your secretary of the interior-designate, Gale Norton, made a speech a few years ago in which she lamented the loss in the Civil War [by] the Confederacy, because she said too much was lost, referring to states' rights doctrine. What do you say to citizens who might hear that and are concerned that your nominee's defending the states' rights position of the Confederacy may mean a retreat from federal protection through federal power of minority rights?
Bush: I'd say that's just a ridiculous interpretation of what's in her heart....
I am not arguing whether or not Ashcroft is a racist, although I suspect he is not. I am saying that the "evidence" cited by Dave M was either inaccurate or irrelevant.
That said, my "antennae" being not perfectly tuned is all relative. Who is the true north? Black Americans? Why should they be considered any more an accurate judge than I, or anyone else?
Did you actually read my comment? Try reading the last sentence (it's actually set aside in its own little paragraph). I'll translate it for you: "personal feelings should be irrelevant."
Feel free to name one inaccuracy in Message # 2443. I don't even know what the hell you are referring to. Is my assertion that Ashcroft wasn't elected on the strength of his minority vote "inaccurate" because no Republican has been?
As far as I can tell, you agree with everyhting I said.
"Racism" like "anti-Semitism" have become so abhorrent that people have difficulty calling a spade a spade.
Not me.
Never will be.
The PC police? Did you pick that phrase up from Rush?
No, that was the irrelevancy. Your inaccuracies were: None of his white fellow Senators probably got a very good idea of how he truly thought about minorities and He made a decision which he knew would appeal to the latent racism in his state in the White imbroglio, and he has a long record of racial insensitivity which colors that perception.
So out of three sentences in one paragraph, two were inaccurate and one was irrelevant. Your last paragraph (which I didn't quote or refer to in any way) does not say that their personal opinions are irrelevant, it says that it is best for them "democratically" to question their public record. I agree. But that doesn't change the problems with what I quoted.
You responded, as I said, with further "evidence" which is neither here nor there. I wasn't addressing the issue of "Is Ashcroft a racist" but rather "Dave made statements that were inaccurate or irrelevant".
Not cabinet posts. That is much different.
I disagree. I think an ancillary (is that the right word?) effect of racism and prejudice is a suspicion that all negative interactions or results are due to their causes, without any real proof. But discrimination and racism are generally quite detectable.
1. Ashcroft's white senate buddies really know how he views minorities.
2. Ashcroft did not know that his opposition to Ronnie White would be interpreted favorably by racists ni Missouri.
Please identify the errors.
Your understanding of "irrelevant" is interesting. My argument was that Senators in a democracy should base their decisions to confirm on the public record of the nominees. This makes private relationships irrelevant. Why do you think the private relationships are irrelevant?
"Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government
Power in the Clinton-Gore Years
BOOK FORUM
Monday, October 16, 2000
12:00 p.m.
Featuring James Bovard, Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute with comments by Timothy Noah, Slate Magazine.
The Cato Institute's F.A. Hayek Auditorium
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Real Audio
I think an ancillary (is that the right word?) effect of racism and prejudice is a suspicion that all negative interactions or results are due to their causes, without any real proof. But discrimination and racism are generally quite detectable.
Yes, that is a sensible word in that sentence, though the sentence itself is contemptible. You are assuming that your perception and understanding of racism is the only legitimate one. There are generally two approaches even in the legal community, which roughly break down along the victim/perpetrator dichotomy. One says its racism if it feels like racism - if individual minorities are denies opportunities on account of the color of their skin. Another says its racism if its done like racism - if an individual perpetrator intentionally selects a minority for persecution.
The same person can employ both of these understandings in different contexts. Advocates of hate crime legislation typically adopt a perpetrator perspective, while using a victim perspective in economic affirmative action disputes. In a broader (non-racial) context, some people are strong advocates for victims rights (victim impact statements, for instance, tend to let the victim define the injuiry), while in other contexts insisting that some people suffer damnum absque injuria (injury without legal remedy).
Your statement was that they felt they needed more information to determine his views, that they hadn't gotten a good idea of it up to this point. This is untrue. Almost all the Senators have publicly stated that they don't think Ashcroft is a racist. Whether they "really know" or not is irrelevant to my correction of your statement.
Ashcroft did not know that his opposition to Ronnie White would be interpreted favorably by racists ni Missouri.
I made no such statement. You said that his decision to oppose White was based on its appeal to racists. This is nonsense. Ashcroft confirmed a number of other black appointees, and I believe (but am not sure) appointed some himself when he was governor. It has been widely acknowledged by pundits, columnists, and other reporters on both the left and the right that his opposition to White was based on "law and order"--that White's decision on a controversial case had upset conservatives. It was this, not White's color, that caused his full-bore opposition.
I am saying that there is an absolute definition of racism. There is also an absolute definition of discrimination. Just because someone "feels" discriminated against doesn't mean that they have actually been the object of discrimination, much less racism.
2437. JJBiener - 1/16/01 11:43:18 PM
Ashcroft will be confirmed, but the Democrats need the opportunity to suck up to their various constituencies. They have worked with him for 6 years and they know the accusations against him are bullshit, but they have to make it look good for the folks back home.
Arrogant and dismissive of legitimate concerns, as usual. None of his white fellow Senators probably got a very good idea of how he truly thought about minorities. [This argument was meant to emphasize "white." John Ashcroft's racial views were not on public display while he was in the senate. This is relevant because all personal interactions are of questionable value when determining if someone would make a good public official.] He certainly wasn't elected out of Mo. on the strength of the minority vote. [This was an aside. It is probable irrelevant, as Cal has thoughtfully pointed out, since all Republicans lack minority support] He made a decision which [note: not "because"] he knew would appeal to the latent racism in his state in the White imbroglio, and he has a long record of racial insensitivity which colors that perception.[note: here I am referring to stuff other than Ronnie White, including what I breifly mentioned in a following post and the desegregation opposition mentioned by Wonkers.]
That aside, it is good democratically [note the small "d"] for Senators to question nominees' public records during the nomination process and not rely simply on private experience.
Cal?
Emphasis on "white" or not, you were saying to JJ that the white Senators had not made up their minds about Ashcroft's personal racism. This is untrue.
You've agreed on the irrelevancy of the second, so we're done there.
You said "a decision", not "several decisions", and given that the primary issue that is hurting Ashcroft is his opposition to Ron White it was a valid assumption (one that I restated and you didn't correct at the time) this is the one you were referring to. No, I don't think that the fact that it would play well with bigots fit into his behavior in the White confirmation. Of the group of actions that people are bitching about, the only one I think shows definite signs of pandering is the comment in Southern Partisan, and that does not, as I said before, prove that he is a racist. Only that he, like almost all southern or midwestern Republicans, must nod and wink to the racists to keep them happy. Unpleasant, but provided he doesn't act on it, not sufficient. And in fact he does not have a "long record of racial insensitivity". He opposes affirmative action. But so does every other Republican. It's in their platform, is it not?
The idea that something is racism--or sexism--merely because one feels that it is is far more ludicrous.
But what makes you think that the things you described aren't racist?
Feeeeelings Whoa, whoa, whoa, feeeeeelings,Whoa, whoa, whoa, feeeeeelings of being attacked in broad daylight by the LAPD.
Feeeeelings Whoa, whoa, whoa, feeeeeelings,Whoa, whoa, whoa, feeeeeelings -- etc.
If Ashcroft's a racist, why did he vote in favor of 26 out of 27 black judges?
Some racist, when you approve more than 98% of black nominees. Hee, hee. Is that what "racist" now means? Approving 98% of black nominees rather than the knee-jerk white liberal guilt 100% approval rate?
Those Lefties sure do march in lockstep. They're very, very good little National Socialists.
Perhaps they have magical powers, Wonkers.
I mean-- if a black guy calls someone a racist, even without evidence or facts, why that's enough for me.
Even if Ashcroft votes in favor of 26 of 27 black nominees, if a black lesbian asserts he's a racist, I believe it.
Incidentally, Clinton himself withdrew the name of one black nominee.
Since he shot down the same number of black judges as Ashcroft, does that make Clinton a racist? 
"Who knows, maybe the 26 black judges that Ashcroft voted for were little clones of JC Watts or Thomas Sowell, or Clarence Thomas??"
Riiiiight. Clinton appointing conservative judges. Hardy-har-har-har.
But suppose they *were* conservative. That would then show that Ashcroft isn't a racist, since he's voting against judges based on ideology, not skin color.
But morons like you are incapable of following logic like that. Logic-- what a patriarchical concept. Logic is a white man's game. Ashcroft's gonna be AG, and whitey's on the moon.
"Michael, those observations match my own, but add West Coast to an area where de facto segregation is well established. I remember sitting in a restaurant in 1982 with a family of nice northern liberals asking me if it bothered me that the black couple we'd just met drove a Rolls Royce. I thought it was a rather odd question but said that it didn't bother me at all. Then they began to ask question after question trying to get me to acknowledge some inherent rascism in my nature. I finally hit the breaking point and asked them if they even knew any black people, other than the couple with the Rolls Royce. I pointed out that in this lovely Beverly Hills restaurant there was not a black face to be seen. The clientele was exclusively white, the waiters were white, the busboys were Latino and the garderner was Japanese. I remarked that at least in the south, even the most dyed in the wool bigot had some interaction with black people and knew black people on a first name basis. I pointed out that the studio the man worked at had no black executives, no black producers, no black story editors, no black casting directors and no black actors were working on a single television program currently in production. To my recollection, they didn't even have black people on the cleaning crew or as security guards. Things are not so different today."
"Oh - one final note on that story. When Eddie Murphy arrived on said studio to do voice over work on 48 Hours, the security guards would not let him on, not believing that he was actually starring in a movie on that lot. We had to send someone down to the guard shack to verify that he was indeed a working actor and had a legitimate reason to come on the lot."
Ace, you'd enjoy sticking your head in a microwave and putting it on High for 15 minutes.
Believe it.
Some Conservatives are racists, some Democrats are racists, many blacks are racists. And the really intelligent Blacks don't let it interfere with living a good life. Democracts would go bonkers if Blacks didn't think they were victims, as Democrats hold office with victim support.
A Black Conservative, as I heard today, is one with the audacity to believe what their grandparents taught them. 
wonkers2 -
Seriously speaking, you could be right.
As today's hearings show, the longer this fuckbrain is available to kick around, the better it is for Democrats...
Republicans always were our very best weapons!
Then why are you so wrought about his appointment? But you are probably right and in 2002 the Dems. will have the White House, The Senate, and the House. Then there will be no racial profiling, blacks will be excelling in schools, gays will be able to serve openly in the Military, etc. Oh but wait a minute, the had all three in 1992 amd 1993 nad somehow missed out on those things. I don't think they did a whole lot about naything for the next 6 for that matter. But keep up the victim rant, for it is the way to power.
Jex:
2423. jexster - 1/16/01 5:06:13 PM
we should probably defer to the wisdom of the people of Missouri. In November they bounced him from the Senate in favor of a dead man.
I agree 100%.
Now shut the hell up about GWB.
Alright! I was thinking we had to wait until 2004.
ABC Poll:The ABC News-Washington Post poll released Tuesday night indicated only a fourth of Americans said tax cuts are a top priority, putting tax cuts well down the list of priorities behind such top concerns as education, keeping the economy strong and protecting Social Security.
The problem with Ari's analysis is its touchstone assumption - that Bush was elected.
You're a fucking idiot, and so are the liberal hacks at ABCNews.
"Keeping abortion legal" is probably the TWENTIETH on the list of priorities, but that doesn't mean that Americans don't want to keep abortion legal, does it?
ABCNews conducts a poll: Which do you think is most important? 35% say "Oxygen," 28% say "water," 16% say "food," 8% say "love."
ABCNews and Jexster conclude: The American people don't want "love."
What an idiotic poll, how hopelessly biased and illogical, and how stupid Jexster is to accept the absurd conclusion hook, line, & sinker.
In case Jexster *still* doesn't get the logical fallacy: *I* personally think there are a dozen or so initiatives more important than cutting taxes, including getting the economy going again, restoring the rule of law, fumigating the Oval Office, and indicting Clinton for perjury and obstruction of Justice.
The fact that "cutting taxes" is only 12th on my list of *priorities* does not mean I don't want taxes cut, or that I support the alternatives (raising taxes, keeping taxes at the current rate). It means *only* that I think there are more important tasks.
All this is obvious, of course, to everyone *except* Jexster and ABCNews.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised that as many as a quarter of Americans consider cutting taxes a "*top* priority." One would imagine that another 35% consider it a "priority."
You know ABCNews doesn't have any polls showing that the majority of Americans don't want a tax cut, or they would have cited that on-point poll.
Instead, they publish a poll which *implies* that Americans don't want a tax cut, but really speaks only to prioritization.
Exactly.
Personally, I voted for, in this order:
1. Better weather.
2. Legalized polygamy, but only for men.
3. Cheaper natural gas - say, pre-Clinton prices.
4. A chicken in every pot.
5.The forced secession of California, New York, and Massachusettes.
6. A huge tax cut.
On Ronnie White...
Liberals talk about the "Ashcroft test." Let us talk about the "Carnahan test" (as Carnahan originally appointed White).
Liberals want to appoint liberal, set-'em-free judges, so that brutal criminals can rape and murder again. They consider this a public service.
But if you make an issue of such judges-- you're being "racially divisive" and "inflammatory."
In other words:
Liberals want to appoint judges that they *KNOW,* in advance, the public has no patience for. And they wish to make it a political crime to make an issue of such judges.
Yes, Ashcroft *did* use White for political purposes. What of it? All decisions a politician makes are subject to political scrutiny and public derision.
Carnahan made a bad decision in appointing White. Or at least an impolitic one, for those of you who believe that criminals are "political prisoners."
"The Carnahan standard" -- liberals' preferred standard for judging judges -- is that no conservative shall be allowed to criticize a judge, nor to critize the politician who appointed that judge. Because Liberals know damn well that the public doesn't like such judges, and will punish them politically for appointing them.
So... Not only should judges have life tenure, but there should not even be a political discussion about a Governor's or President's judicial appointments.
An interesting standard, to say the least. I note that Al Gore never shied away from slamming Bush's possible future judicial appointments... so apparently the Carnahan standard is a double-standard. Liberals can make hay of a Republican's conservative judicial appointments, but if a conservative does the same, he's being "racially inflammatory" and "divisive" and hence, acting out-of-bounds.
But what else is new?
BTW:
It seems to me that *only* black or women liberals can get confirmed as judges. Conservatives will bounce most white male liberals.
But women and blacks can get by, because their race/sex shields them a bit. They can always cry "racism" or "sexism" if they're not confirmed, so (it seems to me) a Senator would be more hesitant to vote against black and/or female liberal judges than he would a white male liberal judge.
So... race and sex *are* factors. But in favor of such judges; not against them.
It also seems to me that a cynical Democratic president could try to get a lot of "two-fer" judges this way.
At any rate... given the FACT, once again, that Ashcroft voted in favor of 26 of 27 black judges, the racism charge is a bit thin.
"Racism" means only that you're against quotas and abortions. It's a charge I don't even take seriously anymore.
Oh Joy! Watergate Returns...
Convicted Watergate conspirator turned radio talk show host G. Gordon Liddy has been saying for the past few years that he thinks the most famous burglary in Washington was all about call girls.
He told a group at James Madison University in 1996 and another on a Mediterranean cruise in 1997 that he now believes the Watergate burglars were searching for photos of scantily clad women in an attempt to conceal the fact that John Dean's then-girlfriend was working for a prostitution ring run from Democratic National Committee headquarters.
It is a revisionist opinion that could cost him millions.
Testimony is to begin today in U.S. District Court in Baltimore in a $5 million defamation lawsuit filed against Liddy by Ida Maxwell "Maxie" Wells, a former secretary at the DNC in whose desk Liddy has said photos of the call girls were kept.
Russ Feingold's comments are pretty good. Looks as though Ashcroft has at least one Demo vote (though that idiot Specter could cancel him out):
But in the end, Mr. Chairman, let me also repeat my conviction, as this hearing begins, that voting records and conservative ideology are not a sufficient basis to reject a Cabinet nominee, even for attorney general. I say this as a progressive Democrat from Wisconsin who hopes that the William O. Douglases and Ramsey Clarks of the future will be appointed to executive positions and Cabinets and not be rejected on that basis alone.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, being in the middle of the road is not a requirement for a Cabinet position.
No one's saying that "no conservative should not be allowed to criticize a judge" or that "there should not be a political discussion of a President's or a Governor's appointees."
The problem with then-Senator Ashcroft's criticism and discussion of Justice White was that it was demonstrably false.
So the question is, what motivated the Senator to launch this false attack on a judicial appointee, even going so far as to instigate a "grassroots" movement against the judge?
1. Political mileage against the judge's appointer, Governor Carnahan (possibly enhanced by the judge's race, all the better to cast him as a criminal-loving liberal);
2. The judge's race;
3. Revenge because the judge, when a Missouri legislator, bested then-legislator Ashcroft and protected the right to abortion;
4. All of the above.
I say 1 and 3. I don't think there is conclusive evidence of racial animosity, but that possibility is not foreclosed and deserves examination.
I can't see where they have improved things a whole lot!
Remember - I have no use for democracy. Bring back the Republic!
Yes, but they will be derailed on many of their issues because the center-left carried the country by 2,5 million votes more or less. So there’s no center-right mandate whatsoever. And certainly there’s no right-wing mandate at all. Already the Democrats are signaling that no pro-life appointments to the Supreme Court will be tolerated and they have the power and will to make it stick.
Are you new here?
Ashcroft should be confirmed. The Bushies WON the damned election! Let 'em govern, as best they can. Let him appoint as many crazies and Bible-beaters as possible, and let them do their damnedest.
Four years and out. That's the goal. The maximum constitutional term of office for ALL Bushes, combined, is eight years.
The whole issue of conservative/liberal, republican/democrat debate is laughable anyway -real power in this country is wielded by corporate interests who believe in one thing - market domination - and those interests will use whatever means are necessary to get their way, they'll adorn whatever "label" advances their cause furthest, and they ALWAYS win.
Battling over the primacy of conservative or liberal or republican or democratic views distracts people from issues of substance, which is exactly how your corporate masters would have you behave -but by all means, keep it up...
Not on the Supreme Court you want the Bushies to nominate one of their own. This could affect the country for thirty years and come close to wrecking it. Imagine five Scalia types on the Supreme Court.
I wouldn't look forward to the five-Scalia court (although we're pretty close to that right now, witness Bush v Gore), but even so, you gotta let the people who got elected do their thing, and hope the country survives it.
Maybe a less liberal court would prompt people to get the democratic process up-and-running again. Instead of ersatz, inexplicable judicial lawmaking (e.g., Roe v Wade), circumstances might force the Congress to confront and cope with the essential problems facing the country in a meaningful manner.
(It's possible, you know, to favor the Roe v Wade result without believing that the decision was a high point of jurisprudence.)
While you're at it, you can tell us about how RIVERS used to catch fire. That was before that intrusive EPA forced industry to clean up. If anyone doesn't rem those times, a quick visit to Mexico City, or better yet any large Indian city, will show you what things WOULD be like. It's easy to forget-that's why so few people really understand how important a clean environment is-they haven't seen a really polluted one.
And don't forget that the Federal payroll SHRANK by something like 300,000 over the last 8 years. If I'm not mistaken, it grew during the previous 12.
All the preceding notwithstanding most people would like government to be reduced to a minimum. Give us some specific ideas to trash :)
Everything you said is absolutely correct and I am in full agreement.
I might add as the corporate control has increased and in regards to social matters, the US has deteriorated steadily until it is now regarded as bordering on the primitive, that is, in the eyes of the advanced nations of the world such as Sweden, for example.
Now shut the hell up about GWB.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Best get used to it -- GWB gets the full "Clinton" treatment.
Maybe a less liberal court would prompt people to get the democratic process up-and-running again. Instead of ersatz, inexplicable judicial lawmaking (e.g., Roe v Wade), circumstances might force the Congress to confront and cope with the essential problems facing the country in a meaningful manner.
Circumtances may just be named McCain/Feingold.
Difficult to argue with your reasoning since it is so eminently reasonable. Message # 2531
However, I feel that a 'laissez-faire' attitude can be dangerous ultimately may bring mayem.
Norton is a much better bet - akin to appointing a pacifist to head the Defense Department.
Rask:
say that he will enforce laws he disagrees with
This is what I don't understand...Ashcroft makes a big to-do over his religious beliefs and so does GW; in fact, Ashcroft was chosen as a sort of sop to the Religios Right. Then, he sits there and says he is willing to forgo those very principles that rule his life and vote as the rule of law proscribes; in effect, he will go against everything God tells him is right and good. So he is an unprincipled man, right?
That would make for an interesting exchange.
lisajolie
Sure, he considers it murder but he's willing to overlook it to keep the job. Just following orders, so to speak.
I believe Ashcroft could probably pass a lie-detector test wherein he was asked these same questions re whether he'd enforce existing laws, even in instances where he personally opposed them.
But his sincerity isn't really the issue here. I served in the Justice Department under three different attorneys general, and in other governmental agencies under a half-dozen General Counsels.
Each of these men and women made some effort to enforce existing laws in accordance with their terms, and none of them was out to subvert those laws. Even so, there were enormous, important, substantive differences among these people in how these "existing laws" were read and interpreted.
It isn't just a mechanical exercise, you know -- enforcing the laws. If it were, we could just get Microsoft to develop some high-grade software and turn the whole thing over to the computers.
And Democrats are the hoodlums outside throwing rocks through the windows.
use energy to get to work or heat their homes, want her."
Damn, that is funny. Rosie seems to think that her support is unanimous.
Right, he's a politician. He has boxed himself in now. He has given to the Democracts all the ammunition they need to keep him in line.
Or perhaps they know something you don't. Namely, your fears are groundless. They know this because they are the ones who have been feeding you the propaganda to scare you into voting for them. Remember actions speak louder than words. Watch what they do, not what they say. And watch what they really do, not what they say they do.
JJ:
Dubais point is that it hardly matters who is right...after it's all squandered, it'll be too late.
Edward Kennedy is making a fool out of himself at the Ashcroft hearing, with his overwrought, phony-emotion attacks on the nominee based on deliberate misreadings of A's previous statements and speechs.
'Course, I guess Edward's making a fool out of himself isn't exactly breaking news.
Ok, bad example.
No, if he is opening his mouth, it is pretty much assumed.
Right, he's a politician. He has boxed himself in now. He has given to the Democracts all the ammunition they need to keep him in line.
somehow, i suspect Bush & Ashcroft will be doing plenty of that without the ridiculous hearings, heh.
That you would equate the two indicates some screwy priorities on your part.
lisajolie
What are you talking about?
I thought that too, but the polls opposing Ashcroft are surprising. I really didn't think people would care at all, so to see a split with a slight tilt towards opposing is interesting. I suspect the Dems are fighting with an eye towards that, win or lose.
Something interesting I heard on the talking head shows over the weekend--I think it was Evan Thomas who mentioned this. While inside the Beltway, most people have shrugged off the election and moved on, he said he picked up on a very real sense of outrage not just among "liberals" but Dems in general over what happened. I wouldn't be surprised that this sort of anger and resentment might be fueling polls for a while.
Do you really think so? What is the confirmation is a matter of a handful of votes? Don't you think it puts some pressure on Ashcroft and Bush to moderate their agendas?
It would help if the President could refrain from lying about Republicans supposedly stopping the voting in Florida. I suppose that would be too much to expect from Clinton. He has been lying about everything else for 8 years. I guess we can't expect him to stop now.
JJ:
Please....let it go. You are asking with one breath for us to accept Bush and with the next, you continue to belabor Clinton. Get over it. Or at least don't expect us to roll over....
Untrue. The Federal payroll has continued to grow over the last eight years. The 300,000 figure refers to only a specific sector - the military. IOW, just another way to lie with statistics.
Pressure from whom? Democrats? We have seen time after time that Republicans giving in to Democrats is a losing proposition for them. The nomination battle over Ashcroft is a perfect example. He has an excellent record on race in Missouri and in the Senate, but that doesn't stop Democrats from trying to destroy him on race. As long as Democrats play hardball and pitch at the head, Republicans should do the same thing. I know Democrats would like to see Republicans unilaterally disarm, but that would be suicide.
No. Look at Reno, the worst and least popular AG in history. She was also the longest serving, at the behest of the WH Rapist, because she would do anything to try to protect him, even when it involved dereliction of duty.
And yet, didn't I hear that crime has gone down in the past 8 years?
JAH -
Despite Reno's worst, I mean, best efforts, that is.....
Don't you think it puts some pressure on Ashcroft and Bush to moderate their agendas?
why would it? Bush lost the popular vote by more than half a million and look who he appoints. why would this be different?
Democrats have been bleating for 8 years how Clinton has been mistreated. They claimed that were the roles reversed they would never behave in such a manner. They claimed this in spite of how abymally they acted during Reagan and Bush Sr's Administrations. Now that they have the opportunity to live up to their claim, they are worse than the Republicans could even dream of.
You ask me to stop belaboring Clinton? Why? You aren't going to stop ragging on Bush. Hell, Democrats are still ragging on Reagan and he's been out of office for 12 years. At least the things I complain about are documented to be true.
That only refers to outside the Administration.
Stooge Reno has dealt any impetus for campaign finance reform a deadly blow by not approving an IC to investigate the 1996 Clowntoon Bore campaign finance wrongdoing, even though both the director of the FBI and her own hand-picked investigator insisted in the strongest terms that such was required.
Oh well...I guess the fact Reno brought down crime a tad is just a fluke. I'm amazed you 2 will even admit it happened on her watch.
Fine, JJ...you go ahead and whine about Clinton. Act like a Democrat, I don't care.
JAH -
In short, you're dreaming if you think Reno had anything to do with the overall drop in crime over the last few years. Socks the Cat as AG would have been just as influential in this regard.
Here's a clue. Demographics + Aging of baby boomers = Reduced crime.
This dove-tails with his description of the Confederacy as a legitimate band of patriots attempting to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. The fact that the government he is arming against is the legitimately installed government of the US of A is apparently of no significance to him. Of course, there's nothing new in the world and the Fascists of Spain to Germany and for ever have overthrown democratically elected governments with impunity.
I don't dispute the facts, only who gets the credit. FWIW, Reno probably does deserve some of the credit for the drop in crime. Most of the credit goes to the states and municipalities where the tough work was done. Some of the credit goes to business and the economy for bringing more people into productive society.
In my opinion, Reno's malfeasance is limited to her efforts to protect the President from his own folly.
Here's a clue. Demographics + Aging of baby boomers = Reduced crime.
Yeah, thanks for the clue. It had never occurred to me that the crime wave was spurred by Baby Boomers in their prime.
The first thing the fascists did was disarm the populace so their could be no challenge to their power. Who is trying to disarm the populace here and who is trying to guard against tyranny?
As bizarre as this sounds, there is some truth to it. Crime, especially violent crime, is a young man's game. As men get older experience, prison, infirmity and death tend to force them into different decisions.
Stooge Reno's metier is barbequeing babies, kidnaping children in the middle of the night, lying and stonewalling. That about sums up her 'legacy'.
Who is trying to disarm the populace here and who is trying to guard against tyranny?
Can't tell you: the militias aren't formed yet.
ah, there's nothing like the untrammeled malevolence of a gop partisan in full rant to put a smile on your face - by all means, continue telling us about the manifold malfeasance of those godless dems, and don't let any of those silly old facts get in the way...
p.s. haley barbour in hong kong harbor, 1996, $M "donation" - your spin, please?
p.p.s. isn't it time for you to get your prozac prescription refilled?
Well, judging from what's been going on the past few weeks in Texas, I'd say the local or state crime prevention measures aren't exactly stellar...despite what GW would have us believe.
azazel -
I can see that you'll never be proactive for campaign finance reform. IMO, if Barbour was culpable, fry him too. You don't impress me by pointing to the DoJ's laxity in his or any other case wrt campaign finance reform.
But I can't think of anything major that Reno had to do with the drop in crime. violent crime in particular is almost exclusively under the jurisdiction of state and local governments, and I am unaware of any DOJ initiative that can plausibly be said to take credit for the crime drop.
Anyway, it's true, the election result is good for me. Bush is this stable hard target. It's as if Quayle had won. Plus you have the wonderful narrative of how he got where he now is. It took his brother, his father, his father's friends, the Florida secretary of state and the Supreme Court
to pull it off. His entire life gives fresh meaning to the phrase
'assisted living.' Gary Trudeau
No doubt PP and other eugenicists are using precisely this argument to promote their agenda.
to promote their agenda."
The ends to which a study are used by others have nothing to do with the validity of the study itself.
I wasn't claiming that it did. I simply was suggesting that certain interested elements would seize on such findings to promote their agendas.
If we were to "fry", as you so delicately put it, everyone who has culpability in our system of campaign finance (aka bribery or extortion, depending upon your angle), you would have to lock up every candidate and office holder, as well as most every corporate director, officer and...
Hey, wait a minute - that's an idea with some "currency"! Well done, old chap - you've hit upon a meaningful solution: d'ya think we can get the military to support us?
Nah, the Pentagon is in cahoots with some pretty major corporations - I guess we'll have to take our case to the militias - thank goodness they still have the right to bare arms...
er, the right to arm bears - no that's not it either. Hmmmm...
Well, it's your idea - we common folk should let the propeller-heads (like yourself) figure out the details. Keep us informed...'kay?
azazel -
Why are you suddenly talking about 'frying' everybody after I signaled my agreement that investigation of credible allegations of and prosecution of campaign finance lawbreaking should apply to major figures in both political parties?
Could it be that what you are really about is that you will simply say and do anything at all to try to get the worst offenders of all, Pinocchio Bore and Jeff Clowntoon, off the hook? I think so.
A lady on Burden Of Proof just brought up the point I was trying to make about Ashcroft earlier: if he is a man of strong religious convictions but is willing to set them aside, just how strong are those convictions? He's either a man of no convictions or he's lying.
What specifically are you referring to?
What is your opinion on Huang and Riady (et al) pleading guilty to illegal fundraising activities? Do you think it is possible for all these people close to Clinton and Gore to be guilty of illegal activity and they be completely unaware of it? If yes, what does that say about them?
lisajolie
He answered this yesterday. He said that thing most important to him was the rule of law. It is not inconsistent or in violation of his religious beliefs. The bible says first and foremost one must observe the laws of the land in which one lives. Ashcroft has done that throughout his political career.
JAH -
As I understand it, Ashcroft is not an absolutist on abortion, even though personally advocating it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger. Once one understands that, and the fact that Ashcroft accepts that enforcing the law supercedes his purely personal outlook of the moment, there should be no conflict pere se. re. his convictions in his performance of duties.
Now, some of his personal views may be objectionable. I'm not sure about that.
lisajolie
Lisajolie:
dittos...
Not really. He would have to be against abortion under any circumstance to be an 'absolutist' on abortion in any real sense. His standards are different than perhaps the majority, not that he absolutely opposes it.
Incidentally, I'm not so sure that Ashcroft is the best choice, if only because of the controversy surrounding his possible viewpoints about the Confederacy. That out of the way, I don't see how he could be any worse than Democrat House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt who gave speeches to racist groups or Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who once was a KKK member. If their possibly racist attitudes are not a concern for Democrats, why should Lefties be throwing hissy fits about Ashcroft?
I suspect most of this hysteria is just thinly cloaked partisanship to cover the fear that Ashcroft might be proactive in investigating the wrongdoing of the Clowntoon administration that Stooge Reno has worked so hard to cover up.
concerned:
I don't see how he could be any worse than Democrat House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt who gave speeches to racist groups or Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who once was a KKK member. If their possibly racist attitudes are not a concern for Democrats, why should Lefties be throwing hissy fits about Ashcroft?
In case you hadn't noticed, Gephardt and Byrd are not in the running for Attorney General.
I also noticed that Ashcroft said yesterday that he regards the Roe and Casey decisions to be "settled law." Does this mean he will not expend any effort to attempt to overturn either decision.
lisajolie
in re 2597: please note that I have not absolved the Dems of their conduct in this system - in contrast to the GOP sycophants posting herein, I acknowledge that both major parties (rather, both "wings" of the business party) engage wholeheartedly in this behavior. To state otherwise would call into question one's observational skills, among other things...
JAH -
Correct. With them, it's worse. Democrat voters just like you said 'I don't really care about Gephardt's or Byrd's racist connections. I'm just a'votin' for them anyhoo.'
JJ:
I know who Robert Bryd and Dick Gephardt are and what offices they've held in the past.
I'm sorry you forgot to open that sense of humor I sent you for Christmas...:-)
Not at all. I was merely correcting your confusion.
by LIB QUAID
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Democrats conceded former Sen. John Ashcroft's likely confirmation as President-elect Bush's attorney general, they questioned him sharply Wednesday about his views on abortion rights and gun control.
Characterizing himself as a ''commonsense conservative,'' Ashcroft conceded that as a legislator he worked to curtail abortions and opposed some proposed gun curbs, but said that as attorney general he would vigorously enforce laws as they are passed by Congress.
''I know the difference between an enactment role and an enforcement role,'' he said.
Asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., why he believes there would be no need to exempt rape victims from a ban on abortion, Ashcroft did not answer.
Instead, he said, ''I have sought in a number of ways throughout the years to reduce and curtail the abortion of unborn children'' and had voted several times for broad exemptions.
Pressed on whether he would try to undermine the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, Ashcroft said the Supreme Court has clearly demonstrated its unwillingness to revisit the case. He said asking the solicitor general that would rank under him to petition the Supreme Court for a different ruling on abortion would undermine
Abortion is not murder according to law whether Ashcroft (or I) agree with that or not. As AG Ashcroft is constrained by the law, not by his personal beliefs.
Does this mean he will not expend any effort to attempt to overturn either decision.
It would not be a part of his job to try and overturn them.
concerned:
Democrat voters just like you said 'I don't really care about Gephardt's or Byrd's racist connections. I'm just a'votin' for them anyhoo.'
No, they said "I love the pork they bring to my state so I'm voting for them."
It may not be part of his job but he would have a significant amount of influence to do so. The Attorney General makes recommendations as to appointments to the Federal courts and Supreme court. He also can choose which abortion cases might warrant Department of Justice attention.
The standard that he would enforce the law is rather low. Any nominee to be Attorney General is going to say he will enforce the law. The real question is which issues that Attorney General would place his emphasis and which issues he might be content to overlook.
lisajolie
lisajolie
This is essentially true, but this will have little or no effect issues like abortion.
He appears to be disowning some of his previous views.
I am not able to watch. You have to be careful to determine if he is disowning his own views or disowning views others have attributed to him.
Well, JJ, the words are coming out of ASCROFTS mouth, not the mouths of others.
abortion.
This issue and others are seldom cut and dried. Often, they require judgement calls. For example, what if a state passes a law that has the effect of criminalizing abortion? Would an Ashcroft-led Justice Department intervene?
lisajolie
Bill Clinton has been asked if he's interested in playing in the next James Bond movie, according to Sky TV.
But would he be willing to play the villian?
Why, pray tell, do mega-Corps like the aforesaid need patent extension on Claritin (basic research of which was funded by - guess who? taxpayers!), thus garnering obscene profits (est. $2B per year) for their shareholders at the expense of the public at large? In other words, FORMER Sen. Ashcroft, whose interests did you believe you were sent to Washington to represent?
Hint: respondents claiming anything like "a majority of the public are vested in the market" will be taken to task for their unthinking regurgitation of CorpSpeak.
Nevermind...Wellstone to run again...
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) -- Sen. Paul Wellstone announced Wednesday he will run for a third term in 2002, breaking his campaign pledge to limit himself to two terms.
The 56-year-old Democrat said he made his decision because ''so much has changed'' in Washington since the November elections created a 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.
''For the first time since 1881, one vote really matters, one senator really matters,'' he said.
Close, but no cigar.
Perish the thought!
Ohhhhhh, SHITTTT!
Clinton administration officials were bracing for yet another photograph, obtained by the ENQUIRER, which pictures Jesse Jackson, the pregnant mistress, President Bill Clinton, and RAINBOW COALITION executives smiling in the Oval Office.
The picture was taken on December 3, 1998 --at the height of the Clinton sex scandal.
"Here was Rev. Jackson counseling Bill Clinton on his infidelity and Jackson's pregant mistress was smiling along?" asked a publishing source.
Counseling, hell. They were probably cracking jokes about pussy.
Ashcroft began to sweat and stammer. Finally he replied, reading from a note pad that he "Opposed Hormel based on his total record." Further he said that he "did not remember putting a 'hold' on Hormel's confirmation."
Leahy pressed him again and he repeated his prepared line that he opposed Hormel based on his total record/file. He indicated that he knew Hormel from his days as a student at U of Chicago Law School where Hormel was an assistant dean. But he refused to concede or deny that Hormel's sexual orientation was the reason why he opposed his appointment. My distinct impression was that on this matter, more than any other, Ashcroft was not being honest with the Judiciary Committee or the American public.
Washington will soon be jolted and storm clouds will form over Inauguration Weekend after a NATIONAL ENQUIRER expose alleges Jesse Jackson fathered a two-year old daughter conceived out of wedlock by a part-time RAINBOW COALITION staffer who was given $40,000 to relocate to Los Angeles where she now lives in $365,000 multi-bedroom spread and receives a $10,000 a month stipend from Jackson, it is alleged.
"A $40,000 moving expense is outragous," one RAINBOW COALITION source tells the ENQUIRER.
Guess that means that for these Lefties, it's just SOP to surreptitiously hustle inconvenient concubines out of the way. Btw, a certain "M*tt Dr*dge" ought to use a spellchecker, methinks.
Half the fun here is scooping the Dredgester with his own headliner which is due out 10PM EST.
As I mentioned quite some time ago here:
Jesse Jackson talks the talk, but feels he is far, far above walking the walk.
In the Jackson household, the women eat separately from the men - after they have finished serving them.
Anyone who believes a word from his flapping lips is truly an idiot.
joezan -
I just got banned from Salon's TT again simply by linking to that same article in a new thread I created. Some anencephalic thread censor calling herself Elizabeth Nolan described the Drudge article as 'politics of personal destruction' against Jackson. Those Lefty fascist idiots are really scary.
I have never liked TT for that reason. The thread moderators all reflect the politics of the management...I remember when niner's Politics thread was canned - and it was the best fricking politics thread in the whole forum.
I don't mind being outnumbered, but no conservative stands a chance in that place.
HaHaHa!
I can still scroll around their. They just booted me for exercising my First Amendment rights.
...their toxic waste dump of a chat forum, that is:)
We have removed
BLOCKBUSTER OF THE MILLENNIUM -Two hypocrites in the WH
Scorched Earth Retribution Begins Against Jesse Jackson -- Poltics of Personal Destruction Indeed!
Knucklehead isn't even literate enough to spell 'politics' correctly.
Yes.
Wonder what happened to him going back to plowing the back forty raising broadleaf terbacker on his Tennessee farm.
OTOH, few people who find something wholly immoral and offensive can wholeheartedly participate in protecting what they find indefensible. Its one thing to say that a statute is a poor policy choice, and yet defend it as constitutional. Its quite another to say that you will wholeheartedly defend what you find comparable to Hitler. Such a person is either lying or is morally bankrupt.
Drudge has the latest on the National Enquirer bombshell on Jesse Jackson.
Don't let Alan Dershowitz see you posting that.
Those bastards at TT banned me for linking to that article. What a bunch of narrow minded bigots.
Yup!
AOL.
If you clicked on a link...
You may have found one of the millions of links to Web sites that have gone out of business or moved without leaving a forwarding address. It's like having the former address of someone you've lost touch with. Unfortunately, this is very common on the Internet. There's no remedy for this.
If you typed the address...
Make sure you type the address exactly as it was given to you.
Check the spelling.
Don't type any spaces.
Use slashes (/) instead of backslashes (\).
Some other things to try.
Dots are periods. If the address you were given is A-O-L dot com , you need to type aol.com
The prefix http://www. is so hard to say, that most people just skip it. Maybe your address needs http://www. in front. For example, If the address you were given is A-O-L dot com, try http://www.aol.com
Still no luck?
The address you have is probably wrong. Or maybe it was right, but the website you're looking for may have gone out of business or moved. Unfortunately, this is very common
Have a good time.
Jesse Jackson Begins Damage Control...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson, who counseled President Clinton after his affair with Monica Lewinsky (Fortunately, President Clinton will soon have time to reciprocate), on Thursday admitted that he had fathered a daughter out of wedlock
Jackson, a two-time former presidential candidate who hosts a talk show on CNN, said in a statement released early on Thursday that he took full responsibility for the child and had been supporting her emotionally and financially since she was born.
"I am father to a daughter who was born outside of my marriage," the Baptist preacher said in a brief statement. "This is no time for evasions, denials or alibis. I fully accept responsibility and I am truly sorry for my actions."
....................................
"I was born of these circumstances and I know the importance of growing up in a nurturing, supportive and protected environment; so I am determined to give my daughter and her mother the privacy they both deserve," Jackson said.
"I will be taking some time off to revive my spirit and reconnect with my family before I return to my public ministry," he added.
A bit of childishness I posted at Table Talk, for concerned:
A weakened Bush Presidency?: Jesse Jackson's Bastard Child
( Subscribe | Discussion summary )
Simon Templar - 12:23 am PST - Jan 18, 2001
The Return of The Saint.
A place where we allude to Jesse Jackson's bastard child, while pretending we mean it in the metaphorical sense, so that we don't get banned by Table Talk's out-of-control liberal censors.
So... I think that Jesse Jackson has done the country a great disservice, by having this metaphorical bastard child, and by "bastard child" I mean a weakened presidency.
What say you?
Simon Templar - 12:26 am PST - Jan 18, 2001 -#1 of 1
The Return of The Saint.
I think it's sort of funny that Jackson showed up at the White House with his little bastard (and by "little bastard," I mean his Press Agent, Dr. Egon C. Bentavegna, Jr., and not a literal "little bastard") to counsel Clinton re: shooting his spunk in the sink.
Whereas Jackson really should have taken a page from Clinton.
And by "taken a page from Clinton," I'm not talking about shooting one's spunk in the sink, but rather "being honest with the American people about one's foibles," and by "foibles," I am certainly not alluding to Jesse Jackson's little bastard (the aforementioned Dr. Bentavegna Jr.).
Once again, I am certainly not talking about a literal "little bastard" that might be the dirty little secret sprung from Jesse Jackson's corrupt loins. That's off-limits to mention, and who would mention it anyway, because it simply didn't happen.
That's crazy-talk, that's all that is.
So, when I speak of a "little bastard whose dirty existence was kept secret," I am, of course, only speaking about, oh, I don't know, Jesse Jackon's not-quite-crystal-clear accounting practices at Rainbow/PUSH.
I've never been a fan of Jackson, but this is too much.
Obviously, these supporters are being disingenuous. The Attorney General's political views will affect the country in many ways, even if the Attorney General stops short of outright refusal to prosecute an assault weapons seller or an abortion clinic bomber.
My impression of this man has changed totally. He made the statement with the full knowledge that most of the Republican senators from the South, sitting in judgment upon him are dependent on the Confederate vote for election.
azazel:
. If he is willing to concede on these issues, issues he has advocated for his entire public life, what does this say about the strength of his character? And if he is simply saying whatever it takes to get confirmed, what does that say?
I was asking this yesterday...if he can set aside the strength of his religious convictions, he has none. So he is either a liar or has no convictions.
Wombat:
I think that happened quite some time ago...he just hasn't confessed.
I'm disappointed in Jesse but hey, Republicans probably love him now; he's just like them.
By Michael Kelly
Wednesday, January 17
Four events in recent weeks put the Clinton presidency in perspective. They are: (1) Clinton's back-room move, as his vice president was fighting for his political life, to knock Al Gore's candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee out of the job and replace him with Clinton's own loyal liegeman, Terry McAuliffe; (2) Clinton's December Surprise revocation of the executive order he signed back when he was promising "the most ethical administration in history" barring senior White House and administration officials from lobbying their former places of employment for five years after leaving their jobs; (3) the Clintons' decision to buy a $2.85 million house in Washington and accept an $8 million book advance for Sen. Rodham Clinton --while still begging friends and favor-seekers for contributions to their legal defense fund; and, (4) above all, the guilty plea entered by the Clinton illegal fundraiser James Riady.
These events speak to the greatest -- in the sense of largest -- legacy of the Clinton years; and that is one of a bottomless and endless selfishness that corrupted whatever it touched: the practice of politics, the conduct of policy, the institution of the presidency, finally the public ethos itself.
Still, you can't say the Clintons are all THAT money grubbing...they aren't charging the Secret Service men (assigned to them after he leaves office) rent and that is more than you can say for any other former President.
But do these accomplishments match in size the immense negative accomplishment of Clinton and his years, the destruction wrought by his terrible greed? In Clinton's nearly pathologically self-adoring view, the only stain on his record was that occasioned by the Lewinsky scandal, and that was really the fault of his enemies: He was a great president who made one little private mistake, was wrongly persecuted and impeached, but persevered -- making him not a disgrace but a hero, a savior of the Constitution.
But first, this is not what happened. What happened is that the president of the United States abused his office, abused the trust of the people, abused a young and vulnerable female employee, was threatened with exposure of this through the court-ordered questions routine in any sexual harassment case -- questions allowable under a law that the president himself had supported and that was enforced by his government. He then used his powers to orchestrate a campaign of perjury and obstruction of justice to hide his guilt. In other words, the president purposely subverted the law he was sworn to uphold and the law that, under his rule, governs the rest of us. To get away with this, he and his minions waged a war that damaged many lives and that profoundly corrupted the Democratic Party and liberalism in general. To preserve in power a man obviously guilty of illegal acts, Democrats and liberals supported the abuse of power, the abuse of women, the abuse of the law, the abuse of the truth, the abuse of the public trust.
2674. Wombat - 1/18/01 10:40:42 AM
Perhaps Al Sharpton has also gone astray. Is it too much to hope for?
One can stray no further nor lower than the level at which the Right Reverend Fatass presently resides.
He is accepted by his faithful followers at this level, which assures a sort of mutual baseness.
Clinton was our first really openly rentable president, heading what the former Justice Department chief investigator Charles La Bella termed a "loose enterprise" conspiracy that blatantly sold access to the president and to high policy-making officials, with the clear chance to influence U.S. policy.
Consider the case of Mr. Riady, the Indonesian billionaire who pleaded guilty last week to defrauding the United States in connection with an illegal fundraising scheme for his old crony, Clinton. Riady, whom Clinton knew to be a foreign national, first offered to raise money -- $1 million -- in a 1992 limousine ride with Clinton. ("No specific recollection," says Clinton.) Riady's agent John Huang, placed in the Clinton Commerce Department, eventually raised $3.4 million in mostly illegal contributions. In the criminal information Riady signed to seal his deal with Justice, the billionaire businessman's motive is stated: "To obtain various benefits," including "Most Favored Nation status for China, open trade policies with Indonesia, normalization of relations with Vietnam." The good fairy Bill sprinkled magic dust and little Jimmy was granted all three of his wishes.
Gosh, bbb, I get the feeling you don't like Clinton...
...or at least, Michael Kelly doesn't.
In 1997, defending himself, Clinton said: "I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution." That is the epitaph of his tenure; and this, in the end, is his legacy: He was absolutely corrupt and he corrupted, absolutely.
Next time, bbb, take the HTML hint....
Whatsamatter, Judith?
bbb posts four paragraphs from an article, in two separate posts, and you get all ouchy? If you take issue with the facts presented, then debate them on their merits. Don't hide behind your bias by attacking people for their lack of html skill.
"REV." JESSE JACKSON COULDNT KEEP HIMSELF "OUT OF THE BUSHES" OF RAINBOW COALITION FEMALE EMPLOYEE
Look, joezan, I wasn't the only person who mentioned linking so back off. I don't give a rip who does it and if you want the thread filled with entire articles from newspapers, fine. I seem to recall lots of people crabbing about Niner doing that and you never complained about them.
No, and neither has Dennis Hastert.
Get a grip, Judy. I realize the memory is going, but if you page up a few inches, you'll see that it was you who complained about bbb's posting articles, and I who called you on it. Or is there some other reason my failure to call niner on the same sin demonstrates a lack of consistency on my part?
And, yes - there has been discussion of late regarding over-posting articles instead of linking to them - but the consensus was that a paragraph or two is acceptable.
Further, perhaps bbb (who, lo and behold, apparently does know how to link) feels - and with good reason - that by simply linking to an article, his point will be ignored, or disregarded out-of-hand by the likes of you.
by DAVID HO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a preview of what may come on Inauguration Day, police arrested three protesters Thursday after two of them dangled outside the third floor of the Interior Department with a huge banner opposed to the new Bush administration's environmental policies.
please do link in articles rather than posting the entire thing. a good rule of thumb is one post per article.
by LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government is considering whether to prohibit Americans who lived in France and certain other parts of Europe from donating blood, as a safeguard against mad cow disease.
....his point will be ignored, or disregarded out-of-hand by the likes of you.
Come to think of it, this is actually not a bad thing.
...but bbb's kinda new. He'll learn.
joezan:
or disregarded out-of-hand by the likes of you.
I'll have you know I read the entire thing he posted. I read everything "the likes of you" post because I feel it important to keep track of what the lunatic fringe is saying.
And before you jump my ass over the use of "lunatic fringe", be advised I was referring to the linked, not the linkees.
As I suspected, racism won't get much purchase. But he's going to get kicked around a lot on abortion rights.
Why is it that Planned Parenthood always has articulate and bubbly women running the show? Is it the cheerleader job?
Yea...lunatic fringe. The guy is charged with many crimes related to his buying of the Clinton WH, and pleads guilty to them. So anyone who reports on these facts is the "lunatic fringe".
Hey - you're learning too, Judy.
bbb:
Sorry we got off on the wrong foot.
You might want to link in Message # 2698 to the Inaugural thread...I don't thin anyone has mentioned protesters over there today. :-)
Ashcroft opposed abortion? How dare he!
Then he plans on the two of them going on the town to get laid.
So I heard.
The link in Message # 2707 is about Jesses woes but don't skip it because the rest of the article is about Ashcroft and the hearings up to date. It's very good...
Jacksons troubles and stupidity will only harm him and his family but Ashcroft can have a lasting impression on all of us.
I am unsure what politics have to do with it...
Oh, absolutely nothing, PP. I mean, these are precisely the situations for which one usually founds a non-profit political organization, right?
Everyone needs a little rainy-day fund...
I mean, it really is no one's business that Jackson used $40,000 of PUSH/RC money to move the woman out to California. You looked into the rental price on a Ryder truck lately?
Kuligin:
doesn't Jackson wax a bit self righteous at times? Rings a bit hollow now.
So do you, taking delight in a mans moral failure.
Sharpton's role in the Tawana Brawley hoax (including his being found to have libeled Steven Pagones) was IMO far worse than fathering a child out of wedlock. He is also a tax evader, given recent disclosures about his business practices.
Of course, nobody considers Sharpton to be a real Democrat except Conservatives.
Yeah? I am switching to the Republican party right now.
Glad to see you back.
I write them all for MaryBeth and Eliz Nolan's eyes only.
Bitter battles now with them. We're all going down with the TT ship.
bbb:
re: Message # 2712
In case you missed it, the host of this thread asked you to link, also. I made an apology to you; if you want to continue to be snarky, that's fine with me.
Gingrich gets caught with a mistress, and the lefties go on about it in the press endlessly. Watch how little coverage this story gets from the leftie media. Watch how fast the story disappears from the media.
Especially in September, PP.
Jackson's wife has accused that the mistress "got pregnant on purpose."
Daft:
Newts little piccadillo was hardly mentioned at all; what papers do YOU read?
And, FWIW, the BIG story is certainly not the fact that Jackson fathered a child out of wedlock - his philandering has been been public knowledge for quite some time.
No, the BIG story will be Jackson's misuse of funds...and that will have huge political ramifications.
The Rev. Al Sharpton's status with Washington's Democratic elite just keeps on rising. Last Friday, he commanded an audience with Attorney General Janet Reno and White House aides to demand a federal monitor for the New York City Police Department.
Mr. Sharpton has also demanded, and won, meetings with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and former presidential hopeful Bill Bradley. Last year he shared the stage with President Clinton at a Justice Department conference on police misconduct. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission glorified him as an expert on policing in its recent report attacking the NYPD. Mr. Sharpton's transformation from racial agitator to "statesman" appears complete.
Source
have huge political ramifications.
I don't know enough about the Jackson situation to comment much, but this I agree with. It appears to me from the little I do know that he has done a responsible job of paying for the child's upkeep. But if he was doing so with the money of others, then that's an entirely different matter.
I was only hoping to clear up your uncertainty, which you with admirable candor above: "I am
unsure what politics have to do with it..."
I sometimes try to clarify things for the willfully ignorant or dishonest. Readers of our excange can decide which you are.
Indy:
Questions have been flying for a few years now, as Jackson's "lifestyle" has appeared to be out of synch with that of a man whose only paying job is as the head of a non-profit organization - even one who commands big speaking fees.
Jackson has steadfastly refused to answer any questions regarding his finances - and to tell the truth, there has been nothing solid to hang an investigation on - till now, that is.
Hey - I wonder if this is a first?
...a sitting member of Congress with a new sibling.
Indy:
Conservatives love to run against Al. It is much easier to run against Sharpton than it is to run against mainstream Democrats.
Sharpton ran for the Democratic Senate nomination in New York. He actually ran better than Liz Holtzman. Nonetheless, he doesn't have any support of the Democratic party infrastructure and has no real constituency. Voters, primarily blacks, vote for him only as protest.
Let me put it this way. He is less representative of the Democrats than David Duke is of the Republicans.
I read the New York Times, which I usually refer to as Pravda, and a few other online papers. Which ones do you read?
Why You Can Never Count Out Rev Al
this was published in March of 2000, but it's still very relevant:
If you doubt that Al Sharpton's image has softened, listen to John McCain: "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics, and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the right."
For anyone else, this would be a devastating insult. For Sharpton, it's progress. He used to be lumped with David Duke and decried as a preacher of hate. Now he has been promoted to Robertson's level and deplored merely as an "agent of intolerance."
...
The rehabilitation of Sharpton may seem like a new story, but it's not. This is not Sharpton's second act. It's his fifth. Every couple of years the media discover the New Al Sharpton—usually in a story headlined "The New Al Sharpton"—and every couple of years Sharpton tarnishes that polish.
Daffy:
"I read the New York Times, which I usually refer to as Pravda."
I guess you never noticed William Safire or A.M. Rosenthal's columns. You would have noticed Safire referring to the First Lady as a congenital liar. Maureen Dowd won a Pulitzer for her columns in The New York Times that criticized Bill Clinton's behavior during the Lewinsky scandal. You could look it up.
Jackson's "lifestyle" has appeared to be out of synch with that of a man whose only paying job is as the head of a non-profit organization - even one who commands big speaking fees.
Interesting.
Do you also question Colin Powell?
lisa:
Oh!
Does Colin have a mistress and love-child stashed away somewhere, whom he supports with funds from his non-profit foundation?
I don't know.
I do know that he has made over 25 million dollars in the last six years while running a not-for-profit organization. Can you tell me what Mr. Powell's organization has done?
PP:
In any case, I get no joy from his pain.
Oh, I do. I most assuredly do. I'm dancing, as a matter of fact.
Coming, as this does, on the heels of Jackson'd biggest planned performance of the last decade - his raining on GWB's parade in just one day's time - and along with his statement that he will immediately leave the public spotlight, his pain is truly wonderful and fitting news.
As a subscriber to the Times for over thirty years, I am aware of the columnists you cite. I only wonder why you think I am not. Neither of those two write news stories, in particular stories about Gingrich, which is what Judith and I were discussing.
And since you want to lose no opportunity to lecture me, I will refine your knowledge of the Times. I believe Safire is the lone republican voice among its columnists. His views are not reflected in the paper's editorial positions or in the editorializing by its reporters in their stories. Dowd has written pieces that were deliciously critical of the Clintons--the President's announcement of his wife's resignation is a classic I admire--and she criticizes just about every political persuasion at some point, but in general she favors democrats.
I am sure that Powell's speaking fees, board memberships and book royalties make up the bulk of his assets.
I do know that he has made over 25 million dollars in the last six
years while running a not-for-profit organization. Can you tell me what Mr. Powell's organization has done?
How do you know this? He refuses to release any financial statements. And the question is not "How much has he made?".
Rather, it's "How much has he kept - and how much of that has he declared?
I was talking about Colin Powell. He's made over 25 million dollars over the past six years. All while running a not-for-profit organization.
What does Mr. Powell's not-for-profit do?
Just as the Pres.-Elect says: they're "...good men, with good hearts..." (well, maybe not Dick).
Kennedy tried to rally the left with a sharp attack on Ashcroft's record on desegregation and voting rights, but at this point, it looks like the battle is a draw — and a draw in committee usually means the nominee will be confirmed.
Besides promoting educational initiatives in inner cities, I'm not sure. But he is most certainly not involved in directly influencing public policy by staging protests, or extorting money from major corporations by forcing them to hire him as a paid consultant under threat of lawsuit for discriminatory hiring and promotion policies, as is Reverend Jackson.
..above to lisajolie's #2747.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A 52-member study group recommended today that President-elect Bush limit his intervention into Arab-Israeli negotiations to imminent breakthroughs or breakdowns. The group also suggested Bush move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv and scale back the participation of the Central Intelligence Agency in security arrangements between Israel and the Palestinians. The 52 members of the panel include Democrats and Republicans, sponsored by the private Washington Institute for Near East Policy, concluded that the highest priority for Bush is to prevent a descent into regional war.
What does this mean? What educational initiatives?
I'm sure you don't really mean that Jackson "extorts" money. Certainly, not any more than Powell extorts money from companies.
bbb:
Message # 2741....you're becoming redundant but I'm willing to check them out, regardless.
Wait for Bill Clinton to extort money for his speech fees to pay his legal bills and Hillary's mortgages ....
Daffy:
"As a subscriber to the Times for over thirty years, I am aware of the columnists you cite. I only wonder why you think I am not."
You referred to it as "Pravda". That is why.
"And since you want to lose no opportunity to lecture me, I will refine your knowledge of the Times. I believe Safire is the lone republican voice among its columnists. His views are not reflected in the paper's editorial positions or in the editorializing by its reporters in their stories. Dowd has written pieces that were deliciously critical of the Clintons--the President's announcement of his wife's resignation is a classic I admire--and she criticizes just about every political persuasion at some point, but in general she favors democrats."
This is not a lecture, but rather, a disagreement. The New York Times does a better job of balance than any other American Newspaper. There are more Democrats on the Op-Ed page, but the Times goes out of its way to portray views on every part of the spectrum. The Times this year endorsed Bob Franks, a Republican, in the New Jersey Senate race. The Times printed an expose of Al sharpton's personal finances last month that hammered another nail in his political coffin. Today's coverage of the Ashcroft hearing is supplemented by Safire's reference to Ted Kennedy as being "in his full Bork mode."
Calling the Times "Pravda" shows ignorance, and contributes to the myth of a liberal media bias. It is as offensive as it is specious.
In both cases, money freely given for a speech isn't extortion.
by LAURA MECKLER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tommy Thompson promised to push for prescription drugs in Medicare as he testified Thursday before a friendly Senate Finance Committee considering his nomination to be secretary of health and human services.
Didn't Bush the elder receive something like ten million dollars worth of stock options for lecturing to a Japanese company?
bbb:
Gore wants to charge $60,000-$80,000 per speech too.
So what? No one is smashing kneecaps of those who don't wish to pony up that much.
Lisa, you're being silly.
No such charges have ever been leveled against Powell.
But such is Jackson's well-established MO. He is getting out just in time, though - he will no longer have a corrupt, complicit, administration with which to legitimize and enable his extortion.
Ashcroft should handle some snakes to demonstrate his worthiness.
robert:
:-)
It seems to me that nobody is forcing companies to hire Jackson to give speeches, either. Your defintion of "extortion" appears to be solely political.
Many of the companies or groups that hire Jackson or Powell to give them an hour of canned inanities do so as a means to funnel money to them for political purposes.
lisajolie
I saw that. Good one. I reregistered at TT as 'Larry Flynt', but I really hesitate to post under that scumbag's name, irony or no.
It seems to me that nobody is forcing companies to hire Jackson to give speeches, either. Your defintion of "extortion" appears to be solely political.
Many of the companies or groups that hire Jackson or Powell to give them an hour of canned inanities do so as a means to funnel money to them for political purposes.
lisajolie
I thought he already was...half are saying he believes and the other half are saying, "hey, no problem!"
HaHaHa!
To be more specific, JJ's hush money was from the Rainbow/PUSH coffers. Word is PUSH staffers outed him to Drudge, etc.
lisajolie
lisa:
I'm sure you don't really mean that Jackson "extorts" money. Certainly, not any more than Powell extorts money from companies.
Jackson's MO:
"Hey, Big Corporation - I see you have only one or two Black VP's out of dozens. And very few Blacks in top administrative positions. What? You say your hiring and promotional policies will stand up under the closest scrutiny? HAHAHA - that's what Texaco said. So, look - here's the deal...you agree to "contribute" $10,000,000 to my little non-profit, and we'll cancel the flights we booked yesterday for our lawyers..."
...and that, no matter how you look at it, just cannot be considered a "speaking fee".
He does it all the time.
Lisa:
You hit refresh - this causes a double post.
What's wrong with pointing out that minorities or women are under-represented? Identifying problems is usually the first step in correcting them.
As I recall, Texaco's problem was a bit more than you've let on. I seem to remember that Texaco's Human Resouces Department had a plan to prevent minority promotions. Something about jelly beans sticking to the bottom of the bag.
Sorry. Did I do something wrong?
nope. Joe just gets a tad excited sometimes
Re: Message # 2775, joezan.
He does it all the time.
as you've said. you, of course, have a link or cite? why not share?
What do you smoke today?
Ducky:
Lisa's question was in reference to her double post, moron.
Oh, how low can these corporate racists go?
Jelly beans!
Society will never recover.
you still get a tad excited
admit it - you'll feel better
concerned:
"Oh, how low can these corporate racists go?
Jelly beans!
Society will never recover."
Now I know why people call you "Tommy di moron"
Bite me, you humorless crank.
Do you drink Texaco Premium for morning coffee ?
Bite me, you humorless crank.
Now who looks like the humorless one with this response?
Here you go, Ducky
..from an extremely cursory search, using only the words "Jesse Jackson" and "Extortion".
The Carter administration was particularly generous to PUSH and its offshoot, PUSH-Excel, but subsequent federal audits found financial improprieties and PUSH-Excel had to pay some of it back in fines. By then, however, the Reverend had bigger fish to fry.
The business of boycotting large corporations–Ford, Anheuser-Busch, 7-Eleven, even a smaller entity like Coors, which committed 8 percent of its profits to meeting Jackson’s demands–was heating up. In 1982 Jackson set up International Trade Bureau to coordinate all the boycotts he was initiating and let it be known that he would "withdraw enthusiasm" from anyone who did not contribute. To buy racial peace, corporate America paid up. The story of Coca-Cola is typical....
(scroll down to the second story)
Sorry, JAH. Nothing in my contract says I have to laugh off ignorant insults.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee today approved retired Army Gen. Colin Powell to be secretary of state in the incoming Bush administration. There was no debate as the nine senators present recommended the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to succeed Madeleine Albright as America's chief diplomat. Confirmation by the Senate is expected tomorrow. Powell is one of Bush's least controversial Cabinet selections. Senators from both parties showed great deference toward Powell during his confirmation hearing yesterday.
Get a grip Judith. The only "delight" I take is in the hypcrisy folks like you consistently have exposed in yourselves. Whining the whole time about Ashcroft and the "effect he'll have on the whole country" while sweeping away all the crap your good ole boy Clinton did!
BTW, I just saw Primary Colors and thought of a number of the Demo Moties, including you. Don't matter how sick and depraved the guy is, so long as he fights for our policies! Way to go Judith. Stay at home please!
Oh, and as for Jackson, I feel very sorry for the man actually. He is obviously lying not only to the country but to himself as well.
Since Jexster seems to be taking a breather, I thought I'd fill in for him.
Of course, the most significant line from this article was:
With Bush's inauguration two days away, the exercise is purely hypothetical, of course.
"You can sleep with a whore, so long as you fight for the poor."
by LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Anyone who lived in France for a total of 10 years since 1980 should be banned from donating blood in the United States because of fears of mad cow disease, the government's scientific advisers decided Thursday.
"Whore" as in charging for sex, or just a woman you don't approve of?
Actually, don't parse the phrase too much. It just rhymed, that's all.
Hey, I should post this in movies, but I actually thoroughly enjoyed Primary Colors (just saw it on video about 2 weeks back). I actually thought the black guy wouldn't fold in the end.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) --California cut off power to thousands of people for a second straight day today as lawmakers rushed to enact emergency legislation to buy electricity at taxpayer expense and keep the lights on. Californians stocked up on flashlights, generators and firewood as the northern half of the state was struck by rolling blackouts. The outages were expected to affect one million customers at a time for at least an hour. The blackout order could be expanded to the south, said a spokeswoman for the Independent System Operator, keeper of the state's power grid.
And now we find out that the Most Reverend Jackson has lowered the boom yet further at what is already the nadir of his career by stepping on his own Clowntoon. 'Religious counseling' my ass. The misappropriation of the Rainbow/PUSH funds cannot but be another major millstone around his neck.
This is certainly a noble ideal, but is this what Jackson has really done? Has he really encouraged them to be self sufficient?
joezan:
I just saw Primary Colors and thought of a number of the Demo Moties, including you. Don't matter how sick and depraved the guy is, so long as he fights for our policies! Way to go Judith. Stay at home please!
Have you had drinks for lunch?
The misappropriation of the Rainbow/PUSH funds cannot but be another major millstone around his neck.
Okay, I guess I missed the story of him being charged with this crime...could you please link to it?
bbb:
Who cares what he pays...are you saying that because you think he's not wealthy enough to pay that, he's stealing the money from his organization?
What do you think?
Kuligin:
This is certainly a noble ideal, but is this what Jackson has really done? Has he really encouraged them to be self sufficient?
He's probably done as much as you have in that noble regard...what sort of Christian are you, anyhow?
bbb:
I think you ought to have some facts to back up something like that before you go accusing a man of a crime.
Huh?
Re-read my post on Jesse Jackson.
I swear, I thought Frances McDormand was starting to testify before the committee for Secretary of the Interior. But it's Gale Norton.
bbb:
Ha! Guess you're not speaking "in code" when you imply Jackson must be "very rich".
$10,000 per month EXTRA (SECRETIVE) PAYMENT is a lot of money
It's being reported that the $40,000 of 'relocation' funds were taken out of Rainbow/PUSH coffers. A Rainbow/PUSH staffer was quoted as saying: "A $40,000 moving expense is outragous." I provided the link to this article previously. Here it is.
"A $40,000 moving expense is outrageous," one RAINBOW COALITION source tells the ENQUIRER.
That is the extent of the paragraph.....
And you obviously haven't moved a household across country lately. My husband is in that business and just last night, he said he'd given an estimate to a family moving from Texas to California and it was for $23,000 to move the household.
I need something other than Drudge. Not because I scoff at it out of hand--it may be true. But I want to know what's really true.
Well, Cal...isn't Drudge citing the National Enquirer enough for you? And Concerned reading into the lone paragraph quoting an employee of PUSH a suggestion that Jackson stole money from them to move his sweetie out of town?
JAH -
Tell that to the Rainbow Coalition member who thought it was excessive. You have to admit, though, that it is way more than needed, and it's not like a 'humanitarian' association should have its funds misused in this manner, IAC.
I am noting that it is mostly the more blatantly sensationalistic aspects that have been played up by the media so far.
Because of his political monomania, and because he is a perpetual preener who can strut even while sitting, Bill Clinton relished being president. The pomp, the cameras, the microphones make that office a narcissist's delight. But other than by soiling the office, he was a remarkably inconsequential president, like a person who walks across a field of snow and leaves no footprints.
concerned:
The point is, I see nothing in that link you posted that shows the Rainbow/PUSH guy who was quoted said anything other than that it was excessive....sure, it sounds excessive but as I said, moving is costly these days, especially cross country. But other than the guy saying it was excessive, I don't see where you get he accused Jackson of using the funds. Can you highlight precisely where he said that?
Because of his political monomania, and because he is a perpetual preener who can strut even while sitting, Bill Clinton relished being president. The pomp, the cameras, the microphones make that office a narcissist's delight. But other than by soiling the office, he was a remarkably inconsequential president, like a person who walks across a field of snow and leaves no footprints.
Remove the words "Bill Clinton", "president", and "office" and you have a perfect description of Geporge Will.
No need to replace anything.
George Will was right on the money.
bbb:
Of course not and I can't see any place that has claimed it did.
George Will has been sniffing glue...he's always been a pompous ass and by letting this vitriol loose now, he's being looked on as senile. Very little dignity left for this poor man whose own past is no walk down the rose covered path, believe me.
Let me put it this way. He [Sharpton] is less representative of the Democrats than David Duke is of the Republicans.
I think that's a worse way of putting it than the first. Can you imagine two winning Republican Senatorial candidates and the two front-running Republican Presidential candidates seeking meetings with and the blessings of David Duke? Or Attorney General Ashcroft (heh) holding a meeting with Duke about the behavior of New Orleans police? Or Dubya "sharing the stage" with Duke at a Justice Department conference?
My understanding is that Sharpton endorsed Nader, so I'll agree that he's not at the center of the Democratic Party. But I do think more people than just conservatives consider him a Democrat (including the pols mentioned in post 2716 and the 100,000 plus who voted for him in the Demo primary for NYC mayor). Moreover, he's certainly less anathema in the Democratic Party than Duke is in the Republican.
The story continues: "The Post contacted Stanford, 39, at her home in south Los Angeles several times this week. She and family members politely declined to comment on her affair with Jackson, 59. But she told the Enquirer: 'Jesse and I still have a very warm and close relationship.' Since DNA tests determined he was the father of the 20-month-old girl - Stanford was seeing another man when she got pregnant - Jackson has been paying $10,000 a month in support. He also gave the single mom $40,000 for 'moving expenses' when she took maternity leave and left Washington, D.C., for her native California. Their fateful liaison began after Jackson, impressed by a book Stanford had written about his impact on foreign policy, hired her to run the Rainbow Coalition's Washington office."
I suppose the most irritating thing about him has always been this supercilious air of indignant outrage and condescension he musters up (quietly - I'll give him that. He's not a ranter.)
A turd who's been overrated for years.
LOL!
I hear Jesse Jackson does a lot of work with unmarried mothers.
You know, just helping them get their start.
thump-pow-crashhhhhh
(That's a verrrrrry old Steve Martin joke, circa 1975.)
-George Will
Good joke. Sounds Letterman-ish. Is it?
Why is Ted Kennedy so afraid of John Ashcroft to be his next AG?
Where is Ted's nephew Smith?
Lord, that's just silly.
Where is Ted's nephew Smith?
What does this have to do with anything?
bbb:
Are you out of school today or something?
Learn to think!
Incidentally, thinking about hypocritical, this Ashcroft takes the cake. Here he is bleating on and on about how he will enforce the law, not impose his own ideology (right). When, among others, he voted against Lee to be head of the Civil Rights Division of the DofJ because he didn't believe Lee when he said the same things.
Rambling on here a bit, I have come around to the view that, on balance, it might be best to have Ashcroft as A.G. Everything he does will be scrutinized. Not necessarily so with a lot of others, and as a consequence a lot of mischief might get performed without enough public notice.
" You got Elaine Chao for Linda Chavez. Do you want Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanan for John Ashcroft? "
"When, among others, he voted against Lee to be head of the Civil Rights Division of the DofJ because he didn't believe Lee when he said the same things."
But Lee admitted this in so many words, when he repeatedly mis-stated the new SC test on quotas & racial preferences. The SC had decided that quotas/preferences would be subject to "strict scrutiny," and could only survive a challenge if necessary & narrowly tailored to serve a vital government interest. Lee was asked several times about the decision, and he refused to repeat the court's words, insisting that, in his interpretation, quotas/preferences were okay so long as they were "limited" and "useful" (last word possibly not correct, but along those lines).
Repeatedly he was asked to merely *repeat* the actual legal test on quotas/preferences. Repeatedly he refused to endorse the actual law, preferring instead to use a looser standard which was no longer the standard at all.
Whose home are you at?
Quiz:
On April 10, 1975, the Senate voted to restore full citizenship rights (the long dead) Robert E. Lee. The bill recognized General Lee's "outstanding virtues of courage, patriotism, and selfless devotion."
Which Senators voted for this bill?
a) Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
b) Joe "Plagiarist" Biden
c) Pat "Out to Lunch" Leahy
d) All Senators in a unanimous vote including Senators Kennedy, Biden, and Leahy
Answer: D
by SHAWN POGATCHNIK
Associated Press Writer
BELFAST, Northern Ireland (AP) -- Two days of diplomacy failed to crack the deadlock threatening the survival of Northern Ireland's power-sharing government, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday.
bbb:
"Clinton is not the worst president the republic has had, but he is the worst person ever to have been president."
Have you really considered all of the Presidents? I prefer Clinton the "person" to many other Presidents, including JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Reagan. Not to mention George "Quoteboy" Will.
CalGal:
My god, some woman from what must surely be Up With People is desecrating the National Anthem.
That was Sandy Patty...another adultrous Republican, I think...she was involved in some sort of affair with another Christian singer a few years ago.
Indy:
"My understanding is that Sharpton endorsed Nader, so I'll agree that he's not at the center of the Democratic Party."
Talk about understatements!
"But I do think more people than just conservatives consider him a Democrat (including the pols mentioned in post 2716 and the 100,000 plus who voted for him in the Demo primary for NYC mayor). Moreover, he's certainly less anathema in the Democratic Party than Duke is in the Republican."
More people voted for Duke for Senator than voted for Sharpton for Senator.
Me: "This is certainly a noble ideal, but is this what Jackson has really done? Has he really encouraged them to be self sufficient?"
You: "He's probably done as much as you have in that noble regard...what sort of Christian are you, anyhow?"
What does that have to do with anything? Mine was a serious question about what the man supposedly does and doesn't do. Of course, your answer is typical of you. No substance, just nonsense as usual.
You know, if you weren't so serious all the time, your posts would be funny. Actually, I take that back. They are funny!
Ms. Nolan:
For about a year, TT featured a thread on Dan Burton's bastard child.
But now, as I understand it, a poster began a thread on Jesse Jackson's bastard child, and you immediately deleted the thread, calling it "the politics of personal destruction," and then went one better and banned the poster.
Please explain your curious responses to the these two similar subjects. One thread, concerning Burton, is apparently unobjectionable and *not* "the politics of personal destruction." The other thread, involving Jesse Jackson, *is* objectionable, and *is* "the politics of personal destruction," and is, apparently, even a bannable offense.
I wait with baited breath for your response.
bbb:
"Who is going to the protest rally in Washington D.C.?"
I don't get this at all. What is there to protest? This is democracy. Someone always wins, and someone always loses. Am I missing something?
(Get a little confused as to where you are or where you are posting from time to time?)
TT is a joke . It's totally for entertainment purpose.
Stop being a sore and sour loser!
Sorry if the truth continues to sting, though.
by H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Spencer Abraham, President-elect Bush's nominee for energy secretary, gained easy endorsement Thursday from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, only hours after he appeared before the panel. The committee agreed by voice vote to recommend confirming Abraham, a former senator from Michigan who lost a bid for re-election in November. Abraham, 48, grandson of Lebanese immigrants, is expected to get easy approval to head the Energy Department, which he twice tried to have eliminated in the late 1990s.
Actually, heading it up may be the best way of doing to it what you wanted done to it. Hopefully he'll pare it down dramatically. After all, who needs energy anyway?!
How about Elaine Chao for AG and John Ashcroft for Secretary of Labor?
Just pull your legs.........
janjon:
"the short answer is that this is a time where the so-called "winner" didn't. He was given the golden ring."
First of all, the election was a statistical tie. Neither guy was an outright winner, and neither guy has a right to complain.
Second, so what? What does a protest of the inauguration accomplish? I always thought that protests were designed for some kind of tangible goal, not for blowing off steam. There is nothing that a protest can accomplish (or should accomplish) with regard to the inevitibility of the inauguration. Frankly, I think it is a dumb thing to do.
Do you want me to replace John Ashcroft with Jeb Bush or what?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The incoming Bush administration and Congress are showing little desire to intervene in California's power crisis. GOP lawmakers accused the state today of looking for a bailout after years of refusing to build new power plants. ''It would be premature to speculate about action,'' Energy Secretary-designate Spencer Abraham told senators when pressed to outline the next administration's plans to deal with the rolling blackouts and the threat of utility bankruptcies in the nation's most populous state.
Much better ways to keep the troops engaged and, in due course, to keep the W follies very much in the public eye.
"Do you want me to replace John Ashcroft with Jeb Bush or what?"
Works for me. I'd much rather have Jeb as AG.
Quite the opposite. That's pretty much all they're good for, is making people who are the sort who respond to demonstrations feel that they've done something. They haven't, but it makes them feel better.
The only time a demonstration matters is when its numbers are huge, far beyond what is expected. Suppose that 900,000 people came to protest the inauguration. That would "matter", in that it would be incredibly embarrassing. But nothing they said or did would be relevant--only their numbers.
Fielding:
When are you going to start your Travel thread?
Numbers can have impact, of course. It would be hard to deny that all of the Civil Rights protests in the '60s and the anti-Vietnam War ones didn't have meaningful impact on politics.
I haven't formally committed, but I'm leaning towards February 1st.
joezan:
I just saw Primary Colors and thought of a number of the Demo
Moties, including you. Don't matter how sick and depraved the
guy is, so long as he fights for our policies! Way to go Judith.
Stay at home please!
Have you had drinks for lunch?
Actually, Judy, I had chili.
2794. KuligintheHooligan - 1/18/01 2:39:10 PM
#2715
BTW, I just saw Primary Colors and thought of a number of the
Demo Moties, including you. Don't matter how sick and depraved the
guy is, so long as he fights for our policies! Way to go Judith. Stay at home please!
What did you have?
joezan:
Your point? That you can screw up links to your own posts? Hey, I don't like you, either, so let's just agree to disagree, okay?
If GWB nominated Keyes as AG, I think Kennedy would drown himself at Chappaquidick.
Would he again leave the scene of the drowing?
If GWB nominated Keyes as AG, I think Kennedy would drown himself at Chappaquidick.
Hmmm................
No, you idiot. You attributed Vic's post to me, and you're still too foamy at the mouth to realize it.
It'd be called Camelot II. I knew you'd like that.
Good question. It's been interminable.
Oh thanks, joez...I'd have been up all night worrying about that one.
Great letter. And to make their hypocrisy worse, TT now has a WH thread dealing with the same issue, but with the header having the maximum Lefty Bunker Mentality twist allowable with the English Language.
So, what was it, Judy - gin and tonics?
The child is reportedly 20 months old, meaning she could have been conceived as early as July 1998 -- a month before his visit with the president.
azazealout:
Does everyone ignore you over in TT, too?
Jackson's staff is what got him into this mess.
bbb:
Reports are the woman was indeed already pregnant, and at JJ's side during his WH "spiritual counseling" sessions with the prez.
Da noive!
by DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton approved new energy standards for four types of appliances Thursday, and the administration estimated they would save trillions of gallons of water and reduce demands on the nation's power system.
The new standards apply to central air conditioners, heat pumps, water heaters and clothes washing machines used in the home as well as commercial heating and cooling equipment.
Colin Powell is 100 times better than Marie Anna Korbel.
Elaine Chao is 50 times better than Alexis Herman.
Norman Mineta (D) is 20 times better than Rodney Slater.
Governor Thompson is 25 times better than Donna Shulala
DoD is a wash.
Both are competent Republicans.
Anyone is better than Bill Richardson at DOE.
Anyone is better than Janet Reno at DOJ.
Dr. Paige is two times better than Dr. Riley .
I'll second that!
by PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Twelve Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee asked Independent Counsel Robert Ray to close up shop this weekend and let the Bush administration decide whether to bring criminal charges against Bill Clinton.
''A decision by you to continue the existence of your office... would likely be perceived as partisan,'' the Democrats said Thursday in a letter to Ray, whose office had no comment.
Legal experts said the Democrats apparently are calculating that Clinton's chances of escaping charges are better with the Bush Justice Department than they would be with Ray.
Ray has said he will decide shortly after the president leaves office whether to seek Clinton's indictment in the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Those are 12 Democrats that Ray should profoundly ignore, since they are effectively asking him to abrogate his responsibilities as IC. He also has a Grand Jury in place and the Bush administration has plenty to do already just getting things in order, thanks to the Alphalfa Bore Electoral circus in Florida.
DEMOCRAT
DEMOCRAT
DEMOCRAT
DEMOCRAT
DEMOCRAT
DEMOCRAT
DEMOCRAT
DEMOCRAT
DEMOCRAT
DEMOCRAT
So how could Ray indicting the WH Rapist be construed as being 'partisan'?
Jeezus Freakin' Keerist!
Sorry about that cllrdresqe rant.
concerned:
I want to make sure I spell it correctly. Are you
Tommy de Moron,
Tommy di Moron, or
Tommy D. Moron?
Gas? Ol' Sparky? Or lethal injection?
Do you really want to go there? Take care - you could wind up disrupting the forum while suffering great emotional stress and wind up with uncontrollable desires for personal revenge after I acid-piss your credibility and self-respect away.
Pastor B.T. Rice from St Louis spoke with eloquence approaching that of Martin Luther King against the confirmation of John Ashcroft. He focused on Ashcroft's lies about Judge Ronnie White who serves as a role model for black youth in Missouri. Blacks were deeply troubled when they heard Ashcroft accuse him of being pro criminal. Second, he emphasized Ashcroft's opposition to gun control and support of concealed weapons. Blacks think their community needs fewer weapons and more controls. Thirdly, he took exception to Ashcroft's opposition to integration and improvements in St Louis public schools throughout his terms as state attorney general and governor. Finally, he pointed to Ashcroft's vetoes of bills which would have allowed independent voter registration drives in St Louis and elsewhere in Missouri. His testimony was eloquent and compelling.
Rice was followed by a black lawn jockey who went on about how the black community is not monolithic and that no one can speak for the black community. After he finished Leahy pointed out that 95% of blacks in Missouri voted Carnahan in the last election, an indication that there was considerable unity against Ashcroft.
Next came a lawyer named Bill Taylor who was the lead attorney against Ashcroft in the St Louis school desegregation cases. His testimony was damning to Ashcroft also. He testified that 20 plus years after Brown v. Board of Education Ashcroft opposed every proposal for desegregating the St Louis Schools and lost every appeal he brought and was rebuked by the court for his anti-integration "machinations." Throughout this period he never proposed a constructive alternative plan.
Also today another consummate GOP Uncle Tom lawyer from Missouri, Robert? Hunter spoke unconvincingly in support of Ashcroft practically putting him right up there with Abraham Lincoln in terms of all he has done for African Americans.
Best post on this thread today. Look forward to hearing the line on either Lettermen or Leno.
Hmmmmm.
Sorry about going off on you a little bit last night.
I guess your mistake is a common one, just assuming a post following yours pertains to your post. I should have made the 2914 bold or mentioned Ace.
About your post, though. I am glad your racism toward Blacks only extends to Conservative Blacks for there are not many of them. Also, it was not Leahy who pointed out that 95% of Blacks voted for Carnahan but one of on the panel. Of course, there is nothing of surprise in your post and not much of worth.
I mean, is it really efficient to hang around a toilet that you have to flush twice and clean every day or use a leaking front loader washer with only a cold water rinse setting that takes three wash cycles to get your clothes clean, in the process beating the shit out of them? Sounds more like Big Moron Brother with a Vicious Streak.
Plus, people who are off the power grid should be allowed to buy any old air conditioner or heat pump they want.
What you fail to understand is they meant well with those regulations, and that is what really matters.
Yes. They're such lovely people at the DOE with Clowntoon as legbreaker, strongarming the entire country along a path paved with good intentions.
Since I'm such a fair minded person, although I lingered over 'F' for my vote, I upgraded him to a 'D'. Either that, or I'm getting Parkinson's Disease & my finger twitched the wrong way at the last second.
What was truly shocking is that 30% of respondents gave Clowntoon an 'A',proving that there are a lot of hard core clueless people wandering through life in the US. P. T. Barnum would find today's America a paradise.
She conducted interviews with Mr Jackson at his home in the presence of his wife Jackie, whom he married in 1962. Shortly afterwards, Mr Jackson appointed Miss Stanford as head of the coalition's Washington office. When she fell pregnant, Mr Jackson gave her $40,000 (£27,000) from coalition funds to help her relocate to Los Angeles during maternity leave. She still works there as a part-time researcher for the coalition.
$120,000 a year in a third of a million dollar house all from the 'nonprofit' Rainbow Coalition coffers to research exactly what? What the latest Victoria's Secret is?
Sheesh!
Let's contrast how the Leftists are treating JJSr. vs. how they brutalized Clarence Thomas for virtually nothing.
It would seem to be nearly impossible to more clearly highlight the incredible extent of the ideological bigotry, hypocrisy, duplicity and sheer blindness of the Left than by comparing these two cases.
Let's see - didn't most of the really bad pollution begin occurring in the '60's? I lived in LA until late '68 and you could never see the San Bernardino Mountains because of all the smog then.
That would have been under President......don't tell me now.....could it be...Johnson? A freakin' Democrat? Well, then, it must have been a carry over effect from the previous Republican admistration then, because only Republicans pollute, fart, etc., right?
Oh, shit, it was Kennedy, another Democrat before Johnson. So, that's when pollution got to be a real problem, after all. Under Democrats.
Wonkers,
For you. 
..ahhhh - puts me in mind of barefoot girls, pickup trucks, huntin', and football, that does.
(...sniff)
The confederate flag puts you in the mind of football?
Why? Haven't you heard? The Giants are in the Superbowl, and they'll probably win.
If you don't like Confederates, take it up with Senators Kennedy, Biden, and Leahy, who voted in 1975 to restore to General Robert E. Lee full citizenship rights and further stated he was a selfless patriot and hero.
Wonkers, in case you missed my quiz:
Quiz:
On April 10, 1975, the Senate voted to restore full citizenship rights (the long dead) Robert E. Lee. The bill recognized General Lee's "outstanding virtues of courage, patriotism, and selfless devotion."
Which Senators voted for this bill?
a) Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
b) Joe "Plagiarist" Biden
c) Pat "Out to Lunch" Leahy
d) All Senators in a unanimous vote including Senators Kennedy, Biden, and Leahy
Hint: The answer is D.
Thanks. It's forgotten.
Wonkers,
Honey, I ain't the one saying black people are lawn jockeys. So you can scratch "racist" off the list.
I'll tell you one thing. That bitch Selma, she sure gets around.
Wonkers -
You have succeeded in surprising me with this post.
Wonkers,
You were one of the whinest bitches in the kennel regarding Ashcroft calling Lee a "patriot."
Now that your buddies Drown-'em-with-Love Kennedy and Joe Biden are revealed to have expressed the same notion, not in Southern Partisan, but in an ACT OF CONGRESS, you now claim that's not such a big deal at all.
Whatta fuggin' chump.
Fine. If that makes it okay, then I'll start calling Jesse Jackson a "lawn jockey."
Jesse Jackson's a lawn jockey.
Hey, since I disagree wtih him politically, it makes the use of ethnic slanders okay.
PS: Jesse Jackson is also a porch monkey.
Boy-yee, this is fun.
As you well know, lawn jockey is a term used by many blacks as shorthand for people like Thomas, Sowell and others who have benefited from affirmative action, gotten a good education and then joined the GOP and become advocates against policies benefiting their own race and other disadvantaged people in this country.
Yes, I know. It's a fairly disgusting term and, since it can only be applied to black people, is racist to boot.
"Porch monkey" is my shorthand term for "dishonest, bastard-spawning poverty pimp and race hustler."
I think it was Ace who made the joke. Let me explain what a joke is. It is a good of words that causes mirth. I have not known you to cause mirth.
There is an old saying, "Be careful what you ask for, you may get it." If Thomas is thr result of Affirmative Action, one would wonder at your support for it. I am tempted to say you lack the intelligence to see the irony, but you don't lack some intelligence. But it's like the guy who owns a car. Doesn't mean he has to drive it all the time.
Now I am off to watch the sunset, have dinner with friends, and drink some quality vino. But as a bad penny, I will show up again.
Wonkers,
Many blacks call other blacks "niggers." Chris Rock does a 15 minute bit in which he explains how much he hates "niggers"-- he hates niggers so much, he says, he wishes the KKK would let him join.
Are you claiming that white people can generally call blacks they don't like "niggers"? Because you're claiming that because some blacks call blacks they disagree with "lawn jockeys," that confers upon you some special Liberal Right to use Racial Slurs in the Right Situation (i.e., to villify republicans).
I say once again: You have just as much a right to call Thomas Sowell a "Lawn Jockey" as I have to call Jesse Jackson a "nigger."
If you defend your slur by pointing out blacks that call Sowell a lawn jockey, I can defend my own by pointing out some Angry Conservative Blacks who call Jackson a "nigger."
Bush: Too bad. I am going to.
Fox interview
Thanks for that assessment of GWB. I hope he can maintain that approach, but I think he'll run into resistance from both ends of the political spectrum, although more from the 'loyal' political opposition.
I have to give best post now to Indy, but yours was funny and all yours, I guess.
"You seem to be freer than most with various uncomplimentary racial and religious slurs."
Really? I'm not the one writing "lawn jockey" left and right.
"I can only hope you are only indulging in sick humor."
There's nothing "sick" about the humor. It's a simple analogy: YOU claim it's okay to call black opponents "lawn jockey" because "some blacks also do this."
So, I say: Well then, I can call my opponents "nigger," because that's what Tupac Shakur called Biggie Smalls.
It's the precise same reasoning. You're not following it because you don't *want* to follow it, because you believe in some special liberal dispensation. "We leftists," you sniff righteously, "can use whatever racial slurs we like, because we, after all, are the people trying to help these goddamned lawn jockeys."
"By the way, I don't ever recall revealing my race in this forum, not that it matters one way or the other."
Nah. Doesn't matter at all. But if I had to guess...
Does "Fugging Moron" count as a race?
Wonkers is a fuckin' lawn jockey.
Please. Your every post reeks of earnest righteous "I walked with Martin" white guy.
Probably a little tin foil trimming on this one.
Wonkers wants to give a shout-out to his peeps Tamolkie, No-Bonze, and Shabadoo D. Much love, you know wha' I'm sayin?
Yes. I've noticed. I got the impression that the Dems would not have truly emulated sharks at a feeding frenzy if they succeeded in pulling Ashcroft down. Plus, you Lefties have succeeded in planting a seed of doubt in my mind about his true attitudes about race.
I'm sounding way too conciliatory and me-too-ish here, btw. Don't expect a lot of this.
Concerned- you want to play Blacker than you, okay by me. But when you spout nonsense as above, I am going to point out that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. The really bad pollution started long long before the 60's dipshit. It was the 60's when the cummulative effects became severe enough that people really started to pay attention. Particulates would have been worse in most cities at the turn of the century when coal was the predominant fuel. Modern petrochemicals cleaned up the air of particulates and gave us new pollutants to worry about. Ones that were less obvious, and whose health effects may have been more stealthy if just as deadly. Then you can look to agriculture, and heavy industry for some of the rest. The bottom line is that neither party can claim purity on the enviroment. TR started some of the first conservation measures, while FDR let the dam builders loose. Nixon approved and supported several key acts and authorized the EPA, I believe. Ron Reagan thought oaks polluted.
GO figure.
If seeds can be planted in your mind, of what is your mind made?
I suggest you allocate several more years and all 8 of your brain cells to the process. You've got a long way to go still, "fair amount" or not.
You're taking that post too literally. I was being about three degrees more rational than the poster I was responding to, not trying to deliver a dissertation.
Hey - where the hell is Jexster?
And, are there any grassy knolls in DC?
Well, last I checked, I had a cerebral cortex, a cerebellum, and amygdala, a brain stem and so on and so forth there.
How 'bout you?
We're not arguing over who is the bigger asshole. You are making asinine comments, and I'm pointing that out. It's not the most scintillating of conversations, I agree, but I'm trying to get some coding done and the program loads slowly, so it passes the time.
Let's debate over who's the biggest "lawn jockey."
Funny... a lifetime of experience, and a "fair amount of time and thought" devoted to racial issues, and Wonkers' big idea is....
...using racial slurs against blacks he doesn't like.
Geeze, Wonkers. Brilliant. *That's* never been tried before, ay?
Since GHWB wasn't subject to an assassination attempt and I want to keep a balance here, I think some Lefty wacko might make a try at GWB, particularly given all the divisiveness and Lefty frustration resulting from this last election.
Is wonkers stupid, uneducated, or just mentally unbalanced?
Hey, Rosetta -
Could you put 'WH Rapist' in the header of at least one of them for me? I've never seen anything perk up the low blood pressure doldrums in Lefties like that.
Bill Clinton goes jogging. He runs out of the White House, goes three blocks, and rounds a corner, where he passes an old hooker. The hooker calls out "Fifty dollars! Fifty dollars!"
Clinton, not breaking stride, looks at her and yells back "No, five dollars! Five dollars!"
The next day, the same thing happens: the hooker calls out her $50 dollar offer, and Clinton counters with $5.
The scene is repeated for several consecutive days, each time with a $50 offer and a $5 counter.
Then one day, Hillary decides to accompany Bill on his daily jog. The two round the corner, and the old hooker sees them coming. She calls out "See what you get for five dollars?"
nigger. n. Vulgar. A Negro or member of any dark skinned people. An offensive term used derogatorily.
The American Heritage Dictionary of theEnglish Language
Uncle Tom was the hero of that extremely popular eponymous novel which was instrumental in causing Northern anti-slavery sentiment to coalesce prior to the Civil War.
So, using the term 'Uncle Tom' as a derogation, in one sense, indicates a preference for a classist, if not racist, social system rather than one of truly free individual enterprise.
WORD KEY: USAGE
rACISM TRAP: This term is arguably the single most offensive racist slur in the English language. The fact that African Americans and other people of color sometimes use this word in reference to themselves, does not excuse its present-day use by members of other ethnic groups. Those who persist in using it should remember that their use of the word reflects directly upon them, the users. The terms of choce are African American, Black or Black person, and person of color.
Uncle Tom. n. a highly offensive term used to describe a Black man who is thought to be too solicitous or subservient to Caucasians. Uncle Tomism
Encarta World English Dictionary 1999
(The American Heritage Dictionary entries quoted above were from a 1969 edition.)
Note that neither calls Uncle Tom a racist term.
Calling the African American pro Ashcroft witnesses Uncle Toms or Lawn Jockeys was insulting but not racist.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1979
Wonkers:
Look up "lawn jockey." It means a black, and it's derogatory, and always has been so.
The word comes from the statues of red-jacketed carriage servants which once stood on people's lawns. The faces of these servant, slave statues were black. Hence, "lawn jockey."
Calling the African American pro Ashcroft witnesses Uncle Toms or Lawn Jockeys was insulting but not racist.
i don't believe you, but will give you the benefit of the doubt. if not racist and merely 'insulting', how? how is it an insult that is completely apart from race? even your Message # 3034 can't make the point without reference to race.
Oh, mercy. "Too PC" for Wombat? The mind boggles.
Why not just call them racist Republicans?
in my Message # 3037, wonk, i'd like clarification for both 'Uncle Tom" & 'Lawn Jockey'.
thanks
A black lawn jockey. People are still selling these things on line.
Ace, I looked up lawn jockey and didn't find it in any of my dictionaries. My assumption is that it is synonymous with Uncle Tom.
There was no indication in any of my dictionaries that Uncle Tom is a racist or unacceptable term. It is an insult, no more, no less, applied to blacks who suck up to the white establishment.
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) -- An FBI investigation of two missing hard drives at Los Alamos National Laboratory found no evidence of espionage, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said Thursday.
The FBI ended its investigation without determining who was responsible for the disappearance, Richardson said in a statement. The agency also found no evidence that top-secret information about nuclear weapons contained on the drives had been stolen, he said.
It's synonymous with "porch monkey" and a thousand other racial slurs, dipshit.
i can see your 'short hand', but surely you can understand people's reaction here? maybe i call Chavez a 'spic' and i think that means she is a sell out Hispanic, but unless i say that how will you know, yes? 
Not much to look at, huh?
Now, the gal to Clinton's left....
Are you a regular, posing as a right-wing version of Jexster?
Posts 2918-2926 (or, at least, the 8 out of 9 of them that were yours) should've been condensed into one. In the future, please do so.
I think he's taken a shine to Judith.
Good point, Ann:
Criticizing Democrats likely to try and pooh-pooh the Jackson scandal, Coulter, a columnist for Human Events, says, "No one thought it was irrelevant or a political hit when Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker were caught with their pants down. Oh no. Then the media was full of self-righteous indignation about the rank hypocrisy of such men -- amid the snorts of laughter. Not only that, but the bad acts of those men were taken as evidence of the stupidity and hypocrisy of their flocks.
"If one's public life consists of holding oneself out as a moral authority, then one's private life does have a great deal of bearing on the matter," Coulter says. "That's true if you are Jim Bakker or Jesse Jackson."
[from Salon - emphasis mine]
I'm not on a first-name basis with anyone from TableTalk, heh.
At any rate, I hope he follows my advice.
I have to give best post now to Indy, but yours was funny and all yours, I guess.
wonkers2 is a racist as are most Liberals. Just listen to them when some Black dares to mouth opinions they don't find acceptable. Were Jesse jackson to turn Conservative, wonkers would call him a hairy assed nigger who had shit for brains. There is not one conservative Black they accept as fully human. But being a racist is their right, and far be it for me to excoriate them for their racism. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. I'm not that much of an ancient imbecile.
Today's NYT covers India's latest new political trend: eunuchs. One eunuch was elected mayor of Katni as a joke. Several more wunuch victories followed in other cities. Now there are plans for a national eunuchs party. Generally male in build but female in manner (and yes lacking *that*) eunuchs hold low social status--electing them is a jab at the establishment. "People here were just so fed up, they said 'Sure, let's have a eunuch,' and there wasn't much thought about which one," claims an Indian official. "Voters seem to trust us," says a eunuch.
IJ:
Thanks for the info on bbb....it's all clear
to me now. We've met before, so to speak.
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has "extensive experience" fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.
Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth." "Soon, with John Ashcroft's help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."
Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.
"Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
The Onion, 1/17/01
"Well, I suppose any criticism of blacks by whites or vice versa could be called a racist subcurrent. But that's a bit too PC for me. I haven't fallen into the trap of hesitating to criticize blacks that I disagree with. Uncle Tom is a perfectly acceptable way to describe many, not all, black conservatives or Republicans. It is perfectly accurate to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom, but I would not apply that term to Powell or the late Senator Brooke from Massachusetts or to Lowell Perry, U of M All-American, Republican and VP of Ford Motor Company who died last week."
How generous of you.
Your casual tosses of "Uncle Tom" and "lawn jockey" were nowhere near as offensive as your pathetic, self-indulgent excuses for same. Your years in the racial healing business have really paid off. I'm sure that General Powell and Senator Brooke are relieved that they have been given immunity from racial slurs by such a good, benevolent man.
Henceforth, in honor of your condescending parsing that somehow elevates your racial slurs to poetry for the common good, I dub thee "Uncle Wonkers."
FU:
Is this a traditional knighthood? Must we now call him "Sir"?
You must afford Uncle Wonkers all the rights and privileges of any gentleman. But you must always use his proper title - Uncle Wonkers.
Got it.
Here's something to mull over while you're eating that bagel:
So What If Ascroft Doesn't Dance?
The fact that Ashcroft doesn't dance doesn't mean he has extra-special-double integrity. If anything it makes him sound like a fanatic. Integrity worth the name is a statement about the full measure of a person, a matter of balance as much as morality, a polished way of saying someone is a stand-up guy. Personal propriety is a small part of the equation.
Was it more grotesque than Linda Chavez's bit of political theater?
Leeenda, she he'p me very much and I love her so much...and she no beat me when I use the wire hangers....
Still, one is struck by Ashcroft's willingness to lie. It is breathtaking.
"Was it more grotesque than Linda Chavez's bit of political theater?"
No. That was vomitous.
The Republicans on the committee were far less sure how to react. Some Republican senators simply declined to question Judge White, much like trial lawyers who choose not to cross-examine witnesses who might damage their case.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama was one of the few Republicans to ask questions, and he tried to elicit sympathy from Judge White for Mr. Ashcroft's campaign against him. He recounted some of the opposition from law-enforcement groups and asked, "Do you think you could understand John's approach, how that may have been a factor in his thinking?"
Judge White replied, "I can understand his approach, but I can't understand his distortion of my record."
The Dems have bent over backwards to say that they don't believe Ashcroft is a racist. I think this is a mistake. While they don't have the votes to reject Ashcroft, they should have made Ashcroft leave these confirmation hearings on a litter.
The Republicans don't think Ashcroft did anything wrong in the White matter...that's scary but not surprising.
I just don't want to hear down the road what a man of conviction Ashcroft is...clearly, that is a load.
Didn't anybody ever tell you it is possible to disagree without personal attacks? Impudent little smartass.
I think they've struck some blood, but it's on abortion. You have the head of Planned Parenthood asking (in that bubbly cheerleader way), gosh, if he has devoted 20 years of his life to fighting or overturning these laws, what does it say of his integrity if he'll all of a sudden take a job that requires him to support it?
BTW, did anyone notice that exchange between Arlen Specter and the different women on their political parties? Only Michelman was stupid enough to imply that her group only wanted Dems.
I did not want to stain your obvious commitment to racial harmony by way of using terms like "Uncle Tom" and "lawn jockey" any further.
BTW, you're still right about the Bill Lann Lee model. I read a quote the other day from Ashcroft where he said during Lee's nomination that Lee was qualified for the job, but that he disagreed with him on ideological grounds and therefore had to vote against him.
Regarding Spector, it was pretty bizarre. He kept asking why the pro-choice organizations supported only Dems. Perhaps it has something to do with the Repug platform?
Having read Ace's recitation of Lee's refusal to credit a Supreme Court ruling, I think the Lani Guinier model might be more apt.
"The Repug senators (what a collection) were the ones asking White if he thought Ashcroft was a racist. White said no."
White stated "Senator, first let me say, I don't think Senator Ashcroft is a racist, and I wouldn't attempt to comment on what's in his mind or what's in his heart" in response to GOP leading-light Charles Schumer.
Ashcroft wanted to elevate the perception that Carnahan was soft on crime after Carnahan commuted the death sentence of an inmate on the personal request of PJP the Deuce.
White was available for Ashcroft's disgusting undertaking. The fact that White is African-American was just icing on the cake for Ashcroft.
Really? I hadn't heard that take. Fascinating.
The Dems have bent over backwards to say that they don't believe Ashcroft is a racist. I think this is a mistake. While they don't have the votes to reject Ashcroft, they should have made Ashcroft leave these confirmation hearings on a litter.
i'm not sure what that would accomplish, if Ashcroft is going to be given a confirmation anyway, other than to marginalize the Democrats
I have never heard so many references to what is in a persons heart...Bush has started a trend. "Ask not whether a man is qualified; ask only what is in his heart." Blech.
It is doubtful that the Dems would be marginalized by bloodying Ashcroft. Maybe the extreme right wing would be incensed but they're going to be incensed regardless.
Have you seen the chimp with Ricky martin on page one of the NYT? The very essence of the new administration: a closeted latino popstar teaching mental defective how to dance!
Of course the Repugs are in misery. They recognize the leader of their party is a moron. What does that make the followers?
Fucking mental giant!
It says that whether they are left or right, conservative or liberal, christian or heathen, MONEY and POWER are THE most high god(s) - in other words, same old same old...
I can't speak for the others, but I am thrilled. I am a little disappointed that Democrats have chosen to whine and pout like 2 year olds, but then I guess that was to be expected.
C'mon, JJ, admit it...you're among friends here. Aren't you just a tad disappointed that the guy you ended up with is such a pouty, ill humored, uncurious person?
I'm fairly indifferent as a Bush administration never particularly excited me.
But I'm certainly glad to mark the end of the previous one.
Bush isn't pouty, ill humored or uncurious. But it was nice of you to demonstrate my point for me.
BTW, where was the "Massachusetts Mark Spitz" when all those Florida electoral challenges bit the dust waiting for a senator to sign on.
Drunk under the table?
JJ:
Reporters have called the man ill humored...granted, he's a jolly soul at times but not all the time. And he himself has admitted he lacks enthusiasm for reading. Usually, people read when they are curious to learn. And I can recognize a pout when I see one...I've raised a child.
You are amazing. You and your pals are happy and satisfied with this man; I am not and neither are others who didn't vote for him. I don't expect you to suddenly start hating the guy but you seem to want us to start loving him simply because he "won".
Too bad TT isn't back up yet. I wanted to add a few threads as 'going away' presents to the departing administration. Possibly the slinking curs who administer that toxic waste dump of a discussion group are keeping it down for that reason:)
Since I see that the vile, slanderous Spincter has been around, I was just wondering how her sorry neo-hominoid ass has been.
What does that really mean, wonkers?
It's curious why no one wants to step up to the bar and say it.
Well, Teddy has practically called him a treasonous lunatic.
For Uncle Wonkers
No. Go fetch.
This is hyperbole.
ROTFALMAO!!!!!!
And that makes it gospel?
...granted, he's a jolly soul at times but not all the time.
Anyone who isn't "jolly" all the time is ill humored? By that definition is there anyone (except maybe Richard Simmons) who isn't ill humored?
Usually, people read when they are curious to learn.
And many people, dare I say most people, read solely for entertainment. Reading and curiosity don't necessarily go hand in hand. FWIW, I still haven't been able to find the interview where you supposedly got the information that Bush doesn't read. I strongly suspect that Bush's comments are being taken out of context or are being grossly distorted. I know you believe it with the faith of a child, but you will excuse me for being a bit skeptical without evidence.
I don't expect you to suddenly start hating the guy but you seem to want us to start loving him simply because he "won".
I don't expect you to start loving the guy. If you did, I would start to worry. I would just like to see you get past the childish name-calling.
Nolan, leftist poster who was given a $18,000 a year job by Salon, loves her position and is online talking to her pets until 8 pm pacific time.
Best way is to keep threads alive for a couple of days is to post late night Friday, and they stay up until Monday noon.
Francis. You linked. Is this a first?
Dispute one fact in the article.
Or give me a show tune.
And would you like a chorus of "Ya Gotta Have a Gimmick"?
I want proof that he isn't a racist.
One post: "By almost any definition Ashcroft is obviously a racist."
Later post: "But none has called him a racist and most have specifically said the do not believe he is a racist."
Please present us ANY definition by which Ashcroft is a racist. Feel free to quote from the article linked in #3112 to support your assertion.
Ashcroft's Senate voting record and judicial appointments as Governor are a matter of public record.
Thanks.
Cite an incorrect fact. And fetch me a lemonade.
Laura Bushs "cause" as First Lady is Literacy. I hope she has an influence on her hubby.
(Apologies to Calvin Trillin)
When something in my history is found
That contradicts the views I now propound,
Or shows tht I am surely hardlhy who
I claim to be, here's what I usually do.
I lie.
I simply, baldly falsify.
I look the fellow in the eye,
And cross my heart and hope to die--
And lie.
I don't apologize. Not me. Instead,
I say I never said the things I said.
Nor did the things that people saw me do.
Confronted with some things they know are
true,
I lie.
I offer them no alibi,
Nor say, "You oversimplify."
I just deny, deny, deny.
I lie.
Breaking news: Ray will shut down investigation and not indict in return for an admission that Clinton lied. CNN right now.
DC is going crazy. Horns are honking. People are screaming from their windows.
Jeez, you'd think that worm Drudge would've broken the Ray announcement to sort of round out his career made possible by Clinton.
This sounds completely inappropriate. We already know how worthless Clowntoon's 'apologies' are and relinquishing a bar membership has no
power to redress felonious actions whatsoever.
If true, Ray is completely muddled, and selling out.
Does anyone seriously deny this?
Yeah, Rosie...they are so excited Bushs wife is going to do Literacy as her cause...that's why they are celebrating, hoping it will rub off on GW.
Moron.
concerned:
If true, Ray is completely muddled, and selling out.
Yes, or he could finally be wising up.
Your liver must be size of Texas.
This just shows how Democrats distort his record. Ashcroft did not oppose integration of St. Louis schools, he opposed the plan to use busing to "desegregate" the schools. The plan was an extremely expensive disaster. It cost taxpayers over $30 million a year and did nothing to improve the failing schools.
nor his despicable lies about Judge Ronnie White.
The worst thing that can be said about his opposition to White was that is was political. It can hardly be called racists when he voted for 26 of the other 27 black nominees he voted for.
It didn't mention Ashcroft's votes to confirm white judges whose judicial records were much more liberal than Judge White's.
This proves he is a racist? By voting to confirm liberals?
It didn't mention the honorable Mr.Ashcroft's action as governor vetoing efforts to increase minority voter registration.
Ashcroft veto bills that would lead to increased voter fraud like we saw in the last election.
Racism has a somewhat elastic definition.
Somewhat? It is a bullshit accusation that is used by Democrats because they know once the accusation has been made, there is no way one can ever fully restore one's name. It is an accusation that doesn't need proof and all evidence to contrary is summarily dismissed. It is an accusation that plays on the fears and emotions and is not open to rational discussion. It is McCarthyism, pure and simple.
Gee, they have only heard it on television every day and night since the nomination with little or no discussion of the facts. That is value of propaganda. If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe you.
George Wallace was at least a straightforward, honest racist
And a life-long Democrat.
cllrdr -
No. Act on the facts. If there is sufficient weight of evidence, indict. No man is supposed to be above the law, right?
But wasn't McCarthy your hero, J.J. ?
SOFT ON CLINTON!
Sphincter -
...and your brain is the size of the WH Rapist's Willard.
Does anyone seriously deny this?
Just everyone who knows him or has worked with him. But what the hell do they know?
Not mine. However, your pal Roy Cohn was kind of soft on him.
What's that? Do you mean the hotel in DC? They serve a nice high tea there.
Have you ever thought of reaching for a nice oolong instead of the ooze?
Spit in any republican faces recently, or planning to in the near future, Sphincter?
At least have the decency to learn the facts before making judgements. The "voluntary" desegregation plan was anything but voluntary. Judge Hungate set up the details of the plan and told the parties involved that they could either "voluntarily" implement his plan or he would impose it from the bench. There was nothing voluntary about it. It was an umitigated disaster. It was opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike. To claim that Ashcroft's opposition was racist is pure idiocy.
I'm sure we'd see some pouting today, JJ, with the news about Clinton causing more of a stir than the Coronation of GW.
I'm glad to hear this because now GW can't hold the whip of a pardon in his hands. I'm sure he's sorry that opportunity was removed from his list of duties...
Your undying admiration, of course.
But, in 24 hours we'll have a new, better model of President.
With every thing you say about George Junior, Judith, you just appear like a bitter old hag. The guy hasn't even entered office yet and already you are talking about his failures, his ignorance, his missed opportunities at hurting others. No doubt you project your own personality on others, but there is no reason to believe that he won't act like a class person.
Give the guy a chance at least. Don't prejudge, which you are so wont to do.
Was the Lt. Governor sitting next to the Uncle Tom or the lawn jockey?
And Roy Cohn's chauffeur. Died of AIDs, of course. So did Roy, though he denied it with his last breath. Denied being gay too.
Poor Ken.
What makes you think "lawn jockey" is a racist term, wonkers?
Getting all PC on me all of a sudden?
Sandwiched in between?
Like an Oreo?
Amused at all the Repug apologists who just want everyone to give Curious George a pass. Just give him a chance. Cut him some slack. Give him the old benefit of the doubt.
Sure.
We should do this in the same spirit as the Repugs showed the Clinton Administration.
I think the Repugs are begging for a break because they realize Curious George is more vulnerable. A lot more vulnerable.
And that would be who, wonkers, Clinton? Yeah, right.
My point is basically this. We have had 8 years on which to judge Clinton the sleazeball. George W. hasn't even entered office yet, and already you schmucks are judging his administration! Give him a chance. If he is a complete failure, I'll certainly be the first to admit it (like I did with Carter for example).
You can use it because you are a good man, and thus, using race-based epithets is okay. And you would never use it on your kind of black man, like Senator Brooke. Only on real Uncle Toms and lawn jockets like Jimmy Hunter.
Kuligin:
With every thing you say about George Junior, Judith, you just appear like a bitter old hag. The guy hasn't even entered office yet and already you are talking about his failures, his ignorance, his missed opportunities at hurting others. No doubt you project your own personality on others, but there is no reason to believe that he won't act like a class person.
Give the guy a chance at least. Don't prejudge, which you are so wont to do.
The man was Governor of my state...I know more about him than do you, who checks in periodically to rant at people to whom you feel superior with no cause whatsoever.
Your opinion of me means nothing. If your judgement of others character is no better than your tolerance, it means less than nothing.
And prove himself he did!
I am amused too. Amused at Democrats who label Bush a chimp, and their lonely tears, tears borne of the fact that they got their hat handed to them - by a chimp.
I certainly have had candidates I supported lose the Presidency. But I never supported anyone dumber than a chimp.
You are such a bitter hag I can't stand it. And YOU speak about tolerance!? Now there's a laugh! Hardy har har
George W. is YOUR president. Get used to it babe!
Sphincter -
People who aren't into cutting their noses off to spite their faces will give GWB a 'chance'.
Like it or not, he's going to be the acting president of the United States for, probably, eight years.
Of course, with the caliber of venomous LW mosquitoes such as yourself he is going to have trying to draw blood during this period, he'll hardly be hampered in that regard.
Not if you are a good person who has worked his whole life for racial harmony, like Uncle Wonkers.
If you have the approapriate quals, you can use any and all the racist terms.
After all, Cellar said it was okay. So Uncle Wonkers feels better.
And I mistyped. I didn't mean to imply that you have husbandS in my last post to you!
Just out of curiosity. Is there anything good you can say about W.? I'll try to think on that one about Clinton while I'm at it. Some things do come to mind actually.
Great substance there.
Clarence Thomas looks good in the silks.
Speaking of Uncle Toms and grotesque political theater, did anyone catch JC Watts' testimony before the Ashcroft hearing?
Maybe I can testify. I know Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham, ABC, Cat In the Hat, Mr. Brown Can Moo-Can You? and One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish by heart.
Hardly their hats. The chimp won on a couple technicalities, yes. Not a complaint, just a fact. But it's not like he unequivocally trounced them.
Kuligin:
Just out of curiosity. Is there anything good you can say about W.?
Yes, he has a lovely wife and 2 lovely daughters.
This will be my last post to you in this thread; your posts belong in the Inferno and so do my responses to you because you're an odious man and I don't like you at all...and my husband does not move furniture for a living. Just another attack you are wrong about, bucko.
There is no problem with "Uncle Tom" and "lawn jockey." In fact, to the extent you are concerned that your use of the terms might be problematic, Uncle wonkers has informed us that because he marched at Selma and has read all of Walter Mosely's work, use of the terms is copasetic.
As I understand it, though, the issue is that "lawn jockey" isn't racist.
So someone could say that Jesse Jackson is a lawn jockey and it's okay?
First, everyone else was not on board with the plan. The best that could be said was they grudgingly accepted the plan out of fear that something worse would be imposed. The plan was harmful to the very children it was supposed to help. The schools affected still haven't recovered from funding shortfalls the busing plan caused.
The plan was so bad, some kids had to be sent by taxi an hour and a half each way to get to their school instead of going to the school in their neighborhood. One little girl was raped and murdered by the cab driver on her way home from school.
Missouri was one of the "de jure" segregation states 20 years after Brown v. Topeka.
That was the biggest crock of the whole proceeding. St. Louis did not segregate. The judge based the case on the fact that 10 years earlier one school district (Clayton) transfered a little girl to the University City school district. That was sufficient in the judge's mind to force all of the St. Louis area schools into his ill-conceived plan.
Not at all. I wasn't referring to the electoral college as a technicality.
That said, I do think that an electoral college win without the popular majority can not be viewed as an asskicking. It's a win, yes. But not a trounce.
Bucko? That's cute. At least you admit you don't like me and hence your posts. I actually have liked you in the past, I just don't like your whining and your pov at times. You appear bitter and crabby often.
But I trust you are a sweet, lovable person irl.
Why is it again that we should give the Bastard Imbecile of the US "a chance"?
And what "chance" should he get that we're not giving him?
And why should this moron who was not elected but rather annointed by one of the most poorly reasoned, legally infirm decisions I have read in some time, why is it that we should give him "a chance" even if we knew what in this "chance" is?
Is it like the "chance" that the GOP gave Clinton?
That sort of "chance?"
On the night that Clinton was *elected* in 1992 (key concept) Bob Dole appeared from the RSOB rotunda on all three networks to announce his party's unremitting opposition to Clinton. That night he all but announced his 1996 candidacy. That sort of "chance"?
This seems like a reasonable definition to me.
You are needlessly focusing on what is spoken. Uncle wonkers has already demonstrated that what is spoken is irrelevant.
If you have the quals - some include the right thoughts, a lifetime of work on behalf of racial healing, owenership of "Roots", and the slap on the back by a black man (which is why Uncle wonkers was bleating for Cellar to stamp his word with approval yesterday)- then you can use any racial term against a "bad" black.
Your point? That you can screw up links to your own posts? Hey, I don't like you, either, so let's just agree to disagree, okay?"
Judith, you accused joe of drinking too much at lunch while misapplying my comments to him! His point was that you can't read, and you still couldn't get his point!
I missed your 75 links to the Palm Beach Post story on the Miami-Dade recount, you intellectually rotted husk.
Sure. It was the tightest presidential election squeaker that the US ever has to endure, I hope. But, from my viewpoint, even if it belatedly somehow turns out that Bore won the majority of the valid Florida popular vote (which I very strongly doubt will be the case), the marginal few who might wish for an after-the-inauguration turnover of power to Bore will throw their hands up at the mere contemplation of the actual difficulties involved, unless they're certifiably bonkers.
Is this a common belief? I realize you are practicing irony, but I am genuinely curious. Is this "lawn jockey" stuff common in political dialog on the Dem side, or just in forums?
I figured that was your reading level.
Antonin Scalia handed this demo his hat not BOITUS. Don't mean to sleet on your parade or anything (especially if you are "amused" heaven forbid!) but Bush actually lost the election. He lost the popular vote nationally by about 550,000 votes and when the Consortium finishes its work in a few weeks, he'll lose FL too.
It couldn't be reversed, from what I understand. My only point was that Francis was making it sound as if the "chimp" had soundly beaten the Dems, when in fact he lost the popular vote to a guy operating from a disadvantage (sitting veep) and only won the electoral vote by going to court to get the recounts stopped. Hardly an asskicking.
You are trying too hard.
Neither "lawn jockey" or "Uncle Tom" is a racist term. It is pejorative, to be sure, but not racist.
As I recall, Emerge magazine, a periodical for the black community (owned by Bob Johnson), once portrayed Clarence Thomas as a lawn jockey on its cover.
It's racist. But then, you've always defined "racism" as "whatever I want it to mean".
If the American Spectator portrayed Jesse Jackson as a lawn jockey on its cover, would you defend that?
Why is it again that we should give the Bastard Imbecile of the US "a chance"?"
jex, all I am saying is you can't judge the guy's administration even b4 it begins! If after some time you want to point to his failures and bad choices, so be it. But the guy is not yet even president and already you guys are declaring the failure of his administration. That's what I mean.
"only"? No way. If the SCOFLA hadn't been dominated by Leftist revolutionary pirates masquerading as justices who attempted to throw every Federal and state law and Constitutional principle out the window in a desperate effort to hand Bore the election, the Supreme Court wouldn't have been forced to act, and the country would not have had to endure the totally unnecessary disruption.
Everything in the American Spectator is wrong and its readership is next to nothing. After hearing some of Tyrell's comments on l'affaire Jesse Jackson last night, pertarying him as a lawn jockey would represent a breath of freash air.
"Bush actually lost the election. He lost the popular vote nationally by about 550,000 votes and when the Consortium finishes its work in a few weeks, he'll lose FL too."
He he he. And the Vikings lost last week's game to the Giants because they had a better offense during the regular season.
Why I wouldn't give Bush the sweat off my balls if he were dying of thirst.
Go tell it on the mountaintop.
First POTUS to cop a plea bargain in office.
Thoroughly rotten from the beginning to the very end.
But sports analogies are good especially for beginners....
Keep tryin and try not to write any briefs for a while.
I told you this is the Democrats' religion.
Ray looks bad. He knows he can't win a conviction.
Morons.
A correct analogy might be a refs award of the Orange Bowl to FL State ...
But then again, such things don't happen in football
Hop over to the Cafe, please.
To make it short, Jackson dealt with an immoral situation in a moral fashion; Clinton dealt with an immoral situation in an amoral fashion. And the immoral situations were different; in one case, adultery, and in the other, dishonesty, deceit and lying.
Weren't you a supporter of Jesse Jackson?
Sure he did. When asked to act as a moral adviser to Clinton, he said, "Naw. I'm really in no position to judge the guy."
WASHINGTON (AP) --President Clinton has reached a deal with prosecutors to avoid an indictment, requiring him to make a written acknowledgment of his conduct in the Monica Lewinsky matter and agree to a suspension of his law license, government sources said today. On his final day in office, Clinton is preparing the statement to be made and will accept a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, the officials said. White House press secretary Jake Siewert would not confirm the deal. ''The president has long said that he wanted to put this thing behind him,'' Siewert said. ''We will have a statement at 2 p.m.''
What a couple!
So in other words, you didn't like the treatment of Clinton, thinking it unfair, so you'll go right around and do the same thing to the next guy?
Did they give Clinton a chance? I guess not, given your account. Do I think not giving a guy a chance is wrong? Yes.
"They did something wrong to my guy so I'll do it to theirs" isn't a good excuse jex.
Which is all fine 'n dandy Domino but what case are you talking about?
Clinton did not plead guilty. He's merely issuing a "statement of regret".
Wrong on facts.
Also wrong on law.
MEXICO, Mo. (AP) -- Clinton is out, Bush is in, and Harry isn't hairy anymore.
Harry Hunt, a Vietnam veteran, was upset when Bill Clinton took office, feeling he had avoided war service in a dishonest way. As a protest, Hunt decided he wouldn't cut his hair until Clinton left office.
Eight years and 28 inches of hair later, Hunt got a haircut. The long-overdue grooming took place Jan. 13 in this northeast Missouri town.
Everything written in those three sentences is fact.
I asked my 6 yo nephew over the holidays "Well how many wrongs DO make a right?"
"Four"
"No. Six."
I skate on the 6 wrongs test.
But the key diff IMO is that Bush, having deliberately subverted democracy's cardinal right, has no legitimate claim to lead that democracy....
Besides he's mentally feeble
That's good. And predictable.
Clinton Accepts 5-Year Law Suspension
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton has reached a deal with prosecutors to avoid indictment, requiring him to make a written acknowledgment he may have misled investigators in the Monica Lewinsky case and agree to a suspension of his law license, government sources said.
On his final day in office, Clinton was preparing the statement to be made Friday and agreed to accept a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, the officials said.
The deal will spare the nation the prospect of seeing one of its former chief executives put on criminal trial. Clinton will have immunity from further prosecution under the deal with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, the sources said.
In his statement, Clinton will acknowledge he may have made misleading statements in his sworn testimony in the Lewinsky matter, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity.
White House press secretary Jake Siewert would not confirm the deal.
''The president has long said that he wanted to put this thing behind him,'' Siewert said. ''We will have a statement at 2 p.m.''
The deal effectively brings to an end the six-year Whitewater investigation that began with questions about the Clintons' Arkansas land deal but expanded to his conduct in the Oval Office.
Ray, who took over the investigation more than a year ago, had been using a grand jury to decide whether Clinton should be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice after he leaves office on Saturday. A decision was expected soon.
Ray reached the deal with Clinton's attorney David Kendall, the sources said. ''The deal is going to be announced within hours,'' said one of the sources.
CalGal -
I'm disappointed that you would endorse such a base act of retribution by the WH Rapist.
Yep. At the end of the day, Ray is in the tank for Clowntoon. History will judge him harshly.
>'When asked to act as a moral adviser to Clinton, he said,'Naw. I'm really in no position to judge the guy.'"
I heard that. And recognize the ironic hypocrisy within the paraphrased spiritual advice.
It's true. Both Clinton and Jackson are dwellers in the cesspool of hypocrisy. Jackson, however, is a Reverend.
Indonesian Raidy Plea Bargains
by LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The plea bargain negotiated with Indonesian billionaire James Riady in the Democratic campaign finance scandal allows him to withdraw from the deal if a judge rejects it, the U.S. attorney's office said.
There were no indications the federal judge plans such action.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys are planning to propose a date at which the judge could take Riady's plea and sentence him on the same day.
The withdrawal provision is one of many that persuaded Riady to return to the United States and enter a guilty plea, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman
EEeeww yuck!
Forget qualifications, let's make this about ideological judgments. I don't want the qualified person for the job.
The 5-year suspension is a slap on Clinton's face.
That's all.
Clinton is often a political hypocrite, but he's not really a moral hypocrite. He never ran on morality.
Poor tommydemoron. So much effort. Nothing to show for it.
A guilty plea in anticipation of indictment issued to avoid indictment is as good as indictment and conviction.
It is, in fact, groveling and begging.
Fortunately, we can not see if the plea is accompanied by a tear or two and quivering chin.
I am sadly aware of that last point. I am wondering if his church will take any action now that the details are out. I hope they do.
The plea was not immediately taken because U.S. District Judge Ronald Lew had undergone eye surgery and was unavailable to convene court.
Mrozek said lawyers were conferring on a date, which would follow submission of a required report from the probation department. That date probably would be at the end of February or beginning of March.
Ashcroft himself has voted against people based purely on ideology and has acknowledged as much.
Besides, his christianity has not been made an issue.
That said, anyone who actively supports fairly extreme positions (no abortion, for example) is probably not meeting the baseline qualification for AG.
Clowntoon didn't win, Sphincter. We all lost.
"He never ran on morality."
Yes, he did. He said he told the truth and that he did not and had not lied. That is a moral statement.
It is hypocritical when coming from the mouth of an amoral creature.
by PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Linda Tripp, the woman whose secret tape recordings led to President Clinton's impeachment, was fired Friday by the Clinton administration after she refused to resign like other political appointees, her lawyer said.
''The termination of Linda Tripp is vindictive, mean-spirited and wrong,'' attorneys Stephen Kohn, David Colapinto and Michael Kohn said in a statement. ''President Clinton should not have ended his presidency on such a vengeful note.''
Besides this is not a plea. You can whip out that inane Clinton bashing all day and by evening, this still won't be a plea
Later this afternoon, Clinton will release a statement of regret about his testimony, part of a bargain negotiated between Ray and the president's personal lawyer, David Kendall. As part of the deal, Clinton also will agree to a five-year suspension of his license to practice law
Make that: No Leftists.....
Including the chief rat.
Ray had no case to bargain obviously. Clinton did him a favor.-
You got the first part right, anyway, jexster.
The law profession rejects him...well, for five years, anyway.
by LIB QUAID
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- As contentious confirmation hearings wound down, Senate Republicans said Friday they have the votes to overcome a threatened Democratic filibuster against John Ashcroft's nomination to be attorney general.
''I think he will be confirmed comfortably,'' said GOP leader Trent Lott, adding he believes as many as 60 to 70 senators will vote for President-elect Bush's Cabinet choice.
Two Democrats have pledged publicly to vote for Ashcroft and none of the Senate's 50 Republicans has expressed opposition.
Critics of the conservative former senator have attacked his opposition to abortion and his views on race and questioned whether his beliefs could interfere with his ability to enforce the nation's laws.
No, it isn't a moral statement. It is a statement. A moral statement would be, "I believe it is wrong to lie and have never lied ever, and I have always been an honest person whose truthfulness is not in question."
The above statement would also be hypocritical, whereas merely saying "I did not lie" was untrue, but not hypocritical.
Also, I said that he never "ran" on morality and indeed, he never did. He's also never presented himself as a righteously moral person in the way that Republicans are often wont to do.
What a trio!
No method of shyster parsing can change that essential fact.
You cousins?
How rude!
A moral position taken by an amoral creature is hypocritical.
Cirilo McSween, a Rainbow-PUSH board member who met with Jackson on Thursday, said the board may discuss temporarily replacing Jackson. A meeting was scheduled for Friday afternoon. Jackson was not expected to attend.
Too dense to appreciate just how dense you are...
That was, in fact, Clinton's position solidified even further as he manipulated cabinet officers, aides and friends into repeating after him, "Clinton is an honest man, Clinton is an honest man."
Now you're being an ass. That isn't a moral issue--the nod to religion is practically mandatory these days. Being seen going to church is political, not moral.
-GAP dress
-Betty Curie's bed
-Articles of Impeachment
-Plead bargain papers
HaHaHa!
Hahahaha.
Let's see if Snippy rehires her.
Nonsense again. I don't think any Clinton defender ever said "You should believe the President because he's an honest man." In fact, that is why they generally found all the negatives about anyone who had a different version of facts--because they knew that they couldn't point to him as a truthful guy. He never used that as a reason, either.
Only concerned could have thought Ray had a case...
He had squat...he got squat for it.
CHAPPAQUA, N.Y. (AP) -- It's time for Bill Clinton to learn how the garbage disposal works.
Soon after he becomes an ex-president on Saturday, Clinton is also likely to find out what it's like to walk the dog in the rain, misplace the house keys and watch helplessly as a desktop computer crashes.
A few hours after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Clinton will come home to Chappaqua, to a much more ordinary white house. It will be his first unsubsidized residence in two decades.
He has been paying for the house for over a year -- it gave his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, standing to run for the Senate -- and he has spent several nights there. But he always had something else to do, always had that other place in D.C., always had Air Force One parked at the Westchester County Airport.
This time, it's not just a visit. On Saturday, the plane is going back to Washington without him. The former first lady will shortly have business in Washington. And Clinton will be knocking around a new suburban home.
There is a difference between what you may think and fact. Check out the statements of his cabinet officers and aides immediately after Clinton's denial of truth.
Sixty six percent approval. Outstanding kicker of GOP ass. Masterful politician, effective leadership, exemplary public behavior
You nominate a moron then steal a fuckin election.
And what do you yap about?
Cum stains.
Now if you were to accept that Clinton never held to a moral position, then a case could be made that he was not hypocritical but remained faithful to his amorality.
But the fact is that truth is both a moral standard and a moral quality. Clinton said that he was truthful and honest. That is a moral statement, Made by an amoral creature. That is an example of hypocrisy.
He'll be busy fielding job offers, board of director posts, book deals, TV appearances, interviews, and the like.
It must be terribly difficult for detractors of Clinton to realize that he is going to be an extremely wealthy man very soon.
Clowntoon is the first completely corrupt politician it has been my displeasure to endure. The fact that he is also a sexual criminal is just another nail in the Democrat Party coffin.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
No question about it. And no question about the American love affair with sleaze. Heck, even I find myself admiring the guy, how he constantly gets away with things and finds himself standing.
I am beginning to suspect you are a computer program. Or perhaps Jex's suspicions are correct. In any event, you are incorrect on many grounds: a) Clinton has never relied or presented himself as a morally upright person and b) it is not immoral for an amoral person to say he is telling the truth.
Of course, there's also the problem that Clinton isn't amoral. Few people are.
Sphincter -
He ought to put her back into exactly the same job position Clowntoon had her fired from just to highlight the essential petty selfishness of the Clowntoon regime.
The answer, of course, is that the reason that Clinton "gets away with things" is because there never was any evidence of serious wrongdoing.
Irrational hatred based on partisan beliefs often leads to irrational expectations.
Sanctimonious gobbledygook
Personal lapses are not criminal offenses in this country. Maybe in Afghanistan but not here.
This is something that the Repugs have not learned.
I think I'm gonna puke for all the holy roller hype
Gotcha.
CalGal -
Oh, suurrrre. Of course Clowntoon isn't amoral. It's just that whatever passes itself of as 'morality' in that festering blob of misfiring neurons in the emotional delinquent's brainpan has no correlation to the ethical or moral ethos of our society.
Not enough money in it. No more than about $3 million per.
He'll do much better by lining himself up with one of the NYC investment banking firms (hint - Vernon Jordan is with Lazard these days). $10 million per easy. And, that doesn't count the speaking and bd. of director and book-writing fees (which he, of course, could also be getting even if he choose to look like he was lawyering).
Why, he'll beat out Colin Powell in terms of the $$$.
He's going to have a grand time. All the above, plus being the biggest pain in the ass that W will have to endure for at least the next three years. Come the fourth, the campaign politics will take over and the ultimate nominee/44th Pres. of the US will come to the fore.
....not all bad
So, in your personal estimation, Clowntoon ranks right up there with Hitler.
Thanks for the laugh, bubbaette.
Shades of Nixon.
Pretended morality by an amoral creature is hypocritical.
Therefore, he admits that he thinks he is above the law.
Proof that the WH Rapist is an elitist.
Your booze-soaked synapses are misfiring again. How do you equate liking Clinton to approving of Hitler?
by PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton admitted Friday for the first time that he made false statements in the Monica Lewinsky case and entered into a deal with prosecutors to avert an indictment. He surrendered his law license for five years.
Suspension of his law license wouldn't be a bar to that. Most law firms hire politicians not to practice law but for access. They get politicians because they know where the decision makers are and can get phone calls returned.
We've been through this before. Republicans have always opposed racism. It is only the Democrats who have racism and discrimination as a part of their foundation.
Biener specializes in it and manages to sound sincere.
It is easy to be sincere when you speak the truth.
Wonder why the minorities don't realize that Ashcroft and Bush and the GOP are their last best hope???
Well, it might have something to do with the fact that Jackson, Sharpton and the NAACP are lying to them. Their sellout of their own people for positions of influence in the Democratic party is one of the more odius acts in American politics.
At least he was being honest.
Did he wag his finger?
bubbaette -
Even I admit that Clowntoon is 'not all bad'. He is still the worst person ever to be president, absolutely corrupted, a psychopath, a crook, a liar, a traitor to his country, a hypocrite, and so on.
You Democrats sure picked a piece of work to represent your 'ideals'.
But the trash is OUTTA THERE, now. Just a few more hours.
Muwahahaha!
"That's not criminal," Bill says, "just slick."
I wasn't really addressing the semantics of his being able to practice law or not. It was more that even the most successful law firms don't pay as well as even the modestly successful investment banking firms.
Secretly, Bill always wanted to be Johnny Cash.
Sounds like it ought to be a victory for anarchists everywhere.
Why so glum?
I guess Democrats are proud of that.
Bye ! Bye!
It is recognized that people like you hated him.
So what.
Not worth the time or energy to respond.
In that confusion, he failed his attempt to walk the line named honesty.
"It was Johnny Cash's fault," says Bill. "I didn't know he was a member of the VRWC."
Not hate, janjon. Just objective analysis. Now tell me, would you trust Clowntoon in a room alone with a daughter of yours?
No?
I rest my case.
Let's see that oh-so-secret medical history now.
I understand your point. However, the fact is that when a big firm hires a Bob Dole, George Mitchell, Warren Rudman, they aren't looking for a lawyer. Most of these people haven't practiced law in decades.
They hire them because these politicians provide access, strategic insight, and a certain public relations relations profile.
You are correct that Clinton won't settle for the mere $3M annually that a law firm might provide. He's got his eye on generating double digits annually.
(Granted, at a fundraiser in a private home and for only a moment before the SS came through the room right behind him [he was passing through a kitchen, to get to a bathroom].)
Stay tuned.
Although I'll admit to a willingness to allow a petty criminal to complete his term of office.
He did.
Are you demanding to see Dick Cheney's?
Clowntoon is a swine.
"Don't squeeze!" Bill shouted in terror. "I did it, I did it!"
"Just let me go."
yes, Sphincter. Medical history. What the fuck are you lefties so damned afraid of?
Big Bill wins again.
(He also takes a lot of the limelight away from W's inaugeration.)
Hitler and Stalin were bitter enemies. Does that recommend either of them?
So, Clowntoon actually admitted that he should have been impeached. Now, aren't all you Lefties who sacrified your credibility on the altar of his 'honesty' sorry?
What do you think it is?
Near unanimous confirmation of Ashcroft?
I am the enemy of fascists and tin-pot wannabe dictators. Now, why don't you go kiss your Fuehrer's boots as he drags his ass out of the WH for the last time.
Come on, Tommy. Tell us what you really think.
Actually, I think he wanted to be Elvis.
You missed it. It was 8 years ago.
Notice the "knowingly" in his statement of guilt.
The only thing that would have made it perfect would have been if it were announced tomorrow.
However, maybe Clinton wants everyone to focus on Curious George's inauguration address to see how many "bushisms" he makes.
That is just as likely. Maybe both Elvis and Johnny.
But Elvis didn't blow on the saxophone either.
That is the difference between you and me. I don't hate people just because I disagree with them.
Not worth the time or energy to respond.
Then why did you take the time and energy to respond? Or did you just respond to say you won't be responding. Do you know what you mean?
So, I take it that the Lefty apologists for Clowntoonian 'Behind the Looking Glass' torturing of the English Language will give it a rest now?
Probably shouldn't count on it. After all, they're just waiting for the next industrial grade self-centered egotistical prick who thinks he can snow the world to come along, and they'll be bullshitting away again.
True, it is better than the label of pardoned criminal.
Ray understands that it is an admission of the commission of a criminal act.
What's the matter? Didn't you get your bran flakes this morning? A few more of these posts and we can call you 'Unconcerned'.
Got the admission before the petty criminal left office.
Ray must be dancing away the day.
Drink up, tommydemoron.
Sphincter -
Nope. And especially not for your bastard.
Obvious question: What is really on the other side of the fine line from "acting lawfully"?
Apparently, even criminals have an opinion of either pride or honor (both of which are moral measures, incidentally.)
Coming from you this means so much. Clinton could be executed for treason and you would still be claiming he won.
Well, that's a little better than I was afraid would happen when I first heard the news.
Of course, certain elements in this forum would call anything less disgraceful than Clowntoon being hauled off to prison by the SS a 'great victory' for him.
Just an absolute and unmitigated confession of "knowingly" lying under oath.
In return for an agreement not to indict for same.
No. We should call her JJ Frankfurter. She's all yours.
It is a moral equivalency.
Get it, JJ?
My little reposte was hardly a response - that would mean trying to refute all the inanities people like you and concerned spew forth. It was merely a little reminder to the effect that silence hardly equates to agreement. Just as I said it was.
(BTW -Your constant bleating about the goodness of your motives, your fairness, your objectivity, blah blah blah makes you quite the unusual fellow - a righteous ass riding a righteous ass. You would be much more believable if it didn't seem that you actually DO believe your own shit.)
JJ
Just trying my hand at the Republican rhetoric style. But you may as well get used to it -- if the Repubs think they can dish it out for eight years and not get repaid in kind, they have another think coming.
Actually, a significant part of my style in my more, shall we say, aggressive posts is derived from how I've seen some hardcore Lefties post in the past.
Turnabout, you know.
I don't like this 'under the table' shit.
And yet you are pleased with the election outcome...
CNN is prevaricating. There is no 'may' about Clowntoon's lying. He did so, was impeached for it and now is admitting to it only to avoid possible prison time or, at least, indictment and possible protracted legal battles.
CNN ought to sack whoever wrote that piece of propaganda.
No under the table for GWB. He took his case straight to Federal Courts and stopped the attempted coup by Bore and SCOFLA. That's a victory for all of us:)
If I send you a check, will you go out and buy a sense of humor?
My little reposte was hardly a response
No, of course not. Whatever you say.
It was merely a little reminder to the effect that silence hardly equates to agreement.
Don't worry. I know exactly what your silence equates to.
Your constant bleating about the goodness of your motives, your fairness, your objectivity
I think you must be thinking of someone else. I have no idea what you are referring to.
You would be much more believable if it didn't seem that you actually DO believe your own shit
I would be more believable if I didn't believe what I said? I am sure that makes sense to you.
Get it, JJ?
No.
Now, go out and find some new dragons to attempt to slay.
By imitating Tommy? Why bother? We have jexster.
concerned:
That's a victory for all of us:)
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?:-)
bubbaette -
Don't feel obligated to imitate my particular leftist style. Imitate jexster - he doesn't go sour like most of you Lefties, and you're both already quite repetitious, so you'd match up great there. But, whatever you do, don't post like Biener, ok? I don't think the Mote could take that much inertia.
A finding of guilt (now admitted), a fine and other disciplinary action is sufficient to uphold the theory that no man is above the law.
A theory the slickster did his best to destroy.
No, he's just happy to see you. 
i so sorry
Funeralgate Lives...
AUSTIN (AP) - Texas Attorney General John Cornyn is accused by the state's former funeral commission director of a conspiracy to interfere with her inquiry of a company founded by a longtime campaign contributor and family friend of President-elect George W. Bush.
Cornyn is denying the allegation by former Texas Funeral Services Commission director Eliza May, who contends she was fired in February 1999 because of her investigation of Houston-based funeral home operator Service Corp. International.
May's lawyers earlier this month added Cornyn as a defendant. The whistleblower lawsuit was previously amended to name as a defendant the former Texas governor, who has denied any involvement.
cool news, rjb
now all we need is a dead body in a park somewhere in TX, heh
JJ:
I'm assuming you actually got the joke...
Wasn't that a GWB campaign pledge?
'No new dead bodies'?
What more could you want?
Well, for one, he could be ordered to pay the costs of the investigation during the period in which he obstructed justice...from January through August of 1998.
I accidentally posted the above elsewhere in this forum. It belongs in this discussion.
Of course. Now don't do it again or my boss will wonder what I am laughing at.
Good post.
Allah forbid.
Message # 3273
[Forget qualifications, let's make this about ideological judgments.]
Ashcroft himself has voted against people based purely on ideology and has acknowledged as much.
Were they up for Attorney General? Were they in any cabinet position?
Besides, his christianity has not been made an issue.
Then you haven't seen every newscast. I've seen some pretty remarkable pieces on fringe pentecostals. If Ashcroft is a pentecostal, he must be a snake-handler, right?
That said, anyone who actively supports fairly extreme positions (no abortion, for example) is probably not meeting the baseline qualification for AG.
I thought as Attorney General, one's duty was to uphold the law, I had no idea he was capable of making law or changing law. Besides, he can believe how ever he wants to on abortion, it's not like his beliefs are going to change the Supreme Court rulings!
What the fuss all comes down to is that he's a conservative Christian.
Everyone is invited to a wonderful and rich Chinese New Year celebration performance in the Lake Forest Mall(Gaithersburg,MD) at 4 PM on 1/21/01 (Sunday). The cultural performance includes Dragon Dance,Martial Arts,Chinese Yo-Yo,Folks Dance,and classic music instruments. Exihibits of Chinese painting,caligraphy, and posters are also displayed in the Mall.
Bring your family and friends for a free and fun entertainment event
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton admitted today for the first time that he made false statements in the Monica Lewinsky case and entered into a deal with prosecutors to avert an indictment. He surrendered his law license for five years and agreed to pay a $25,000 fine. ''I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,'' the president said in a statement read by White House press secretary Jake Siewert.
Maybe they'll have "authentic" sweet and sour McNuggets for the lo fans.
It'll feel just like TableTalk.
<smirk>
A nice contradiction in terms.
hehehehehe.
It always amuses me to see my friends who profess to love Chinese food order sweet and sour pork. Worse still is when we go out as a group to a Chinese restaurant and 5 out of 6 order chicken with broccoli.
Repugs love racists and several Dems are too timid to make waves.
There was no way that W's handlers were not going to appoint someone who has the potential to wreck havoc as A.G. Better to have someone so visible, so extreme, that his every act will be scrutinized.
I admit that that is the best I can make of this sorry situation. But, hey, it is better than having it all be stealth attack (which of course it will be at the Deputy A.G. and lower levels.)
Ick! I won't eat that crap. Feh!
Worse still is when we go out as a group to a Chinese restaurant and 5 out of 6 order chicken with broccoli.
Maybe it is better where you live, but here there is very little in the way of authentic Chinese food. It is better than it was. We actually do have a couple of places in town that are reasonable. Most of them though are of the sweet & sour, crab rangoon variety.
The problem is that dyed-in-the-wool extremists like Ashcroft are usually immune to public disapproval. He'll likely wreak all kinds of mischief on civil rights.
This should send a loud and clear message to minorities, women, and gays that the Repugs have written them off.
Even though I like then, I always chuckle at the puffed won tons with crab and cream cheese inside...very authentic.
Is that the fried wonton with cheese?
But, no way that a guy who is so extreme that, as one example, he believes that life/rights begin at conception isn't going to stick his big foot into some gooey brown stuff.
His sense of righteousness will get the best of him.
He's actually Ang Lee (the world's most stylistically prolific film director.)
I am the Godess of the Invinceable Sword.
Only movie I've seen in a long, long time.
Bring your family and friends for a free and fun entertainment event.
No Chinese food served,though.
Pure cultural activities as a community service.
I am a white American and I must say, I am not..I repeat...am NOT racist.
That's irrelevant. You are judged as a racist, sexist, homophobic pig simply by the color of your skin. You can't argue with logic like that.
It was in the Montgomery Mall in Bethesda last year. Lake Forest Mall has much more open space than the White Flint Mall .
Give her credit - she doesn't stop trying.
You are better off not knowing.
Is that the fried wonton with cheese?
Kind of. The filling is usually cream cheese and crab flavoring. They are a heart attack waiting to happen.
No vested interest other than to inform the audience a wonderful opportunity to enjoy themselves.
But hell, the margarita isn't Mexican.
Good works begin at home, dear.
Praytell, this isn't going to be Laura's cause, is it?
After three years of claiming he hadn't testified falsely, mind you.
If it didn't happen to Reno, why think it would happen to him? Who could be more falsely imbued with an apparent 'righteous' attitude than she has been? (although she was little more than Clowntoon's marionette.)
Rest assured that Ashcroft will not be burning religious communities to the ground, killing all the inhabitants in the process, nor will he be sending stormtroopers in at the dead of night to kidnap children at gunpoint, nor wage warfare against 'terrorists' based solely on political persuasion. Plus, he won't lose Bush the election in 2004.
I couldn't say for sure. Powdered crab stock perhaps? I don't usually eat them.
And, I certainly do not anticipate that he will pull a John Brown.
What I do anticipate is that enforcement activities defending a wide range of civil rights and the anti-gun violence laws on the books will wither on the vine.
Will he go after abortion clinic firebombers? Oh probably. Will he truly try to defend a woman's right to choose generally by ? Wanna bet?
What silly, biased, untrue blather.
...the greatest evil... 's 15 minutes of fame.
Last year it was the internal combustion engine.
It just gets tiresome.
15 minutes of fame - what is out of fashion may still carry importance, no?
by TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton's last-minute deal to avoid indictment in the Monica Lewinsky investigation jarred his exit into private life, reminding Americans of the tarnished legacy he had hoped to repair.
Instead of leaving office with his head high, he departs in partial surrender to the federal prosecutors who had threatened to pursue him as a private citizen.
Legally, it may be the end. But it's also another page in the scandal history of Clinton's turbulent presidency.
''It's got to be a relief,'' said Charles O. Jones, a University of Wisconsin political scientist.
Jones said Clinton, for all his denials, had been eager to accept a legal escape that was short of a pardon. ''I strongly believe that the president did not want an official pardon because that for sure would have put him historically in a category with Richard Nixon, and that was something he did not want.''
Period.
by TAMMY WEBBER
Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO (AP) -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow-PUSH Coalition said Friday that it paid $35,000 in ''severance pay'' to the woman he had a child with in an extramarital affair.
Board members also voted unanimously not to entertain any thought of Jackson resigning his presidency of the civil-rights group because of the affair, said James Meeks, a Chicago pastor who is second-in-command.
Meeks said the not-for-profit group made payments to Karin Stanford,
And here I was half-believing him after his incredibly foolish coverup during the Starr investigation.
Is it really?
"Fifteen months ago, I promised the American people that I would complete this investigation promptly and responsibly. Today, I fulfill that promise."
and sign-off on this sucker, collecting my fee and assuring my footnote in History.
"President Clinton has acknowledged responsibility for his actions. He has admitted that he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers to questions in the Jones deposition and that his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice."
"Justice" being an expression of power and NOTHING MORE.
"He has acknowledged that some of his answers were false. He has agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas bar license. And he has agreed not to seek attorney's fees in connection with this matter."
(can we hear a wrist slap?)
"The nation's interests have been served, and therefore I decline prosecution. In doing so, I have tried to heed Justice Robert Jackson's wisdom: The citizens' safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility."
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Who writes this bullshit? Helen Deutsch?
Well, there it is, plain as day. Continued misuse of funds by Jackson. Btw, he was embezzling from PUSH in the early '80's too, I hear.
And feels even more cynically disposed towards these charlatans than ever.
"This matter is now concluded."
You hope. Right connie?
" May history and the American people judge that it has been concluded justly."
Yeah right. Whatever you say.
"Thank you very much."
Don't let the door bump your ass on the way out.
I didn't quite catch it.
You guys have set a nasty precedent which could well bite you in the ass very very soon.
What previous 'contradictions'?
'Ang Lee' could not be so stupid as to post that dreck.
Can't you just relax and enjoy it?
Jeez you people are somethin' else!
cllrdr -
I'm trying to get Sphincter to either start chasing me around like she used to or to stop calling bad names. Or go away.
Btw, is there anything to that stuff about her being Chinese? Not that I'll take it any easier on her if so.
Maybe Clowntoon had him snowed too. 
Ouch! Damned door hit me right on my fucking ass!
Look at the Cheneys. They're deeply ashamed of Mary.
So, you say Sphincter is a man? What about this kid I'm hearing about? Chinese or no?
From Drudge:
WHITE HOUSE READIES CONTROVERSIAL CLINTON PARDONS headline only.
Floozie McDoogie, Web Hubbell? Jesus H. Christ.
C'mon Willie, free Leonard Peltier!
-Approve, 74 percent
-Disapprove, 21 percent
(In January 1996, 42 percent approved, and 47 percent disapproved of Mrs. Clinton's job performance)
Do you think Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) has changed the role of the first lady or hasn't she?
-Has changed role, 55 percent
-Has not changed role, 41 percent
(Asked of those who said that she has changed the role of the first lady)
Overall, do you think these changes in the role of the first lady have been for the better or for the worse?
-Better, 79 percent
-Worse, 16 percent
(In January 1993, Barbara Bush was rated favorably by 71 percent and unfavorably by 6 percent. In 1989, Nancy Reagan was seen favorably by 56 percent and unfavorably by 18 percent)
(In January 1993, Hillary Clinton was seen favorably by 38 percent, unfavorably by 10 percent, 24 percent were undecided and 28 percent hadn't heard enough to decide.)
Still amazed...are you idiots on drugs? Obviously you morons are hallucinating...you get so whacked out in your pathetic Clinton bashing, you lose your grips on reality...
The reality is there was no plea bargain. That is pure fancy, quite delusional.
Clinton gave Ray his umpteenth apology but wouldn't have given you jackals a freakin thing unless you threw in the Arkansas disciplinary action....
Clinton fucked you again but you're either too whacked or too fuckin dumb to realize it....
Chumps
I liked the part where he effectively admitted that the impeachment was the right thing to do. 
The history books jexter, the history books. He threw shit into the faces of all you true believers and copped a plea on his last day in office. Keep supporting him, jexter. You deserve a guy like "it depends on the meaning of is" Bill. Only fools like you persist. His own staff, including those who fought to win his election, is more critical of him than you. Dodo.
Seek But You Will Never Find Such Nonsense in the Statement
The Senate confirmation process is a joke if it confirms Ashcroft and won't approve good people like Ambassador Hormel and Judge White and dozens of other Clinton nominees for judicial positions.
It's beginning to dawn on some of the Republicans (Hatch, Dewine) what a turkey they have on their hands. After damning testimony today from a former congressman who heads a gun control group and a religion professor, none of the Republicans on the committee could bring themselves to say a word in Ashcroft's defense. Barnes, the gun control advocate, testified that Ashcroft has a perfect anti-gun control record. He's voted against every single gun control proposal to date. He called Brady "the enemy of responsible gun owners." Ashcroft's view of the 2nd amendment, according to Barnes, is an insurrectionist view held only by the guys out in the hills preparing to use their guns to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, i.e, the most extremist survivalist nutcases. No court has lent any credence to Ashcroft's extremist theory.
The religion professor testified that Ashcroft's views on separation of church and state are equally far out. The one that got to the senators, GOP and DEM, was his testimony that Ashcroft had blocked efforts in Missouri to apply health and safety and fire prevention laws to church run child care facilities.
Looks like Bush will have an extremist nut case on his hands. He'll have to keep him on a short leash and make sure he is surrounded in the department with some more normal humans.
If you wanna talk facts, here I am...as it is you idiots prove why it is that with enemies like the GrandOldPigshitters, Clinton hardly needs friends.....
There was no plea bargain because there was no plea. There was no plea because there was no case.
On top of it all, you idiots just shot your last spitball and you missed...
Think of what you lost...all you Limbaugh loons could have walked around with hardons for months...speculations, leaks, now nothing can hide the Moron-in-Chief and the Big Dog's gonna give him no peace
Besides, the WH Rapist will be busy fighting all the lawsuits that all the people he screwed over and the women he raped and abused are going to lay on him.
If you want to try reality for half a second, I'll talk you down from your bad acid....
Five years suspended license is a fair result given the treatment of similar cases in Ark and other states
It was not a just result in my opinion. After twenty years in practice, countless court appearances, I have always taken my duty of candor to the court seriously. Its never even been a challenge yet time and time again, I see lawyers who I know are lying through their teeth, especially in discovery but I know and they know nothing can be proven ...
I think that any lawyer who lies in any respect material or not to a court when he is appearing before the court should lose his license permanently.
Clinton was a witness not an advocate but I think he too should have received a longer suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon completion of an ethics course and the ethics part of the bar exam...
He's a race baiting, homophobic, character assassin without moral center...
All that cheap self-righteous God blather is for suckers
jexster -
I don't know by what prerogative Ray thought he could negotiate the terms of Clowntoon's Arkansas law license suspension. I think he should have let that process alone.
Actually, I don't think Ray should have negotiated with the WH at all. If he had sufficient materials to indict, then indict. If not, then admit he didn't and move on.
But if Bush didn't want to soil his hands with Clowntoon's problems, then I'll defer to his judgment.
A very weak finale on Ray's part.
As for the Republicans, they have no honor or integrity of any kind...their butcher jobs of White, Hormel among others are truly rank abuses of power by a gaggle of half-wittted extremist freaks
John Tower, the exception that proves the rule...the Senate's worst kept secret was that Tower was a drunk, a bad drunk, a mean spirited, bitter little creature that hardly any Senator could stand being around
there was no case."
Jexter 3528: "Five years suspended license is a fair
result given the treatment of similar cases
in Ark and other states.
The GOP denies
The slightest Dukish ties.
They're sorry that he ran.
They loathe the Ku Klux Klan.
And yet it's true that he
And they (the GOP)
when stepping to the mike
Do tend to sound alike:
"Blame middle-class defeats
On quotas, welfare cheats."
One word they both hold back
Is what they both mean: black.
The codes give them away:
He's got their DNA.
Its funny who you meet
By peeking 'neath the sheet.
Calvin Trillin
LUTHER KING, JR., CENTER FOR
NON-VIOLENT SOCIAL CHANGE, JANUARY 17, 1992
A splendid service held for King.
So nice of Bush to undertake it.
A pity, everybody said,
That Willie Horton couldn't make it.
Calvin Trillin, Deadline Poet
Ashcroft will be approved because he his more mainstream than those attacking him, and the loss of this issue will give notice to the left that not even dems will stand behind their lunacy. This is a good, ari cleaning moment for the country.
I do hope Teddy will read the Federalist Papers before he goes attacking anyone on the grounds that the second amendment was not written to ensure that the populace can overthrow the government if need be. But then, if you cheated your way through college, reading such things might be asking too much.
George W. Bush is the first US president with an MBA degree.
(A campaign nursery rhyme)
Baker, Baker, miracle maker,
What will your miracle be?
Some Hillary trashing?
A bout of gay bashing?
A shot of Gore hugging a tree?
Baker, Baker, miracle maker,
Your statesmanship always assures
That dirty stuff's done
By some hired Hun.
The dirt sticks on his hands , not yours.
Calvin Trillin, Deadline Poet
(Reprise)
Baker, Baker, miracle maker,
Where did your miracle go?
The gay bashing flopped.
The Red scare was dropped.
What more do you have from below?
Baker, Baker, miracle maker,
No wonder you haven't been seen.
In this sort of fight
One stays out of sight.
A gentleman's hands remain clean.
Calvin Trillin, Deadline Poet
Didn't I flame you a coupla years ago for posting those bits of uninspired doggerel in the Fray? The more things change...
Anyway, please stop spamming.
If true, that doesn't say much about the country, heh. I can do better in my sleep.
A problem confronts Mr. Trillin:
His talent ain't up to his billin'.
So he fills up his verse
With slander, and worse...
And suddenly, Dems think he's thrillin'!
Trillin's verse scan?
Is a Muslim the Pope?
Nope.
None Dare Call It Treason
Will Rehnquist and Bush exchange High-Fives (or a Five-Four) after the oath is administered?
Students interested in a dismembering of the SC's 5-4 vote for Dubya may want to see this piece The Daily Brew lifted from The Nation.
Very good, Stumbo.
Shall.
I guess you should've stayed silent,
Cal.
From GW Law Prof via Slate
What kind of agreement is this?
It's not your everyday legal agreement. It's not a declination, in which a prosecutor drops a criminalinvestigation because the case isn't solid enough to indict. Nor is it a plea bargain, in which a prosecutor accepts a guilty plea from the indicted in exchange for a lenient sentence (because, of course Clinton was never indicted- nor sentenced). Nor is it a referral of a criminal case to civil authorities for resolution (such as when a criminal antitrust case is referred to civil prosecutors). The most unusual aspect of the deal is that Clinton reached a civil resolution with a criminal prosecutor.
It was simply a deal with Arkansas in return for a declination, an ass backwards way of stiffing Ray.
Anthony Lewis works out on a hail and farewell for Slick Willie...Warning: May provoke sensitive individuals...
With all his flaws, Bill Clinton as president was a bigger man, a more generous man, than those who hated him. Maybe that played a part in their dislike: their recognition that he was more intelligent, more vital, more interesting than they could ever be. A reader of mine, George Bayliss, said it was "sheer animal jealousy."
President Clinton's "Bone Poems" (from Conan O'Brien):
Advice to Jesse Jackson
Heed my words
Obey this moral
If ya don't want babies
then keep it oral
More advice to Jesse:
When you're humpin'
stop and think
Do as I do
and use the sink.
All these poems are just as good as Trillin's drivelous doggerel, of course. But only politically correct children's rhymes make it into the New York Times, New Republic, etc.
No doubt the same was written about Hitler and Stalin in their times, especially about the latter among Leftists in the US.
IAC, I really do regard Clowntoon as being emotionally arrested at about the adolescent level.
If that is indeed the role he intends to pursue after leaving office, will he be able to long sustain such a reputation among the potentially fractious interest groups that make up so much of the Democrat Party?
Perhaps Clowntoon will feel obligated to maintain such a stature by being a sort of gadfly to the Bush administration. Clowntoon will certainly have a vocal minority cheering him on in any such effort and incentive to do so at least inasfar as Bush reverses the wad of new government power grabs that Clowntoon has tried to implement in his last days in office.
Perhaps GWB was premature in publicly saying that he wanted to put the IC investigation behind him, at least in the sense that he believed that, given the chance, like any former president since Teddy Roosevelt, Clowntoon would go more or less quietly into the political night, as least in the short term. But, if Bush thinks he might feel enough pressure from Clowntoon-instigated partisan harassment to create problems for his administration, he might be more inclined to turn John Ashcroft (who has nothing to lose in popularity among those in the political Left) loose on Clowntoon in the guise of the DoJ authorizing a SC to investigate, say, the 1996 Clowntoon/Bore campaign finance wrongdoing, a task which has been sadly neglected by Reno.
Bring it on. The Republicans would be shooting themselves in the foot by trying to pursue Clinton after he leaves office. Even that partisan hack Robert Ray was afraid to do that.
WASHINGTON -- Linda Tripp, whose secret tape recordings spurred the impeachment of President Clinton, was fired Friday after she refused to resign like other political appointees.
Her lawyers, who pleaded with the government to keep her in her job, portrayed the move as "vindictive, mean-spirited and wrong."
But administration officials said the termination letter she received was routine. They said she had to lose her job like nearly all other political appointees at the end of a presidential term.
White House press secretary Jake Siewert said Tripp was treated as any other employee in her "Schedule C" classification. "Most Schedule C employees were --virtually all were asked to submit their resignations, and if they didn't do so, they were terminated," said Siewert.
Tripp's lawyers issued their statement just as Clinton reached a deal to settle the remaining legal issues from the Monica Lewinsky affair. It was Tripp's recordings of her conversations with the former White House intern that led to the scandal.
Tripp, who earned $100,000 a year, was asked in recent days along with all other political appointees to resign in preparation for the change in administrations.
On advice of her attorneys, she refused to do so, in a letter sent Thursday, addressed to Clinton.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, said "it really doesn't matter" that Tripp did not resign. He said Tripp was notified, as a matter of routine, that her appointment ended Friday.
Stephen Kohn, a Tripp lawyer, blamed Clinton for the dismissal on the ground that the ultimate responsibility for firing political appointees rests solely with the president.
"She was asked to voluntarily submit her resignation, and she was not threatened with dismissal if she failed to submit it," Kohn said. Tripp was out of the country Friday and unavailable for comment.
Well-done!!!
Concerned:
IAC, I really do regard Clowntoon as being emotionally arrested at about the adolescent level.
This made me smile.
Presidental pardons of note, just announced on CNN:
Susan MacDougal(sp?)
Roger Clinton
Henry Cisneros
Patty Hearst
Gee, I guess everyone is at the Inauguration....
"With a little practice you could become a right-wing Trillin."
Actually, there already is one -- somebody named W.H. von Dreele, who writes for National Review. And I don't know why they print his crap, either. Perhaps he's got pictures of Buckley's love child.
Maybe Bill meant it as symbolically pardoning himself for all the rogering he's done over the years.
Perhaps he's got pictures of Buckley's love child.
The visual of this just ruined my brunch.
Is pardoning one's brother a first, BTW?
I don't know but with this new guy in office, it might not be the last.
the inauguration of George W. Bush on Saturday, holding signs such as ''Hail to the thief'' to protest his swearing-in which took place amid the tightest security measures ever.
Columns of demonstrators, championing a broad range of causes from abortion to electoral rights, stood on the route Bush took to the Capitol for his swearing-in and jeered as his presidential limousine went past carrying him and outgoing President Clinton (news - web sites).
Fuck you Moron!
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."--Interview with the New York Times, Jan. 14, 2001
Meanwhile the Moron confirmed what we all knew anyway, that, despite a unanimous letter from the State Congressional delegation, BOTUS will not impose a price cap to end price gouging by Texas utility companies.
A big Fuck You Californians! from the Bastard of the US
Bastard Imbecile of the US is also accurate
In any event, I'll never tell the lie (President indeed!)...leave that to Dusty and other half-wits
If you must post incomprehensible garbage, can you at least keep the threads straight?
Jexster can't keep his Pop Rocks straight from his 1-a-Day's. Ever since getting trounced by Da' Moron after 8 years of fruitlessly sucking Clinton-Gore cock, it is all a blur.
Happy inauguration, jexster!
Adios.
Some Swiss papers ignored Bush entirely in favor of long farewells to Clinton
He's only partially correct. Energy prices would still be high because we didn't build power plants, but that's not the real issue. California has always paid cheerfully for their reluctance to build power plants and this would be no exception.
That's not what is causing the problem.
Is there no end to this hanky-panky?
San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who at 66 remains one of California's most powerful political forces, is going to be a father again -- this time with "a good friend."
"This was something certainly not planned, and to be honest, it's something that I never in my life expected to happen," Brown told San Francisco Chronicle political writers Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross for their Friday column.
The mother of Brown's baby, 38-year-old Carolyn Carpeneti, is the mayor's chief fund-raising coordinator. The child, a girl, is due late April or early May.
At least Willie is single.
No. He just hasn't lived with his wife for twenty years.
You climb obstacles like old people fuck!
Moron trounced whom?
And an hearty Chingas tu madre! to you too!
Mediocrity is loosed upon the world
Depends on what drugs you're on, Francis.
Apparently you've been shooting skag.
I eagerly await the bitter infighting soon to delelop between saving salmon and keeping the lights on. Water that was to aid young salmon make it to the sea this spring is being run through generators now. Things could get real tough by June.
Did anyone hear Bush make a Freudian slip at one point during his speech, saying "ememies IN America" rather than "enemies OF America"? It's all over TT....maybe wishful thinking, I don't know. I had the speech on but wasn't paying too much attention...
The Long Goodbye...
Bill and Hill are still working the crowd at Andrews AFB.
So funny...the band plays....Bill shakes hands...the band stops...Bill shakes hands...the band plays...Bill shakes hands...the band stops...etc, etc.
I'd love to see GW attempt as gracious an exit speech, without notes or teleprompters, as Clinton gave just a while ago..hopefully, I can see him attempt it 4 years from today.
The Clinton-lovers ought to be happy, even, because Bush mostly emphasized continuity rather than change.
Oh well...it's hard to say goodbye to someone you loved so. The lamentations of all those broken hearts is understandable.
America just traded in her boyfriend for a husband.
Oh please.
Good speech by Dubya...didn't think he had it in him.
I'd like to know who the speech writer was and if he will continue in his job. Not too bad but too much "road to Jericho" type stuff.
Don't forget that Gore liked to toss in a little "Road to Jericho" stuff himself.
Any answers?
IJ:
Don't forget that Gore liked to toss in a little "Road to Jericho" stuff himself.
Oh I know...I don't care for it when any of them do it. I know you're a Christian and it doesn't bother you but sometimes, it irks me because it seems exclusionary. It would be different if it weren't a civil function...I get antsy when our garden club prays before a business meeting, too.
There's a time and place for everything and I just feel church is the time and place for religious things.
Cellar:
I feel that all this talk of "protection" is going to spur people like Ben Laden on to further acts of terrorism, to show us we are not going to be able to fend them off. SDI won't help against a suitcase full of plastique explosive or a truckload of fertilizer and chemicals.
. . . So to speak.
Very good, JJB.
Send that line to Resident Bush. He may want to use it in a cabinet meeting.
Elegant turn of phrase there, JJ...are you looking for a job with the new Administration?
I realize I am in the minority with my view on SDI...
No one is interested in keeping up with U.S. terrorism. Eric Robert Rudolph still roams free. The tons of ammonium nitrate stolen from that supply place in West Virginia four years ago has yet to be recovered. Is there any information in the "mainstream" media about this?
Of course not.
Does anyone in the Mote give a flying fuck?
Of course not.
That's the problem with leftists: They want sue foreign enemies committing acts of war against us in court, but they simultaneously want to bring down the army on all of their domestic political enemies (remember Waco?).
And what's this blather about "suing" ferrin' terrorists in court? You think I don't want them dealt with either cause I'm a libbrul?
Grow the fuck up!!!
The Republicans appear to have lost all their dislike of foreign money, I see. The inaugural committee took a big check from a Lebanese deputy prime minister, and I hear that the controversial Indonesian gentleman took the fifth when asked about his contributions to Mitch McConnell.
I was more amused that no one had vetted him on it. Easy enough to fix.
I apologise. I am not as practiced at clever insulting retorts as you. But if I spend more time on the Mote I will get better at it.
Tricky Dicky & The Bastard Imbecile - a perfect couple 
May I ask why you asked me to send you an e-mail?
CalGal:
Did anyone think it was funny that Bush's raised hand kept jerking in time with what he was saying? Geeeeeeek.
It was just Cheney mishandling the strings.
Not exactly a barn bunner, but mildly amusing. Some one on the Mote refered to Bush's serious look as "pickle puss." I have to say, he got it right on. But it has less than nothing to say about his good heart.
I hear tell Scalia and Rehnquist are doin a Cage Aux Folles drag number tonite...
What a farce our political system has proved to be...
Well, Al, thanks for the lukewarm analysis of my joke anyhow.
C'mon, your guy won; you can afford to be a little magnanimous.
I did not intend to damn with faint praise.
jexster
AsI explained in my e-mail you never answered, I must have given you the wrong number as there is not a soul there who does not know me and I alerted them to your call. I left two messages at the number in S.F. There was only one J. Mc in the book.
Al:
I just heard GWs new signal is three fingers held up in the form of a "W"...funny, I think most of his "fans" out there today think it's better to drop two of those.
And should I say your man lost, knowing you did not vote for Gore? And did I not say I was not voting for Bush? But, face it, on both our parts it is more than likely a game as we live in States where only one party stands a chance. I am delighted with the result, but I am now not so sure since W's hand jerked. What could be more serious than that? I would like sometime to start a serious discussion about the quailty of some of Bush's proposals. Could you advise me where that might be done? 
Not one has more than 25% support.....
Not vouchers, tax cuts (25%), SS proposals, NMD!!!!
Then too what the fuck does it matter anyway...If that asshole can be installed by fiat, his proposals can be as well
Oh, I'm sure you can do it here....just not with me. As you know, I never speak about serious matters, only resort to vile invective.
Anyhow, someone who isn't as sleepy as I will come along and engage you in some really serious talk...just be sure to keep your arm rigid if you wish to be taken seriously yourself.
'Nite!
Have you heard the final tally in Miami/Dade. Bush picked up 6 votes. I don't think there will be any big headlines about it.
Gore lead at last report was about 300 votes
I give you a proper phone #, I send you an e-mail which does not come back which indicates it has been recieved, but somehow nothing works. O.K. old buddy, I get it. Won't mention it again.
I made a great sacrifice and listened to the speech again and he DID say "enemies...IN our country". I'm sure it was supposed to be OF. No biggie.
BOTUS
Nixon
I'd be delighted to...
Turning and turning in the media choir
The vote does not count the voters;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mediocrity is loosed upon the world,
The chad-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The normal English sentence is drowned;
A life with at least one conviction, being bailed out
By dad's friends the main propensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image of Tempus Scalia
Troubles my sight: Somewhere in the plains of Texas
A smirk with the father's voice and the eyes of Quayle,
A life of rank and privilege as the son,
Is moving its slow lips, while all about it
Reel shadows of operation desert storm.
The market drops again; but now I know
That eight years of easy sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a dimpled chad,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Washington to be born?
The second coming is always at hand, if you keep whacking off in the usual manner.
"By the way, what do you have against rogering?"
Oh, nothing whatsoever. Then again, I'm an unmarried atheist.
*as opposed to my protest reference to the erstwhile WH Rapist.
Bush gets to work by blocking his predecessor's parting acts
By David Wastell and James Langton in Washington
JUST over three hours after being sworn in as the 43rd president of the United States yesterday, George W Bush was preparing to walk into the White House and begin undoing some of the last-minute actions of his predecessor.
Officials began drawing up an instruction to freeze many of the executive orders issued by the former president, Bill Clinton, in his final days, from new environmental restrictions to rules for healthcare for the elderly.
Mr Bush has no power, however, to block the flurry of about 100 controversial presidential pardons granted by Mr Clinton in his final two hours in office.
The man certainly has balls. And spending the last days of his administration covering his own ass will hopefully be reported in the history books.
"He did, however, pardon fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich, who fled to Switzerland in the 1980s to escape federal charges of financial fraud, tax evasion and racketeering. The Swiss had refused to extradite him."
I'm just curious. There has to be no reason given for these pardons, am I right? Just that the President gets to do them, and that is that?
Since AlD had time to get the phone number you posted, I have deleted #3630. While we are a civil group as a whole, you never know who might be lurking.
Both Clintons were heavy coke users in the early 1980s.
Roger sold the drug to others to pay for their habits.
Rosie:
Prove it.
Judith: If you read the transcript, what it said was "enemies of liberty and our country."
You live in Texas, right? Are you originally from there?
The reason I ask was that he actually said what was on the transcript. It's just a pronunciation thing for Southerners that they frequently say "n" for "and." For example, "rock 'n' roll."
Incidentally, given the actual wording without anything omitted through ellipsis, your suggested "of" doesn't really work:
"enemies of liberty AND our country" not "enemies of liberty OF our country."
Oh...wait - GHWB pardoned people who hadn't even been convicted (good ol' Cappy & friends). Yeah, that's in all the history books, isn't it sport? Face it -everybody does it, so don't try in make it a one-sided issue...
I don't care who does it. It just seems ridiculously convenient for someone in power. He just says it and it happens? With no legal recourse whatsoever? That's a tad bit stupid if you ask me, regardless if the Prez if Repub or Demo.
Just weeks after the controversial Supreme Court decision that ended manual recounts in Florida's presidential voting--effectively awarding the White House to George W. Bush--Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist gave a little-noticed history lecture suggesting that sometimes members of the court may have to become involved in political matters to prevent national crisis.
Discussing the role of Supreme Court justices in a commission that decided the disputed 1876 election in favor of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, Rehnquist argued that their involvement was vindicated by the results.
"Hayes was a better president than some of his detractors predicted, and the nation as a whole settled down to a more normal existence," Rehnquist told 500 members of the John Carroll Society, a Catholic service organization, at a Jan. 7 brunch, according to a text released by the court.
The speech "helps explain what was in Rehnquist's mind about why he took jurisdiction under such questionable circumstances" in Bush vs. Gore, said Michael Les Benedict, a scholar of the Hayes-Samuel Tilden election.
...
The Electoral Commission in the Hayes-Tilden election was named by Congress in 1877 to settle disputes over the electoral votes of Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana where the true vote total was never known, largely because of fraud and violent intimidation of African American voters by pro-segregation Democrats.
With Joseph Bradley, a Republican justice selected for his politically independent reputation, casting the deciding vote, the commission awarded the states to Hayes, giving him a one-vote victory in the Electoral College over Tilden, who had captured the popular vote.
IJ:
Re Message # 3650
Yes, I live in Texas and I know what was "in the transcript" now. I also know what I heard. I know how a Texan says the word "and". Perhaps I hadn't taken into account how a Connecticut Texan says it.
Have you listened to the speech? I am not the only person who heard it that way.
I wrote what I heard...I realize saying he should have said "of" was incorrect and I apologize for suggesting it was what he should have said. However, I stand by him saying "in" instead of "and"...it sounded that way to my ears, anyhow, and to those of several others who heard the speech.
It's really no big deal, anyhow...considering the legion of misspoken things on his record, this one is hardly a blip.
IJ:
From now on, I will preface my remarks with "I thought I heard" or "in my opinion" or whatever else you require. Of course, I don't expect everyone else to do this; after all, their "creds" are much higher than mine.
Oh, if only Bush could be as great a President as Clinton, then we'll all be safe and happy.
Kuligin:
Oh, if only Bush could be as great a President as Clinton, then we'll all be safe and happy.
Finally, something you and I agree on!
Rehnquist has finally achieved his goal,turning the Court into a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta
I had forgotten how much I loathe Ken Starr...he's on Late Edition CNN right now gloating and speaking for "us all"....
Guess What This Is
A blank screen?
Not like its the first time now is it?
I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be—a literate country and a hopefuller country."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2001
Why he couldn't even pass the grammar portion of his half-assed TASS test! Would you hire him to be YOUR secretary? Mail room clerk?
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Jex:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity
Well, when I see Karl Rove, I see the passionate intensity. He is the one in the cat bird seat...
Three sentences into his inaugural address, Bush offered a perfunctory, one-sentence tribute to his predecessor "for his service to our nation." Bush continued on --but stopped when he noticed what the crowd was doing.
They were applauding. For Clinton Washington Post
Steve Roberts just said the inaugural address was interupted 12 times with applause, probably because everyone was cold.
Well, first they found a woman who's really not
so sure
Abortion's for a woman to decide.
And then they got a black man who thinks that
special help
For black folks should be canceled
countrywide.
They'r looking for a Jewish judge who really
sees the point
Of keeping Jews away from one's resort.
And then a smart Latino who'd like the border closed.
Calvin Trillin in Deadline Poet (Poem written after Clarence Thomas joined the Supreme Court.)
"It all will trickel down," the boomster said.
The eighties were when no on but a kook
Would mention that the poor got poorer while
The rich lived more and more like King
Farouk.
Statistics now show where the boom dough
went.
The middle classes hardly gained a nickel.
Two-thirds went to the richest one percent.
A breakthrough: we produced an upward
trickle.
Calvin Trillin, Deadline Poet
Jex:
You know me better than that! (It finally worked, by the way.)
And looming over it all was Bill Clinton....
Enough of this guilt shit! Where are the cameras?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Saturday he will return to the civil rights stage next week, reversing plans to leave public life to reconcile with his family, devastated by his extramarital affair that resulted in the birth of a daughter.
``The ground is no place for a champion,'' Jackson said. ``The ground is no place that I will wallow on.''
Robert:
He's obviously received pardon from the most important person in his life: himself. 
who liked to perform oral sex
he needed no State Trooper
to direct him to Clinton's pooper
he took to it like rice to chex
There once was a man named Wonkers
Not from the 'hood, but from Yonkers
He liked Calvin Trillin
He thought he be 'illin
And then he did something derogatory that rhymes with Wonkers
hah, hah, hah, hah
very good sir
There once was a man, name of Jex,
who loved to perform oral sex.
Didn't need no state trooper
To find Clinton's pooper
he took to it like rice to chex.
Is he hot?
Cal,
I was sorely tempted to correct the syllables myself.
There once was a man named Jex,
who loved to give oral sex.
A helpful state trooper
pointed out Clinton's pooper
and he took to it like rice to chex.
Limericks that don't scan may as well drag their nails down a chalkboard, as far as I'm concerned.
I like your change--I was trying to keep the same meaning.
You are slaves to form. Write free. Write free.
Adios
Who kept his nose down in his pantses
He'd blast out a fart
and declare it high art
you should see what he does when he dances.
Powell, just prior to the so-called election, took 200,000 from 'em and it was recently reported that BOTUS's "inaugural" committee actively sought and received another 100K from the same source
Wonder what the quid for the quo is?
PILE OF CRAP
click on photo 
"Jackson also fielded a call Friday from Bush. He declined to discuss their
conversation, but said one of his immediate goals is to assess Bush's administration
"by their budget priorities, by their public policy and by their moral tone.""
But then, once he sees no need to make the gesture, then lo! back out of that, too.
Many journalists and
pundits have noted
DumbBellYuh's
resemblance to
various simian
species. Which does
he most resemble?
baboon
chimpanzee
gorilla
monkey
macaque
gibbon
lemur
mandrill
bonob
(In fact, I think adultery is the only thing he HASN'T compared to "Selma!")
LONDON (AP) - As George W. Bush (news - web sites) takes his first big turn on the global stage, the outside world is proving itself a tough audience.
Bush's inauguration as America's 43rd president on Saturday drew the customary expressions of good will and good wishes from world leaders - but in most countries, news coverage of the event ranged from indifferent to sharply critical.
Around the world, much of the commentary in Sunday's newspapers centered on the new president's perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. The Taipei Times, an English-language daily, quipped that the new president's ``knowledge of the world has been shown to be, shall we say, modest.''
I've lied before. Does that mean I can never be trusted? And I probably shouldn't admit this in an online forum, but if I was having an affair I'd lie about that too.
The only comparisons I can see:
to his credit, Clinton never pretended to have anything in the way of moral authority. Jackson always has--in fact, much of his political strength has come from other's acceptance that he speaks with a sense of moral righteousness. And at the same time he was screwing this other chick, he was visiting Clinton as a "moral adviser", which is pretty astonishing hypocrisy.
Clinton said throughout that whatever happened with Monica Lewinsky had nothing to do with his job. Jackson didn't think his fucking around had anything to do with his job, either--until he got caught. Then he resigned, saying how ashamed he was. No doubt of being caught. But he can't even stick by that, as weakassed an acknowledgement as it was.
With any luck he'll be laughed at for a long time to come. I very much hope people keep sticking it in his face--and I hope at least some of those people are Democrats.
"At least Jesse Jackson hasn't hypocritically been publicly condemning adultery while he privately practices it."
Please cite these condemnations of adultery you constantly allude to.
There were no such condemnations by any ranking politico. Quite the opposite. Every politico, to nearly a man, said that it wasn't the adultery... it was the stupidity, the selfishness, the recklessness, the perjury and the obstruction of justice.
If you can't cite a single "condemnation of adultery," then please, by all means, just shut the fuck up.
"Jackson didn't think his fucking around had anything to do with his job, either"
Except that he most likely paid the woman off with Rainbow/PUSH funds, which is illegal, because most Rainbow/PUSH money is nontaxable due to the (supposed) dedicated use for charitable (and not personal) causes.
I must say I'm always cracked-up by this hypocrisy hypocrisy.
Let us not forget the Democrats spread rumors of GWHB's supposed marital infidelity.
The Republicans have been running on "family values" for some 20 years now, all the while divorcing, screwing around, having bastard chilluns with the hired help, and so on. As a general rule, Dems don't preach family values and morality--in large part because their constituents don't fit the standard model, of course. But it means they're open less to the hypocrisy charge on that particular subject.
Jackson is one of the few that really does preach morality--albeit a different sort.
I didn't address the adultery (or I didn't mean to), I addressed the fact that he lied about it means to you that nothing he says can be believed anymore. Why is everyone so surprised at this? Do people really think that someone's first reaction to being found out in an adulterous relationship is "OK, I did it"?
...and GWB's DWI arrest...
...and GWB's supposed coke use...
...and GWB's supposed aborted love child...
etc., etc., etc.
I am quite sure it wasn't Republican operatives planting those stories in the media.
But that's the point. Clinton never relied on his moral standing, nor asked anyone to do so. So it doesn't really matter whether Jackson has less moral standing than Clinton. The problem is that now he doesn't have any more. But he'd always presented himself as someone who was only in politics because of the moral necessity of his cause.
So? No one's talking about what he did and whether it's right or wrong, but whether the discovery means he should quit political life, even if he said that's what he would do at first.
FWIW, I haven't noted Jackson spending a lot of time talking about personal morality, even though he does have the title Rev.
Cal,
The Republicans ran on "family values" in only one campaign-- GHWB's failed 1992 campaign.
If you are saying that Republicans believe that families ought to stay together, that parents ought to be married, etc.... please tell me who's saying the opposite.
Who, precisely, is claiming that the out-of-control out-of-wedlock bastardy of inner city populations is a good thing?
".
FWIW, I haven't noted Jackson spending a lot of time talking about personal morality, even though he does have the title Rev.
"
He casts every political issue as one of personal morality. He's fond of calling his political opponents "Pontius Pilate," for example.
Cal,
The Republicans ran on "family values" in only one campaign-- GHWB's failed 1992 campaign.
If you are saying that Republicans believe that families ought to stay together, that parents ought to be married, etc.... please tell me who's saying the opposite.
Who, precisely, is claiming that the out-of-control out-of-wedlock bastardy of inner city populations is a good thing?
If you are saying that Republicans believe that families ought to stay together, that parents ought to be married, etc.... please tell me who's saying the opposite.
Well, actually, feminists, gays, and a number of divorced people. Besides, when the Republicans seek to enact a lot of laws that enforce their notion of morality while at the same time getting divorced themselves, it does bring up the hypocrisy charge.
Who, precisely, is claiming that the out-of-control out-of-wedlock bastardy of inner city populations is a good thing?
The odd thing is that all sides--Republicans, blacks, and feminists--want to pretend that it is a good thing. That the only thing needed is that they marry, or get educated, or get more money. So they are all claiming that it's a good thing, unfortunately.
That's not quite true about "family values" only being relevant in the 92 campaign.
"There is a difference between individual actions and political actions. That Jackson had an affair is unrelated to the social causes he's promoted, imo."
Hahahahhahahaahaa!
True enough. But when Republicans talk of "family values" (which they only did in a single campaign, by the way), they are talking about public policy not personal behavior of specific opponents.
"Family values" was simply shorthand for:
1) The fact that inner-city dysfunction was largely caused by rampant bastardy and irresponsible parenting, or bastarding, and that the cure was stable families and responsible fathers, not bigger welfare checks, and
2) Where possible, the government should encourage and help families, not hurt them.
Duhhhhhhh.
"Family values" never meant "Don't vote for Clinton; he fucks around." True, that message was out there, too. But that's not what "family values" meant.
Dadgumit, I'm having a brain fart. Who was the president who was elected after it was discovered he'd had an out-of-wedlock kid?
No, I disagree with your definition. Sure, the inner city mess was part of it. But it also played heavily into the role of women, and the high divorce rate, and "broken families" of divorce, blaming lower school performance on working mothers, and so on.
And I think it's sooooo funny that the liberals always claim that they're not "hypocrites" because *they* don't speak of morality.
Bullshit. All talk of "helping the poor" is talk of morality.
What you mean is that they don't speak much of sexual Morality, which is only one small part of Morality, but, to a liberal perhaps, seems to be the Alpha and Omega, the sum and entirety of morality.
But let us consider this further. Are Democrats *really* celebrating promiscuity and divorce and bastardy, as CalGal claims? No, they are not. They too speak of the need for stable, intact families.
Almost every single Democrat speaks of this, especially in an election year.
Not a minute passed when Al Gore did not speak of helping American *families*. Not Americans, but American *families*.
So the claim that it's only nasty Republicans speaking about these issues is simply a lie.
Al Gore only contributed $300 to charity in 1997. Does that mean he doesn't believe in giving to charity, or that he cannot encourage charitable donations? Of course not.
We all know it's good to remain faithfull to one's spouse... and even if one FAILS to remain faithful, the unfaithful still know it's good to remain faithful. And it's good to transmit that value.
What is CalGal's claim? That because all fall short of the high standard of conduct of Jesus Christ, that none of us may speak out in favor of faithfulness, honesty, dilligence, etc.?
Are you claiming that no virtue should be trumpted, merely because the person trumpeting that virtue *surely* (a 100% certainty) has failings even regarding the viture he speaks about?
Does that mean I can't give a speech about the need of dilligence and initiative, because I am myself lazy, easily deterred, and filled with inertia?
Should Rudyard Kipling not have written "If"?
Such a simple solution to the pain and suffering in the inner cities! Forget the economics. If these people would just learn to behave themselves, their problems would be solved! The basic problem with Republicans and social issues is that they have no understanding of cause and effect.
It's so fucking ridiculous, and dishonest. Every goddamned liberal politician, except Ted Kennedy, gives at least lip-service to the importance of a virtuous citizenry and, yes, FAMILY VALUES, but liberal *voters* all claim they don't.
Yes they do.
You just assume they're LYING, pandering to the moderates. Which perhaps they are.
But they still all speak of the need for family values in November, Cal.
Which is perfectly unobjectionable. I want America to have strong families with devoted, loving parents who remain faithful to one another.
I also want an America filled with citizens of incredible physical, moral, and intellectual courage.
I will never have either. But it's ridiculous to claim that it's somehow "wrong" to express a desire for either, or to exhort one's fellow citizens to "make it so."
And it's doubly ridiculous to claim that Democrats cannot be attacked for their personal failings because they allegedly don't claim that parents should remain faithful to one another, but that Republicans can and should be so attacked, merely because they *dare* to express a desire for a faithful society.
"Maybe Henry Hyde should resign from the Senate?"
That would be a difficult trick, since he's a Congressman, not a Senator.
But he shouldn't resign from the House of Representatives, either. And Clinton shouldn't have resigned simply due to his adultery.
However, Clinton committed felonies to conceal the existance of his adultery, and he should have resigned because of those felonies.
Ace,
"However, Clinton committed felonies to conceal the existance of his adultery, and he should have resigned because of those felonies."
What a load of Bunk.
Can I be honest?
The Jackson situation doesn't really bother me all that much, except for the possible illegal use of Rainbow/PUSH funds. That could be either fraud (tax fraud, that is) or embezzlement.
If nothing illegal was done here, I don't care about the Little Bastard he spawned. I am repulsed by the "I'm going into seclusion/What, the liberal media are going to give me a pass?/Okay, I'm back after 48 hours" bullshit.
But then, I always thought this guy was a fucking joke. His big claim to fame -- that he "held the bloody shirt," and that he was with "martin" when he died -- was a lie, and was exposed as such years ago.
So why should anybody give a shit about him?
"Clinton committed felonies"
Perhaps you didn't hear... Clinton admitted to telling "falsehoods" under oath, and to undermining the process of justice (i.e., obstruction of justice, dressed up in different words).
Perhaps, though, you think he was lying when he admitted that.
There's been a big discussion over on Free Republic as to whether her strapless gown slipped while she was dancing with her father. I didn't see any of the incident at all, so I'm hoping someone can clarify exactly what happened. One poster says nothing...she just was afraid she was going to pop out, while at the other extreme some Freeper said he saw "a pink-nosed puppy" for an instant.
What's the real deal, Judith*? Did she flash the goods or not.
Thanks in advance.
*I address this query to Judith because of her proven record of attention to detail in observing the Bush family (eye blink rate, the difference between "and" and "n," etc.)
"They had no business going there in the first place, and you and I both know it."
BULL FUCKING SHIT.
If you will join me in restricting the questions allowed in sexual harassment lawsuits, then you can make this claim.
But you WON'T. You support these intrusive questions in every sexual harassment case... except ONE, one which involves someone you wish to place above the law.
If you don't think anyone had "any business asking these questions," then why don't you *GENERALLY* call for an end to such sexual inquisitions?
Because the feminist left LOVES these questions, and supports them. In fact, Clinton signed a law expressly permitting them as a gift to the feminists.
So shut the fuck up, Arky. You support the right of an accuser to ask ME these sorts of questions in a sexual harassment suit... you only claim that women have no business asking these questions of a single man.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. Fucking hack moron.
Arky,
If the Republicans propose a law restricting such questions, will you claim the GOP is "anti-woman" and "pro-harassment"?
But of course you will, darling.
Now shut up, you hypocritical little liar.
"You support these intrusive questions in every sexual harassment case... except ONE, one which involves someone you wish to place above the law."
No, ftr, I absolutely do not. Ever. I think they need to cease soonest.
Agreed. But it's not just "sexual" morality--rather, it is the notion that a particular sort of family is required in order to be moral, to be a family, and so on. The Republicans had a very clear notion of what this was, and their own politicians violated it regularly--all the while touting the definition.
The Dems, who did not emphasize family values at all in the 80s, finally realized that they were losing ground to the Republicans and began touting "family values"--but with a very clear difference. Namely, that there were all sorts of families, from "blended" to "two mommies" to "two daddies" to "never had a daddy" and so on.
And it's doubly ridiculous to claim that Democrats cannot be attacked for their personal failings because they allegedly don't claim that parents should remain faithful to one another, but that Republicans can and should be so attacked, merely because they *dare* to express a desire for a faithful society.
I never said or implied this. What I did say was that the attack on Republicans will always be more severe because it will include the taint of hypocrisy.
Everyone will probably be slammed equally on adultery--although god knows Patricia Ireland got away with it with even a whisper. However, the Republicans decry divorce and play up the sanctity of marriage, the need to wait until you are married to have sex, and so on. The Dems don't do this nearly as much as a party, so are less prone to attack on that.
On the other hand, I am always amazed at how little real damage was done the Dems and campaign money. I thought they would have been vulnerable on that--because they do tend to be pious about the rich and their many ills.
I will agree with you on that. I wasn't trying to say that his failings won't have an impact on his effectiveness in speaking for the issues he's long promoted, I'm simply saying that he shouldn't feel a need to bow out completely. Goodness, if anyone should have bowed out long ago for their actions it would be Ted Kennedy, and as a Pinko-Liberal-type, I for one am glad he didn't.
Yep. Exactly.
Mr. Premature Ejaculation doesn't need to pull out.
Y'all have a good'un.
Arky,
Yes indeedy... I remember you mentioning countless times the need to reexamine our laws on sexual harassment, and the need to protect the accused better from these marginally relevant but extremely intrusive/verging on blackmail questions.
And I remember your furious fusillades against the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee, and how you were outraged they asked Clarence Thomas about instances of hypoethetical marital infidelity & what sorts of hard-core pornography he watched...
Yes yes yes, you've been a stalwart in this fight, no doubt. Certainly, you haven't protested-too-much in this ONE CASE alone. No, no, no.
No one has any problem with liberal media getting Judge Bork's movie-rental-history illegal, in an effort to find pornographic titles... nor the Baboons of the SJC asking Clarence Thomas whether he watches jack-off movies, all televised on national tv...
Nope. All of that, apparently, is fair game.
But Fatboy Billy is a liberal, and we all know what that means. Say it with me, class:
Special rules for special people.
I really don't think we have the luxury of time here. I think Gore and Clinton really need to go down to Fraudida and find out what really happened.
Arky:
If Bush proposes a law which states, in effect, than no man in a sexual harassment suit shall be charged with any crime such as perjury or obstruction...
I'm assuming you'd support that?
What if the law says you're off-the-hook if you answer like Fatboy Billy did?
Can I count on your vote?
Rather, what if there were a law that said you couldn't question or examine any consensual relationships in a sexual harassment case?
I really don't think we have the luxury of time here. I think Gore and Clinton really need to go down to Fraudida and find out what really happened.
...was posted approximately half an hour ago on TableTalk.
I put it down to too much West Wing.
Impossible. You cannot determine a relationship was consensual until you establish first that there WAS a relationship at all, and then the judge becomes satisfied (through intensive questioning) that the relationship was indeed consensual.
Remember, feminists (and many lawsuits) claim that their is "harassment" when a women feels harassed & obliged to oblige, but doesn't voice this feeling. So the fact that the MAN doesn't think it's non-consensual means very little.
There's some logic to that point. Most date-rapists really DO believe they were just giving the girl what she wanted. The logic can be taken too far, of course.
In any event, your proposal is useless. Perhaps evidence of a consensual affair could be barred from introduction at trial, but the real damage would already have been done: The accused would have been asked a thousand questions about his affairs, and would have been faced (as every defendant is faced) with the dilemma of either answering truthfully (and revealing the affair) or comitting perjury.
Limiting the use of previous affairs at trial isn't too helpful, because defendants will suspect (correctly!) that the information could be leaked out, to blackmail/pressure the accused into a big settlement.
While you are correct that feminists do think that women can't consent in these cases, there is a lot of support for doing away with the investigation of other relationships--or even other women. If they volunteer, fine. If they don't, stay out.
In any event, my proposal is more likely to happen than yours.
And Cal,
Just think about it. You can only ask a man, "Have you ever sexually harassed a woman before?"
If he says "No," then that ends the questioning, right? Because, under your hypothetical rule, you cannot probe the facts which underlie his conclusion as to what is "sexual harassment."
And note, too, that people can only perjure themselves with regard to facts. If a man answers, "No, I never harassed anyone," but then evidence surfaces that he did harass, he didn't commit perjury-- because, in all likelihood, he has a good-faith basis for his legal *conclusion* ("What I did did not constitute sexual harassment").
In effect, you'd be leaving the definition of "sexual harassment" up to every accused.
No it's not, because your proposal is ludicrous.
My proposal isn't likely, but at least it makes sense.
Your proposal is just silly. "Have you ever sexually harassed before?"
"No."
End of the line of questioning, with no possibility of a perjury charge.
It's simpler to just say: You can't ask about any previous affairs. Your proposal accomplishes the same thing, of course; but it tries to square-the-circle and fails.
Actually, "have you ever sexually harassed before?" might be an improper question, because it calls for expert answer by a lay witness.
Lay witnesses generally only testify about facts. They can't testify, for example, "Yes, the defendant is guilty of RICO violations." That's a legal conclusion, fit for experts and the judge or jury but not for the lay witness.
Similarly, a lay witness generally is incompetent to make a legal conclusion as to whether his conduct flouted the law. He can testify as to precisely what his conduct was -- the facts -- but whether that conduct is to be deemed "sexual harassment" is a question for the judge and jury. Experts can weigh in, but not lay witnesses.
If there is no history of harassment, then there's no reason to ask. If no one wants to come forward and say, "He harassed me", then the only incident that matters is this one. You don't have to prove a pattern in order to prove a particular case of harassment, do you?
"If there is no history of harassment, then there's no reason to ask."
What defines "history," Cal? You mean you'd only let in evidence documented in previous lawsuits?
Generally, in 95% of cases, you don't know someone's history until you ask him questions. You only learn if he has a "history of harassment" from the answers he gives in a deposition.
You think that most defedants have a "history" out there on file? No, they do not.
But this isn't what they did with Clinton--they never questioned his direct reports, or anyone who had even the remotest relationship professionally to the guy. There was no attempt to prove that he'd asked for sex from women who he could harm professionally.
Duhhhh.
Monica got incredible promotions.
No, but you could only question people with whom it was possible that he could have threatened professionally--since that's what sexual harassment requires.
Instead, they went looking for consensual relationships with women that had no relationship that any reasonable person would have considered profession in which he may have done the woman a favor--which is not harassment, unless you take the feminist view that no woman can really consent.
Basically, Cal, you're reasoning backwards. You're trying to come up with a way to allow *almost every other sexual harassment lawsuit, complete with questions about prior sexual conquests* while trying to come up with some ludicrous reason why "monica is different."
No, she didn't. She was an intern. The only thing he did was get a buddy of his to get her a better job outside of politics. And keep in mind that she wasn't someone who was reliant on him professionally anyway and it was never suggested by anyone, including the lawyers, that the relationship was anything but consensual.
"Instead, they went looking for consensual relationships with women that had no relationship that any reasonable person would have considered profession in which he may have done the woman a favor--"
The President can do anyone a favor, including an intern who works directly under him.
Further, they weren't looking for "consensual relationships" -- they were HOPING for previous harassments. But you can't determine if a relationship was harssment or purely consensual until you ask a thousand questions about it.
This is the simple point that never seems to get through your Idolatrous head.
You say, "Monica was consensual." And? How does one know that before getting honest answers from Monica and Clinton about the affair? Should someone just assume that an affair is purely consensual?
Besides, Monica got lots of benefits from the affair... which is relevant evidence. It's not just how the harasser treats the woman who refuses him, but how the harasser treats women who oblige him.
Time and time again, you seem to circle back to your unchallengeable assumption: "Monica was consensual, and no questions should therefore have been asked." You seem to elide, again and again, over the question: "How do you know it's consensual until you ask question in the first place?"
Don't be silly. I actually think sexual harassment cases ought not to be allowed. The two participants are engaging in an act of prostitution. If the man asks and the woman refuses, she could pick up the phone and call the cops. If the woman accepts the transaction, then she's just as guilty as he is.
But so long as we have to have sexual harassment cases, then I don't think they ought to include consensual relationships at all, nor should it include offers for sex in which the offerer has no professional relationship to the offeree.
Monica Lewinsky was not sexually harassed. The lawyers were not trying to prove that she had been sexually harassed. They were only trying to prove that she had benefited by their sexual relationship. That's not harassment.
"The only thing he did was get a buddy of his to get her a better job outside of politics"
Wrong, Cal. As usual. She quickly got a PAYING JOB at the Department of Defense.
And a paying job is, by most estimations, a promotion over an unpaid internship. Especially if that paying job is a very cushy berth, of the kind typically given to troublesome mistresses.
IJ:
*I address this query to Judith because of her proven record of attention to detail in observing the Bush family (eye blink rate, the difference between "and" and "n," etc.)
Surely you don't think I watched "the Balls" past seeing Lauras dress and the ham footed attempt by her husband to touch her while trying to count and dance at the same time? I didn't see him with his daughter...I was watching a tape of Jack Russell terrier competition, a much more enjoyable hour, believe me.
Here's a shot of the alleged event. I think this is the same daughter who had appendicitis. 
She is a real cutey.
Yes, I know. My point is that this is not harassment.
Further, they weren't looking for "consensual relationships" -- they were HOPING for previous harassments. But you can't determine if a relationship was harssment or purely consensual until you ask a thousand questions about it.
This is untrue. They knew it was consensual, they were only looking for proof of favors.
Besides, Monica got lots of benefits from the affair... which is relevant evidence. It's not just how the harasser treats the woman who refuses him, but how the harasser treats women who oblige him.
No, that's also untrue. Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual conduct. Also, it requires that the person involved have a professional relationship with the person, which was not true for either Lewinsky or Jones. The "he's the boss of everyone" was as close as they got, and that was pretty damn weak.
If two people engage in a consensual sexual relationship and they are not professionally related, there is no sexual harassment. No matter what benefits the other gets from the relationship.
Time and time again, you seem to circle back to your unchallengeable assumption: "Monica was consensual, and no questions should therefore have been asked."
No. I am saying that they knew that Monica was consensual, as was made clear by their questions to Clinton. What they were trying to prove was that she benefited from that consensual relationship.
Is it reasonable to ask a person's direct reports, past or present, about any unwelcome advances made, whether with or without an inducement? Sure. However, trying to establish that they had a sexual relationship as if the existence of a sexual relationship is enough? That's entirely different.
I'm referring to the job she got with Revlon. That's the only job that Clinton arranged.
IJ:
She and her sister are two of the things GW did right. Plus marrying their mother. 
Ace,
Once again, you are completely full of shit. The Thomas hearings were a little before my Fraytime, but I don't think that approach to investigation is appropriate, period. I pretty much agree with Cal, though I might not go to the extreme of eliminating the legal notion of sexual harassment, period.
Do I wish Thomas hadn't been approved? Of course, but not because of Anita Hill's testimony, which she had a perfect right to present. Had the results been like those of John Tower then he shouldn't have been confirmed, but as it was they had no basis on that particular ground to refuse.
That point is all beside the fact that you're a jerk, btw. I just want my position on the matter to be clear.
What's the long term effect of the Jesse Jackson scandal?
He can't recover from it 69.00%
He'll recover, but it will take a long time 5.00%
He'll recover and it won't take long 7.00%
It will have no effect 17.00%
Sound's like JJSr. is pretty toasted.
She talked about Whitewater and what a horseshit scam the GOPpulled on all of us for eight long fucking years... then as Greta was signing off
Greta, do you think you could get me on the Wolf Blitzer Show with Ken Starr?
In your face motherfuckers! You go girl!
Rather, what if there were a law that said you couldn't question or examine any consensual relationships in a sexual harassment case?
There won't be. So don't worry yourself about it.
Bob and I ate at Jim McDougal's old haunt the other day. If you wanted to see him throughout this whole mess before he finally went to jail, just go to that restaurant on a Saturday afternoon.
She's now located in the same area, I don't know for how long. Maybe I'll run into her at Wal-Mart. 
President Bush grins as his daughter Jenna, 19, adjusts her dress, as they dance at the Florida Inaugural Ball at the National Building Museum in Washington, Saturday, Jan. 20, 2001. (AP Photo/Doug Mills)
Well, only the indicted criminals, concerned. Your guys are still getting away with crime. 
they did have this though
BILAN La prospérité économique masque de nombreux échecs.
Diplômé de l’Université de Georgetown de la capitale, d’Oxford (Grande-Bretagne) et de Yale, Bill Clinton est, en 1992 à 47
ans, le plus jeune président des Etats-Unis depuis John Kennedy. Demain, quand il quittera le poste qu’il eut tant de plaisir à
occuper, il sera le benjamin des cinq présidents retraités. Après huit ans, le démocrate laisse la direction d’une Amérique
prospère mais toujours à la recherche d’une doctrine d’après-guerre froide. Bilan.
Politique intérieure
Soutenu durant les deux premières années de sa présidence par un Congrès démocrate, il arrive à faire passer des mesures
pour réduire la criminalité et réformer le système d’assistance sociale. En huit ans, 4,1 millions d’Américains sont sortis de la
pauvreté.
And looming over it all was Bill Clinton....
"Oh Daddy -- you're the King!"
"No dear, I'm the President of the United States. Grandpa and Grandma say so."
"Come on, Daddy -- shoot me that school voucher one more time!"
I am so open minded, I am surprised my brain has not dropped out.
Some political thoughts:
There is no doubt that the Blacks in the last election were W's strongest and most virulent enemies. I think there is a way for him to alter their views. Bush has three proposals that if presented to the Black communities correctly could mollify their view of him. The first is vouchers. It has to be done in a specific manner, and that is to offer it only in urban centers with high populations of Blacks. He should point out that the schools in suburban neighborhoods are not having the problems of inner city schools. Vouchers would be rejected by most Democrats as their strong support from NEA would force them to reject. A Machiavellian approach might be to suggest that Democrats have little or no desire to see Blacks receive a good education. Such talk would be akin to The Democrats in 1996 claiming Black Churches would burn if Dole were elected, a claim more false than the former.
Bush could point out that his plan to privatize SS would be a start on Blacks accumulating capital, money which they would own and control, money they could leave to their heirs. It is the formation of capital that really makes one free. A Machiavellian approach would be to suggest that for Blacks to amass capital would not be the interest of the Democratic Party.
He should also make clear that a lowering of tax rates, while it obviously benefits those who pay the most, it also benefits middle income Black earners allowing them to keep more of their money. What needs to be emphasized is that what is not needed is more Civil Rights laws but actions that improve the educational and monetary level of the underclass.
Jeez, Al....
A Machiavellian approach would be to suggest that for Blacks to amass capital would not be the interest of the Democratic Party.
Sounds to me like you have a future in the Republican campaign offices...you ought to call Rove!
Many thanks, but isn't it all too obvious?
wonkers2
You are right, there may not be support for privitizing SS, but that is only because it has not been properly addressed. Blacks must be told that they have been getting the short end of the stick under the SS system as they have a shorter life span that whites, so the money they have put in has no benefit to many of them but a large benefit to whites. Once again Blacks have been fooled by wiley whites.
Al, Al, Al....
.....never mind.
G'night.
Don't be absurd. They weren't "virulent enemies". They opposed him. "Virulent" suggests that they were harmful to him, which they were not. "Enemies" suggests that they were opposed to him personally, which is nonsense. Blacks vote for Dems no matter what--it's not personal.
Black communities correctly could mollify their view of him.
Look up the word "mollify".
So long as Bush is against AA, he won't get anywhere with the black community. Even if someone far more intelligent than you framed the Republican agenda in terms that are favorable to blacks, I doubt it would do much good.
You two are talking as though there is no intelligence level in this group of people....you do realize this, right?
OOOH a flyin pig....
Gore took 90% of the black vote nationwide...
He took 95% in Texas....
Then he gave us Ashcroft
A porker - DUCK!
Oh well, don't mind me...I'll just toddle off like I should have earlier....
Giggle. Ah, I see. Now Bush should withdraw the nomination just as he's on the verge of a smashing victory (ca. 65-70 votes for Ashcroft, including Majority Leader -- oops, scratch that, Minority Leader -- Daschle.
Hee, hee, hee. Keep tiltin' at windmills, Wonkers. Now that you've lost, lost, LOST, you pray for your opponents to just concede.
I guess this is why it's a bad idea to take advice from "the other side."
"He has to think outside the box."
Translation: He has to think WITHIN the liberal Kennedy/Boxer/Hillary! box.
Armed with increasing support, McCain said in a television interview yesterday he wants to work in concert with Bush and other GOP leaders but will insist on early action, even if it means tying up the Senate as a "last resort" to force a vote.
Your post is exactly what I would expect, more a personal attack than anything. Well I deserve that from you as I am seldom anything but sarcastic to you. So what goes around comes around. I do not need to look up mollify; however I smight have better said feeling than view. If you think Blacks do not base their opiniopn and actions in the voting booth on a emotional and fearful reaction toward Republicans, for the most part, you are the silly one.
There are two huge canards that plaque the Republican party: one is that they are harmful to the rights of Blacks and Latinos, and that they will overturn RoevWade and take away a woman's right to choose. If these silly ideas were overcome, Democrats would have to give more than lip service to helping blacks out of the sad plight they find themselves.
It is great to point out the fallacies out anything I say, that is what discussion is about. But such silly remarks as There is nothing Bush could do, short of a brain transplant, to attract African American voters, precisely because they are plenty smart enough to know who has been screwing them for the past 40 years or so--the GOP. has no point. Of course there are things Bush could do. jexster even was nice enough to suggest one; however, I don't think is is a good one or one Bush would choose.
If anyone is really buying into George's schtick, he's got some shares of Harkin Energy that he'll sell ya - cheap!
Now look up "canards". I'll save you the trouble: it means untruth. The Republican platform, last I checked, sought to do away with both AA and abortion. Now it may be that doing away with AA won't be harmful to blacks and Latinos, but they are certainly allowed to think so. Overturning Roe vs. Wade may not make abortion illegal, but it is certainly intended to make that possible.
So it's not a canard, dipshit.
If you think Blacks do not base their opiniopn and actions in the voting booth on a emotional and fearful reaction toward Republicans, for the most part, you are the silly one.
Even if that were true, it doesn't make them "virulent enemies". It is your egregious misuse of vocabulary I am objecting to, not the rather ordinary idea that you are attempting to express.
Then don't invest, dipshit. No one's forcing you to. Bush's plan is voluntary.
PS: People will only be allowed to invest in very safe, very conservative money-market type funds. They will not be allowed to invest in single stocks or Utah gold mines or Louisiana oil fields.
Du-fucking-uhhh.
"Virulent" suggests that they were harmful to him, which they were
not. "Enemies" suggests that they were opposed to him personally,
which is nonsense. Blacks vote for Dems no matter what--it's not
personal.
Look up the word "mollify".
So long as Bush is against AA, he won't get anywhere with the black
community. Even if someone far more intelligent than you framed the
Republican agenda in terms that are favorable to blacks, I doubt it
would do much good.
CalGal
Let me try to deal with your post point by point. If you look up virulent in tyhe American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language I don't agree I have misused the word, and considering Bush recieved a lower Black vote than either Reagan, Bush Sr., or Dole, I would suggest more was goiing on than just the usual Blacks vote for Dems. I have already spoken to mollify.
One could have a long discussion on AA as it exists today in the minds of Liberals and how it was thought of in the late 60's and '70's. Of course, you are much too young to have a hands on understanding of what life was like in the 40's, 50's, and '60s and what needed to be done to break the strangle hold whites had on all jobs. Bush referred to Affirmative Access, and if I understand the meaning it is far closer to the quota system that has been in place.
You have an opinion as to my intelligence, which may or may not be correct. But what place does it have in a reasonable discussion. Or is that what you are interested in?
I have taken my last insult on the Mote. Please stick it up your ass.
There was no need to clarify. I knew what you were trying to say--not because of your posts themselves, but because you are an astonishingly unoriginal dumbfuck who recycles existing and quite ordinary ideas into tortured and inaccurate prose. I've said this twice now; which part are you missing?
Source: Jewish World Daily
Published: November 3, 2000 Author: Tony Snow
BILL CLINTON hit the hustings in the final days of his final campaign, only to discover the magic was gone. Crowds didn't mob him as before. Reporters didn't cover him as before. When he spoke, the earth didn't quiver and quake -- but Al Gore did.
Clinton is on the verge of discovering something well known to capital veterans: In Washington, you can't take friendship personally. The profession of politics worships offices and powers, not actual men. So as the trappings of the presidency begin to slough off like snakeskin, what people increasingly will see is the man --and in the case of Bill Clinton, the least impressive thing about him is himself.
Even if we didn't need a reminder, the president provided one last week. In an interview slated to appear in an upcoming issue of Esquire, he whined that Republicans owed him an apology for impeachment.
Let's get this right: The man dropped his pants in the Oval Office. He pleasured himself at a sink. He multitasked with Monica while discussing troop movements in Bosnia with Rep. Sonny Montgomery.
When word leaked out, he lied to a) his wife, b) his daughter, c) his friends, d) his Cabinet, e) the American public, f) a court of law and g) anyone not mentioned above. He tried to intimidate witnesses. His office planted vicious news stories about that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. And when he survived, he claimed he did what he did because he wanted to save the Constitution of the United States!
Al Gore would be leading the presidential race by a dozen points if his boss even once had uttered the two magic words: I'm sorry. But he didn't. He found it unnecessary. After all, he whupped the Republicans, didn't he?
Aw shucks, Bubba
Even though it is never wise to render snap judgments, it seems safe to predict that Bill Clinton will be recalled as a Nobody for the Ages -- a man whose narcissism devoured his talents.
He may be the most gifted man ever to sit in the White House, and the most brazenly corrupt. One can imagine him on the mountaintop with Satan, hearing the offer --the world for your soul -- and asking: "C'mon, man! There's a catch, right?"
Clinton never tried to rally Americans behind a great cause; he never took the kind of risk that separates great presidents from the others. He didn't have to. Times were good.
And so his presidency, like "Seinfeld," was an entertainment about nothing. It had no topic, no theme, no purpose -- other than to dispel our boredom. The whole show was about him. It feasted on our goodwill and our trusting natures. He twisted language shamelessly. He described federal expenditures as "investments" and tax cuts as "spending."
He made fools of just about everyone who fell under his spell -- including presumptive peace partners Tony Blair and Ehud Barak. He was uncowed by failure. Indeed -- and here's a real Clinton touch -- he had aides contact Norwegian public-relations firms in hopes of advancing his candidacy for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Bill Clinton became a lead weight to Al Gore because he was more concerned about posing for a legacy than doing his job. As Gore clawed at the water, trying to break the surface, Clinton was sitting in a gynecological pose for Esquire, grinning like a randy pappy. And every time he appeared in public, he reminded us of what might have been -- and wasn't.
If you want to appreciate the depth of the vice president's Clinton problem, ask yourself a simple question. Suppose someone built a Clinton Monument (don't speculate about what appearance it might assume). What inscription would it bear?
How about: "He avoided jail. Somehow."
Fuck linking. I'll start linking when Jexster stops posting the same diarrhea again and again, and when Wiz stops posting his cute little high-school-coed collages.
Further, the piece is good. Very good. Unlike Jexster, I don't simply type "CLINTON" into a search engine and then post every single fucking article which comes up.
I post at most 10% of what I read. (Jexster posts about 300% of what he reads-- he doesn't read many of the articles he posts, which is rather obvious when you notice that many of his titles --e.g., BIG DOG GONNA EAT THEM UP -- do not accurately reflect the article he has appended them to --e.g., an article about how no one is going to pay attention to Clinton now that he's an ex-Impeached-Rapist-President.)
So, if I find a good article, I think I'm "allowed" to post it. Certainly I do not abuse this privilege.
Some form of tax cut is also a safe bet, though I doubt that there will be much actually cut for the middle class. Just as much of the surplus which is so often bandied about has not been realized, much of the tax cut funded by that anticipated surplus will never be realized.
I agree that you don't do it often. I just hate full articles posted, especially with no italics.
Wow. Jones steps out of fairy-land spook-story mode of campaign season and into A Place Called Reality.
Suddenly Bush's "dangerous" SS privatization scheme is reasonable.
Nice to have you on board.
Cal,
I don't like italics. I find them annoying to read in long stretches.
The piece was attributed to Tony Snow at the outset. Your belief that someone wouldn't "get" that Snow is responsible for the entire piece, and that that is therefore plagiarism of a very persnickety, hypertechincal variety, is just silly.
On the other hand, I quoted the whole piece, which is a copyright violation, I suppose.
Mr. Snow (& all syndicated distributors of Mr. Snow's columns)--
I'm very sorry. I will be more selective in th future.
I wonder if all the tax cuts will be directed at certain groups, rather than any major across the board cut.
Another possibility is the marriage tax--but not the one that Clinton vetoed. That one doesn't just remove the penalty faced by marriages between two people of like incomes, it rewards marriages that already benefit tax-wise--those with disparate incomes or just one income.
I've also heard talk of raising the AMT limit and increasing the amount of money that people can contribute to IRAs.
Jones,
It isn't *that* good.
Christ, you're rolling over like a bitch who needs a cuddle. You lookin' for a job in the Administration or somethin'?
Jones:
"So long as the "insurance" portion of the fund is fully funded, I think everyone reasonable can get on board."
An interesting distinction. You maintain Bush's plan is "not necessarily reasonable," but that "everyone reasonable" can get on board.
It's fascination to watch you guys think.
Good lord, I am tired.
I don't, and I don't think most of the pundits, see any problem with getting rid of the death tax. Didn't Congress pass it and Clinton veto it last year? If Clinton was the obstacle and Congress was for it, how could it not pass now that Clinton's authority extends no further than his driveway in NY?
Senate fillibuster.
Does Snow think the deficit disappeared by itself? Or that the tax increase that ended it was passed by itself? If getting behind a significant tax increase isn't taking political "risk", what is?
(And did Clinton ever tell a lie as big as "I believe that the proposed Clinton/Democrat tax increase will wreck the economy, increase unemployment, actually make the deficit bigger, etc." that was spouted by virtually every Republican/conservative in 1993?)
But as much as I dislike Tony Snow, I have to admit that "Huckleberry Gandhi" is a great line!
1) You have to believe that the nation's current 8-year prosperity was due entirely to the work of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but that yesterday's gas prices are all Clinton's fault.
2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.
3) You have to be against government programs, but expect your Social Security checks on time.
4) You have to believe that government should stay out of people's lives, yet you want government to regulate only opposite-gender marriages and what your official language should be.
5) You have to believe that pollution is OK, so long as it makes a profit.
6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as people don't pray to Allah, Krishna or Buddha.
7) You have to believe that only your own teenagers are still virgins.
8) You have to believe that women cannot be trusted with decisions about their own bodies, but that large multinational corporations should have no regulation or interference whatsoever.
9) You know you love Jesus and that Jesus loves you and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and President Clinton.
10) You have to believe that society is colorblind and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you still won't vote for Alan Keyes.
11) You have to believe that it was wise to allow Ken Starr to spend $50 million dollars to attack Clinton because no other U.S. presidents have ever been unfaithful to their wives.
13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.
14) You have to believe that the American Civil Liberties Union is bad because they defend the Constitution, while the National Rifle Association is good because they defend the Constitution.
15) You have to believe that socialism hasn't worked anywhere, and that Europe doesn't exist.
16) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not important enough to deserve federal funding proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the public doesn't need to be educated about it, because if we just ignore it, it will go away.
17) You have to believe that biology teachers are corrupting the morals of
6th graders if they teach them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible, which is full of sex and violence, is good reading.
18) You have to believe that Chinese communist missiles have killed more Americans than private handguns, alcohol, and tobacco.
19) You have to believe that even though governments have supported the arts for 5000 years and that most of the great works of Renaissance art were paid for by governments, our government should shun any such support. After all, the rich can afford to buy their own and the poor don't need any.
20) You have to believe that the lumber from the last one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth the destruction of those forests and the extinction of the several species of plants and animals therein.
21) You have to believe that we should forgive and pray for Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston for their marital infidelities, but that bastard Clinton should be impeached.
Hey Ace, what do you suppose the diversion of 15% of the SS revenue stream is going to do to the financial stability and viability of the program for those who “choose” not to self-direct?
And do think that Wall Street is going to give SS investors a break on commissions, management fees, fund expenses, etc.?
No, its far easier to respond with insults – typical…
azazel, Wall Street is licking its chops.
The main contention is about regulation, correct? No one is supposing that hand guns should be banned, correct?
If so, why is there so much heat?
"The main contention is about regulation, correct?"
Not really, the main contention is that there is sufficient regulation already out there. There is nothing "bad" you can do with a gun that isn't already illegal, and that many of these laws are not being inforced. Additionally much of the proposed "commen sense" measures provide no mechanism to actually prevent crime or accidents because criminals inherently ignore those laws. The only thing they do is to burden the 99+% of gun owners who already handle their weapons legally and safely.
"No one is supposing that hand guns should be banned, correct?"
Incorrect. The banning of handguns is a central goal of many of the gun control lobbies like HCI. A number of politicians (including Gore) and administrators (including the Attorney Generals Office) have openly stated their support of unspecified bans. Of course I know Gore was probably just pandering, and that was just another reason not to like him.
They also seek to effectively ban handguns by looking toward suspect technologies such as smart guns which any gun owner will tell you are not a replacement for training (that includes teacing your kids to not touch guns... you teach them not to drink bleech). If someone wants to voluntarily obtain a smart gun, fine, but to enact legislation that in effect gets rid of the 'dumb' ones (which happen to always work and are perfectly safe if you educate yourself).
There are plenty of organizations who want handguns banned entirely. It isn't just about regulation.
The court's nine justices, uncomfortable with their role in such a high-stakes political contest, have remained tense with one another since the 5-4 ruling that shattered many Americans' image of the court as an institution above the partisan politicking that goes on across the street in Congress.
...
Meanwhile, the court has been bombarded with thousands of letters from angry Americans, some of whom have sent in their voter registration cards, suggesting that going to the polls in November was a waste of time. "For shame!" one letter said. Many messages to the justices have been sarcastic, others more menacing — including one with an illustration of a skull and crossbones.
...
People who know the 70-year-old justice's personality and politics believe the election fallout — and a desire to spend more time with her husband, John O'Connor, as he faces health problems — could lead the nation's first woman justice to retire as soon as this summer, when the 2000-2001 term ends. John O'Connor, 71, a lawyer, had a heart pacemaker implanted in 1999 and has had more health problems since, say people close to the couple.
...
But court insiders say the reactions that have most shaken the justices have come from Americans who have questioned the justices' personal motives.
i thought the registration cards were a nice touch.
he most resemble?
baboon
chimpanzee
gorilla
monkey
macaque
gibbon
lemur
mandrill
bonobo
3883 was deleted as the picture wouldn't show up
(I'm not asking what exactly the Second Amendment provides; I'm asking why there should be a Second Amendment.)
In the final analysis, the Democratic Party has gambled that they are better served by having power in the Senate than by having stood up for a fundamental principle and lost.
Let us hope that gamble pays off.
Me, naif that I am, I'll go for the principle
1. You have to swallow bullshit like 21 RULES FOR BEING A GOOD REPUBLICAN IN 21st CENTURY AMERICA without question.
Take my word for it though, the simian brained BOTUS most resembles a chimpanzee
What a hoot. I had to check who posted that to make sure I wasn't dreaming.
The Court majority, after knowingly transforming the votes of 50 million Americans into nothing and throwing
out all of the Florida undervotes (around 60,000), actually wrote that their ruling was intended to preserve "the fundamental right" to vote. This elevates audacity to symphonic and operatic levels. The Court went on to say, after stealing the election from the American people, "None are more conscious of the vital limits on its judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution's design to leave the selection of the President to the people." Can you imagine that? As they say, "It's enough to drive you to drink."
Waiting with baited breath, don't take too long please
. As University of Southern California law professor Erwin Chemerinsky noted: "The Rehnquist Court almost never uses equal protection jurisprudence except in striking down affirmative action programs [designed to help blacks and minorities]. I can't think of a single instance where Scalia or Thomas has found discrimination against a racial minority, or women, or the aged, or the disabled, to be unconstitutional."
Bastard Imbecile of the United States
Georgetown University law professor David Cole said, "[The Court] created a new right out of whole cloth and made sure it ultimately protected only one person--George Bush."
The Gore Exception
Still waiting Biener
EEEEEEEE
Still waiting Biener
(Unless you went to a sushi bar for breakfast.)
There's a first time for everything. He he he.
Majority rules, yes. But, the majority needed to overturn or modify the 2nd ammendment is a 2/3's not 1/2.
Is your possition that people in this country do not have an inherent right to defend themselves? You can't tell me that's what the police are for... they are not bound to protect any individual. They are supposed to keep the peace... which can often mean that individuals go unprotected. Guns also are an equalizer... If I am attacked by a 250 lb man who knows how to fight, I am basically hopeless. As a 110 lb woman would be against me.
Besides that, if you are faced with a situation that is an immediate threat... how does calling the police help? Police usually investigate after the killing has stopped. They rarely intervene, or even have the chance.
I'm not saying everyone should carry a gun. I'm just saying people should have the right to make the decision for themselves. Most people are prudent about the matter. The benifit of me having a gun, while my neighbor may not, is that the bad-guys don't know who does, and who does not. That's why break ins while people are at home are less common than in other countries that do have citizen bans (England, and now Australia).
You mean you can steal a presidential election and your only retribution is that some people don't have as much respect for you, as much confidence in you? That's all?
I say piss on the lot of 'em including their Imbecilic stooge some call President
Its POTUS who's BOGUS
The court has often held that someone can't use lethal force unless a life is in jeopardy.
the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law.
Bullshit. It was decided on the law. It was the SCOFLA that distinguished itself as an arm of the Democratic party. The SCOTUS had no choice but to overturn their adventure into election theft.
their judicial coup d'état
Pure hyperbole.
"We're so concerned that some of you undervoters may lose your vote under the different Florida county standards that we're going to solve the problem by making sure that none of you undervoters have your votes counted"? Isn't this exactly what the Court did?
No, that is not what the court did. Gore contested the election in a few key counties. The judge in Florida ruled against him. That should have been the end of it. Instead, Gore goes to his buddies at SCOFLA who contributed to his campaign and had them change the law to give Gore another shot at victory. The SCOTUS cried foul and stopped it. It would have been a farce to let it continue. The line that votes weren't counted is bullshit and it continues to be bullshit no matter how times people like you repeat it.
Seriously, how can anyone take an article seriously when it uses phrases like:
Justice Scalia, the Court's right-wing ideologue; his Pavlovian puppet, Clarence Thomas
and three other conservatives on the Court (William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy) intended to deodorize their foul intent
I expect such over-heated rhetoric from ideological blowhards like you, but I expect something a little better from someone who wants to be taken seriously.
Will McCain/Feingold Bill be delayed or lost now that Bush and Co have put their own agenda forward so soon? Will the media spotlight Bush and ignore McCain/Feingold?
Grow a pair or strap on the Depends and nod off, Sheila. Your repetitive boo-hooing over having been beaten by a chimp is amusing only me, and while I am selfish, I am not that selfish.
How's that FU?
Beaten by a bunch of criminals on the Supreme Court....democracy and the rule of law were beaten...not Gore
C'mon.
Beaten by a bunch of criminals on the Supreme Court....
really? what law did they break? and please, no cop-out reference to 'breaking the law in FL'
Beaten by a chimp, beaten by criminals. Whatever. Have some self respect.
Look closely. There is no argument here. There is only hyperbole. It may impress you, but it does nothing for me.
Its fucking appalling...the United States no longer can lay claim to being a democracy under the rule of law...
I know it is frustrating for you when your boy can't steal the election like in the good old days, but some of us like the fact that the Prince of Voter Fraud, William Daly, despite his best efforts, was not able to steal this one. It is sad that once-respected people like Bugliosi have been driven into paranoid, partisan hysteria.
Dear Abby,
I am a crack dealer in New Jersey who has recently been diagnosed as a carrier of the HIV virus. My parents live in a suburb of Philadelphia and one of my sisters, who lives in Bensenville, is married to a transvestite.
My father and mother have recently been arrested for growing and selling marijuana and are currently dependent on my other two sisters who are prostitutes in Jersey City.
I have two brothers. One is currently serving a non-parole life sentence in Attica for murder of a teenage boy in 1994. The other brother is currently being held in the Wellington Remand Center on charges of neglecting his three children.
I have recently become engaged to marry a former Thai prostitute who lives in the Bronx and, indeed, is still a part-time "working girl" in a brothel. Her time there is limited, however, as we hope to open our own brothel with her as the working manager. I am hoping my two sisters would be interested in joining our team. Although I would prefer them not to prostitute themselves, it would get them off the street, and, hopefully, the heroin they're addicted to.
My problem is this: I love my fiancé and look forward to bringing her into the family, and of course, I want to be totally honest with her.
Am I morally obligated to tell her about my cousin who voted for Bush?
Signed,
Worried About My Reputation
Dear Worried
No."
Essentially, there are two types of crimes: malum prohibitum (wrong because they are prohibited) crimes, more popularly called "civil offenses" or "quasi crimes," such as selling liquor after a specified time of day, hunting during the off-season, gambling, etc.; and malum in se (wrong in themselves) crimes. The latter, such as robbery, rape, murder and arson, are the only true crimes. Without exception, they all involve morally reprehensible conduct. Even if there were no law prohibiting such conduct, one would know (as opposed to a malum prohibitum crime) it is wrong, often evil. Although the victim of most true crimes is an individual (for example, a person robbed or raped), such crimes are considered to be "wrongs against society." This is why the plaintiff in all felony criminal prosecutions is either the state (People of the State of California v. _______) or the federal government (United States of America v. _______).
No technical true crime was committed here by the five conservative Justices only because no Congress ever dreamed of enacting a statute making it a crime to steal a presidential election. It is so far-out and unbelievable that there was no law, then, for these five Justices to have violated by their theft of the election. But if what these Justices did was not "morally reprehensible" and a "wrong against society," what would be? In terms, then, of natural law and justice--the protoplasm of all eventual laws on the books--these five Justices are criminals in every true sense of the word, and in a fair and just world belong behind prison bars as much as any American white-collar criminal who ever lived.
It would be a common law crime if anyone had dared do such a thing before we operated via criminal code.
oh - ok - i thought it was merely hyperbole
The undervotes were counted by the same mechanism that all other votes were counted. What was being asked is that the undervotes be given special treatment in order to sway the election from the winner (Bush) to the loser (Gore). The voter has the obligation to vote correctly if he wants his vote to count.
The rules on how the election is to be run is established before the election, not after. If the people of Florida objected to different machanisms, they had the opportunity to object before the election was conducted. It is too late after the election to start whining about miscast votes not being counted.
If the Court majority had been truly concerned about the equal protection of all voters, the real equal protection violation, of course, took place when they cut off the counting of the undervotes.
Exactly wrong. The votes had been counted just had all of the other 100 million votes had been counted. The examination of the undervote was giving them consideration not given to 100 million other voters and violated the Equal Protection Clause. No group of voters is entitled to special treatment in casting their vote.
As indicated, that very act denied the 50 million Americans who voted for Gore the right to have their votes count at all.
This is pure nonsense. The votes for Gore were counted and considered just as the votes for Bush were. Bush wound up with the majority of the Electoral votes and that decides who is President.
The whining by Democrats over this goes beyond pathetic.
The fact that even the Supreme Court did not include that argument in a decision bereft of legal basis tells you just how empty it is
You look absurd attacking the decision so I have trouble believing the assessment.
Huh?
Counting the undervotes is some sort of special consideration?
You mean that if a votomatic vote counting machine counts a vote that really is a vote but if it doesn't that vote really is not a vote?
How novel! So there's no EP violation if its votomatic that descriminates?
Do you know what equal protection means?
votes were counted. What was being asked is that the undervotes be
given special treatment in order to sway the election from the winner (Bush) to the loser (Gore). The voter has the obligation to vote correctly if he wants his vote to count
Again, each of Biener's arguments proceeds from this infirm foundation. And in fact, its wrong as well as legally because many votes for both candidates were counted and included in the certified totals that were not mechanically recorded.
As I said Biener advances an argument that even those dirtballs on the ScT dared not make....
Exactly wrong. The votes had been counted just had all of the other 100 million votes had been counted. The examination of the undervote was giving them consideration not given to 100 million other voters and violated the Equal Protection Clause. No group of voters is entitled to special treatment in casting their vote.
this makes no sense. to say that perfectly understandable (by the machines) ballots aren't examined because the machine could count it is a reason to pay no attention to ballots with some sort of error that could have a multitude of origins is, in a word, ridiculous.
why spend time examining ballots that the machine counted?
in reading your support, it seems as if i voted clearly and put my ballot in the box and someone behind me spills his Coke into the box behind me and makes my ballot invalid to the machine, then that's ok to discard it because it will take more time to look at it than the other ballots and is, thus, 'unfair'. well, that is preposterous - that's the very reason we have people man the machines in the first place.
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/ray/2001/jan/edrt011501.htm
those votes were rejected. Gore net gain 120 or so
Bush up 2425.
Court's order to recount the undervote
"Now it doesn't matter either way does it?"
This is the most reasonable thing you've said since you've been on this Jolt Cola/Hostess Ho Ho bender. Go make a sign. Throw an egg at a bus. Anything.
I dunno....maybe Biener does
In any event, it's nice to know how upset they are by the public disapproval.
The undervotes were counted. Twice. To count them yet again using different criteria is indeed giving them special treatment.
So there's no EP violation if its votomatic that descriminates?
Machines don't discriminate.
Do you know what equal protection means?
Yes. Obviously you don't. You seem think that it only applies when it favors your position.
100 million votes had been counted.
But the Court knew that its ruling (that differing standards for counting votes violate the equal protection clause) could not possibly be a constitutional principle cited in the future by themselves, other courts or litigants. Since different methods of counting votes exist throughout the fifty states (e.g., Texas counts dimpled chads, California does not), forty-four out of the fifty states do not have uniform voting methods, and voting equipment and mechanisms in all states necessarily vary in design, upkeep and performance, to apply the equal protection ruling of Bush v. Gore would necessarily invalidate virtually all elections throughout the country.
FU:
Jolt Cola/Hostess Ho Ho bender.
This literally had me screaming with laughter...thanks!
It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes
So was Gore beaten by a chimp or by the chimp's handlers?
Pure nonsense. The method of elections was establish in each of these states prior to the election. The problem in Florida is that the method of recount was not established and where established was not followed leaving the election to be decided by rules created post hoc. That is a violation of the law and the Constitution.
I guess if you accept the ludicrous proposition that discrimination by machines is fine....
But as I said not even the Fraudulent Five said that
Keep tryin
meanwhile, Bush wastes no time unifying:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will soon sign an order barring federal funds to international family-planning groups that offer abortion services and counseling, a White House official said on Monday.
...
``We share a great goal: to work toward a day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law,'' Bush said in a statement read to the rally by Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican and abortion opponent.
``We know this will not come easily, or all at once. But the goal leads us onward: to build a culture of life, affirming that every person, at every stage and season of life, is created equal in God's image,'' Bush said.
A Bush aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush will sign the order soon.
i don't personally care one way or other, i just find it interesting Bush starts right out of the gate with this.
Gore was beaten by the law and by his own attempts to undermine the election.
right they just count some votes but not others!
2. votes were counted that the votomatic did not count
so why do you persist in such a palabably ludicrous argument
No, they were run through the votomatics to make cheese fondue.
I guess if you accept the ludicrous proposition that discrimination by machines is fine....
Machines don't discrimintate.
states prior to the election. The problem in Florida is that the method of recount was not established
Makin this one up as we go along?
The holding (supposedly) was that the method of recount that was established allowed for varying standards....not that there was no method....
The point stands, if states have varying standards then all state election laws violate the 14th Amendment and the entire election must be thrown out not just the part of the election that would have made Gore president
There is not law that says a dimpled chad is a vote. They shouldn't be counted.
votes were counted that the votomatic did not count
And Gore still lost. Just because Democrats managed to get some of them included doesn't mean we must throw out all standards and worship on the altar of some non-existent Gore victory.
...now what part of that don't you understand
Texas.
I would wager you are, but I relying on the facts.
The holding (supposedly) was that the method of recount that was established allowed for varying standards
If the standards are decided post election, they violate the 14th Amendment.
The point stands, if states have varying standards then all state election laws violate the 14th Amendment and the entire election must be thrown out not just the part of the election that would have made Gore president
Nonsense. When standards are decided before the election the people have the opportunity to determine what they are and how the will be applied. If the standards are determined by dictate after the election in order to acheive a particular result they violate the Constitution.
...now what part of that don't you understand
You really don't understand discrimination, do you? Machines apply the same criteria to all votes. If an employer applies the same criteria to all applicants would that be discrimination? Or are you using some meaning of the word that I am not familiar with?
Am I missing something?
And if the standard for FL is count only those votes that a votomatic can count, what about New Mexico where a hand recount mounted by the GOP applied a different standard there?
And what of the net Bush gain via hand recounts in other FL counties?
Am I missing something?
Yes. Texas standards were established before the election. They weren't decided after the election in order to change the outcome.
And what of the net Bush gain via hand recounts in other FL counties?
Irrelevant. Bush won the initial count. He won the automatic recount. He even won the fraudulent hand recount. Gore lost. Get over it and move on.
There is no statute anywhere, no court decision which says that only votes that a machine can count are to be counted, the rest ignored.
In fact that wasn't even done in FL as many votes were included in the certified total that the votomatics did not count
????? If he hired blondes and not brunettes because they are blondes, he is not treating the applicants uniformly.
so machines count some votes but they don't count other votes and that is discrimination biener..
OK, you really are using some meaning of the word discrimination that I am not aware of.
And what of the net Bush gain via hand recounts in other FL
counties?
Irrelevant.
I quite agree but quite relevant to the argument you've been making that only votomatic countable votes should count.
he is not treating the applicants uniformly.
By George I think she's got it!
And if a vote counting machine counts votes because they are complete punches but not partial punches or pin pricks then it hasn't treated all votes uniformly.
Good work biener....
I see. The purpose of the votomatic is to distinguish Gore votes from Bush votes, valid votes from invalid votes. Since it does this, it is discriminating. Since the machine has no vested interest in either party and can't be programmed to select certain votes and discard other, it is fine with me.
Join Biener and me in our crusade to restore democracy and resist the Illegitimate One
The votomatics counted some votes but not others. The Supreme Court said that FL recount could not proceed because some votes would be counted but not others.....
Not even the Supreme court dared such a far-fetched argument....
Ashcroft was just the first of many 
Hello,citizen Gore.
Another disgrace!
Hello,citizen Gore.
NEW YORK (AP) -- A key gauge of U.S. economic activity plunged 0.6 percent in December, signaling continued weakness in the U.S. economy. The Conference Board said its Index of Leading Economic Indicators fell to 108.3 last month after two consecutive drops of 0.4 percent in October and November. A Conference Board economist said the declines are below what would be considered a recession in the U.S. economy.
Meanwhile, the clear and present danger to the economy is not the putative recession, but the power crisis in California. Mr. Bush made his first remarks on the subject last week, and they were revealing.
First, he rejected summarily the idea that the federal government might impose a temporary cap on wholesale electricity prices. One wouldn't have expected him to endorse such a cap just yet. Although there isactually a very good case for a price cap as an emergency measure — under current circumstances it would probably lead to increased production — that case takes some explaining. But it is a bit surprising that Mr. Bush would so thoroughly foreclose his options, especially when one bears in mind the political embarrassment that the profits from those soaring prices go in large part to generating companies based in, yes, Texas.
One!
Clinton.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will travel to Mexico next month, his first trip abroad as president, the White House announced Monday.
Bush will travel to Mexico on Feb. 16, said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. He will meet with President Vicente Fox and return to the United States later that day, Fleischer said.
This is gonna be fun!
Fried wingnut anyone?
That you have nothing to say speaks for itself
How totally arrogant, to not want those nasty funky generation plants in your own state, but then insist that those who have anticipated increasing energy demand should have to see to California at the price they want to set. Where are all the people who complain about the terrible pollution in Texas? Other than some short-term transmission issues, Texas has plenty of power. And Texas will implement deregulation in January 2002 and show California how it can and should be done.
most court decisions do....not Bush v. Gore
Many of those who benefited, however, owed their good fortune to their association with Clinton or to their ability to win access to upper echelons of the White House. The list of 176 names -- 140 pardons and 36 commuted sentences -- is packed with people with connections.
I really to hate to say I told you so...
Like hell I do
"The truth is that Reliant Energy and Eron both Houston based are
making a 20,000% profit on energy sold to California..."
You mean Enron.
But anyhow, so what? Your point is? And why is California importing? As the largest state in the nation, which lots of natural resources, why are they importing, rather than using their own resources?
E
I assure you Jexter, if the people of California had to pay the actual cost of power, there would be a tremendous push to build generation plants in the state and solve their own problem.
The actual cost of power is 20,000% less than what we are paying so I don't quite think you know what you are talking about.
By your logic,Bush should bail out California with federal assistance to win more votes.
BTW,that was Clinton/Gore's SOP.
Remember Clinton/Gore's SPR release?
BBB:
"Clinton pardoned his brother Roger, guilty of distributing cocaine in the 1980s. He pardoned Richard Riley Jr., the son of his education secretary, who conspired to sell cocaine and marijuana. He pardoned Stuart Harris Cohn, brother-in-law of former Connecticut congressman Sam Gejdensen (D)."
Are you complaining that he didn't pardon Bush for Drunk Driving?
New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R), who had worked on the Rich case as a prosecutor, said he was shocked. "After all, he never paid a price. He got on an airplane, took all his records and ran off to Zug, Switzerland, where he's remained a fugitive since then."
The generators, led by Reliant Energy Inc. of Houston, Calpine Corp. of San Jose, Duke Energy Corp. of Charlotte, Southern Energy Inc. of Atlanta, Dynegy Inc.of Houston, and AES Corp. of Arlington, now produce up to 40 percent of California's electricity. Other members of the new power industry include marketerEnron Corp. of Houston and Williams Co. of Tulsa, which buys and sells power.
Generators' and marketers' charges for wholesale electricity rocketed upward, beginning this summer. Average monthly prices charged by the generators and other power suppliers jumped to 16.6 cents per kilowatt hour in August, from 4.7 cents in May, according to a study co-authored by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Paul Joskow.
Joskow's study estimated that wholesale power prices were nearly double production costs last June, including environmental compliance charges, and 36 percent higher in August.
Meanwhile, the profits of Dynegy, Williams and Calpine for the third quarter of 2000 were all more than 300 percent higher than for the same period in 1999.
This is untrue, and I'm as hard on treehuggers as most.
The disaster was caused by the utter and really rather amazing stupidity of utility company management, politicians, and bureaucrats.
actually, that's quite a good article that you site, in the Washington Post. And the cost of fuel for generation is market-driven, so you cannot say that the cost is 20,000% above the "actual" cost, because the "actual" cost is theoretical, at best.
I agree that it is not right for companies to gouge on prices. But I do not think that bringing the federal government in to set price caps will solve the problem, as they will simply quit selling to California.
Twice in the past six years, the D.C. Court of Appeals has declined to reinstate Borders's law license, ruling that he failed to prove his redemption by telling what he knows about the Hastings case.
Another possibility would be to "allow" PG&E to go bankrupt. Of course, it's not really bankrupt, it just created a subsidiary to keep its profits separate from its losses.
Even more surprising was Mr. Bush's decision to use the occasion of the Western power crisis mainly as an opportunity to criticize environmental regulations, declare that when it comes to restoring salmon he won't give a dam, and call for oil drilling in wildlife refuges. It's true that federal (not state) air- quality rules are among the factors limiting power production in California. But they are not central to the crisis, and Alaskan oil has nothing at all to do with it. One can only conclude that just as Mr. Bush sees the economic slowdown as an opportunity to sell tax cuts, he sees the power crisis as an opportunity to sell weakened environmental protection.
In Houston, where thanks to BOTUS people are choking on the foulest air in the nation, my brother's client, the largest freeway contractor in the state, is now barred from construction during daylight hours.
choke choke cough cough BUSH-SHIT
Ravenel, who met Clinton in 1980 when the two men and their wives went shrimping together,.........
dammit, Jex, be careful.
California's four-year-old electricity deregulation plan, the first in the nation, was the troubled product of sharply conflicting political ideologies in the state. It was born of conservative convictions in the benefits of unfettered competition. But it was ultimately laced with price caps and controls -- such as a requirement that power be bought when needed, not in advance -- demanded by lawmakers who did not trust the energy industry.
The result was a Rube Goldberg structure -- half free-market, half regulation -- that new U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has called "lunacy."
California's plan depended on having a comfortable margin of supply over demand, and the state did have power to spare in the early 1990s when it started the move to deregulate.
"Texas Pigs Slop At CA Trough
The generators, led by Reliant Energy Inc. of Houston, Calpine
Corp. of San Jose, Duke Energy Corp. of Charlotte, Southern
Energy Inc. of Atlanta, Dynegy Inc.of Houston, and AES Corp. of
Arlington, now produce up to 40 percent of California's
electricity. Other members of the new power industry include
marketerEnron Corp. of Houston and Williams Co. of Tulsa,
which buys and sells power."
Let's see
Reliant is in Houston, Texas
Calpine Corp is in San Jose
Duke, of Charlotte, So. Carolina
Dynegy of Houston, Texas
AES of Arlington, Va
Enron of Houston, Texas
and Williams of Tulsa, OK
So out of seven companies named, three are Houston based. So that means they're all Texas pigs. The pigs, jexter, are the unrelenting consumers who want someone else to meet their vociforous demands.
CalGal
You are absolutely right - the whole idea of electric deregulation came from the big investor-owned utilities, who saw an opportunity for opening up the market. The legislators were captivated by the arguments and wanted to be "first" to implement deregulation, so like fools, they rushed in. The fault of the bureaucratics is in not identifying and advising the elected officials of the possible/probable impacts.
Too wet !
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sooner or later they have to pay for NIMBY.........
This is incorrect and is the most infuriating aspect of the reporting I've seen. The price controls were demanded by the utility companies, not the lawmakers.
Marsha,
That's a bit backwards. The bureaucrats--the CPUC--were the ones who decreed that deregulation would occur, generally as a response to complaints from industry. The utility companies shrugged, not particularly in favor of it, and put together a plan that guaranteed that they would be protected from any ill effects. The politicians were clueless and didn't understand it--but in fairness, tried their best to protect the individual consumer, who neither wanted deregulation or even lower energy prices.
Finally, the system crashed when power shortages struck during the hot, dry 2000 summer and continued through the winter.
Consumers are not the reason for the energy demands--in fact, California is 47th in per capita energy consumption.
"municipalities will take over the generation business"
You can only hope that this is what will happen. Unfortunately, the municipalities will have a very hard time coming up with ability to purchase the assets, especially where you have so many stranded costs. So to recover those costs, they will have to be passed on to the consumers.
Another fallacy about deregulation that we (in Texas) saw coming a mile away, is that the only customers the utilities are really interested in are the large industrials. Residential consumers tend to be a drag on the system. Since no one will want the residentials, they will wind up going to the least reliable utility, basically the one(s) left holding the bag. And they will pay sky-high rates to offset the bargains the industrials will have negotiated.
NOT.
Exactly. Deregulation is done to benefit industry.
In fairness, that's not a bad reason to do it. But it'd be nice if the consumer didn't get so purely fucked up the ass.
You are also correct about the fact that no one was interested in the individual consumer in the "competitive" market.
",i>the CPUC--were the ones who decreed that deregulation would occur, generally as a response to complaints from industry."
That's what I said. Except that the PUC is definitely in the "politicans" corner, not the bureaucrats'.
++++++++++++
Do you have a link?
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) --California power managers today began what has become a daily scramble to find sufficient power and avoid rolling blackouts. The state Legislature prepared to introduce a new proposal today that would allow utilities to pass their huge debts onto customers in exchange for giving up their hydroelectric plants. The plan would make the state one of the largest owners of hydroelectric power in the nation. Stage 3 alerts -- the prelude to rolling blackouts -- remained in effect today for the seventh-straight day.
marsha:
And they will pay sky-high rates to offset the bargains the industrials will have negotiated.
Boy, you can say that again...my "adjustment" on my last gas bill was higher than the usuage.
Oh, I see bureaucrats as different from politicians. One is state appointed.
BBB,
It's been mentioned many times, and someone provided a link to a government site. California is actually quite responsible in its energy use, and they have always paid higher prices for energy than anywhere else in the nation.
I'm a big believer in blaming consumers for fuckups if they're due for the blame. But this is one case where the consumers did nothing wrong. Even the one thing that could be held at our door--the fact that we don't care for new power plants--is mitigated by the fact that we weren't complaining about our high prices at all, didn't ask for deregulation, and have always been willing to pay for our persnicketiness about new power plants.
No, this is a problem of a very poorly defined market, not unreasonable consumers.
The state Legislature prepared to introduce a new proposal today that would allow utilities to pass their huge debts onto customers in exchange for giving up their hydroelectric plants.
There you go...small consumers screwed again. Hopefully, big industry, too.
by JEANNINE AVERSA
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government reported a budget surplus of $32.7 billion in December, the Treasury Department said Monday.
The bounty in the third month of the 2001 fiscal year was slightly smaller than the $33.1 billion surplus reported for the same month a year earlier.
Believe it. It has been much reported.
In the first three months of the budget year, which began Oct. 1, the government reported a deficit of $2.3 billion, with spending of $463.6 billion and revenues of $461.3 billion. That compares with a $20.3 billion shortfall reported for the first three months of fiscal 2000.
Individual income tax payments in December totaled $83.5 billion, down from $94.5 billion in December 1999. Payments from corporate taxes came to $51.3 billion, up from $44.9 billion.
The biggest spending categories in December
If it has been in the news, it must be true. Right, Cal?
Bush was expected to issue the order, among the first policy moves of the new Republican administration, as early as Monday afternoon, the same day that abortion opponents staged their annual march on Washington.
``Yes, I am. Soon,'' Bush said when asked by a reporter if he was going to reverse the Clinton administration's position on unrestricted family-planning aid.
On his first workday in the White House, Bush also gave a written statement to marchers on the 28th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) decision that legalized abortion.
``The promises of our Declaration of Independence are not just for the strong, the independent or the healthy. They are for everyone, including unborn children,'' his statement said. ``We share a great goal, to work toward a day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law ... to build a culture of life, affirming that every person at every stage and season of life, is created equal in God's image.''
Amen brother.
What's CA's ranking in income per capita?
What's CA's ranking in GDP per capita?
What's CA's ranking in commune time per capita?
What's CA's rankind in automobile ownership per capita?
What's CA's ranking in miles driven on the roads?
What's CA's ranking in TV and computer ownership per capita?
It's not that big a shock, really. As Elliot mentioned when he linked it in, manufacturing uses the most power and California has very little manufacturing.
arrrgghg.
Statistical facts, when reported by the media, are generally true.
Alas. A state's energy consumption is more than the individual use. It is the overall use, divided by the individuals in it.
The power crunch is not happening because of greedy individual consumers. In fact, I always find it amusing that Davis calls on us to turn off unneeded lights. Rather, tell corporations to turn off all the lights in their buildings (to be fair, some of them are). Tell corporations to cut way back on their heating and airconditioning in all but server areas. And so on.
So Alaska and Wyoming ranked # 1 and # 2,respectively. What does that mean ? What's the use of such table?
Do you have a link on the per household basis?
Do you have a link to TOTAL energy consumption of the 50 States?
by JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Phil Gramm, with a bipartisan boost from Democratic colleague Zell Miller, opened a campaign Monday to enact more than $1 trillion in tax cuts proposed by President Bush.
Gramm, R-Texas, and Miller, D-Ga., said the weakening economy added urgency to the need for tax relief, and predicted the 10-year plan would win wide approval in the Senate.
I believe that this crisis is about the inflexibility of energy demand in California, not excessive or wasteful energy demand.
I went to the trouble of computing component per capita rankings for California (again from the 1997 figures). It turns out that it's not just lack of industry that lowers Californians' per capita energy consumption...they are below the national average in all four sectors tracked by the feds:
Sector Rank Residential 49th Commercial 49th Industrial 39th Transportation 36th
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The blue and gold banner of the European Union is emblazoned over the front door of the Euro City grocery. Inside, another blue and gold symbol dominates the display of fresh fruit -- a smiling Miss Chiquita.
In this little store across the street from EU headquarters and in supermarkets around Europe, Chiquita means bananas.
But Europe's favorite banana is under attack.
Chiquita, the Cincinnati-based giant, says it has been pushed to the brink of bankruptcy by the European Union's system of tariffs and quotas, which restrict the sales of bananas marketed by U.S. companies.
The trans-Atlantic trade battle began when the Europeans introduced import controls to protect their own banana growers in the Canary Islands, Madeira and French West Indies, and traditional suppliers in African and Caribbean nations.
The rules more than halved Chiquita's market share in the European Union, where the company used to draw more than half of its profits, Warshaw said in a telephone interview.
The dispute has poisoned relations between the European Union and the United States for almost a decade.
The U.S. government has vigorously supported Chiquita, accusing the EU of restricting free trade by unfairly protecting its own producers and importers and pushing up prices for consumers.
Even more proof that we don't deserve this nasty thing happening to us.
I believe that this crisis is about the inflexibility of energy demand in California, not excessive or wasteful energy demand.
Well, the crisis is because the power companies are running out of money (or at least the wholly owned subsidiary is) and because everyone involved is a moron.
If it were just about our power needs, we'd be fixing it without too much fuss.
They were quick to dismiss Chiquita's claims.
''They have absolutely no cause to complain,'' said EU spokesman Jean-Christophe Filori. ''We strongly deny any link between the current difficulties of this company and the common organization of the (EU banana) market.''
The U.S. government and Chiquita won a victory in the banana war in 1997 when the WTO ruled the EU's import system broke world trade regulations. Two year later the Geneva-based regulator authorized the United States to retaliate by imposing sanctions on EU products.
Since then, legal wrangles have gone back and forth as the EU tinkers with its rules to fit WTO demands -- while continuing to limit imports of ''dollar bananas.'' Meanwhile, says Chiquita's Warshaw, ''the corrosive impact'' of the EU restrictions remain.
Amid all the conflicting claims, one thing is sure -- the EU policy means European consumers pay a high price for bananas. A kilogram -- 2.2 pounds -- in the Euro City grocery costs the equivalent of $2 compared to $1.74 in the Capital Hill Supermarket in Washington.
Germans eat more bananas per capita than other Europeans and are less than pleased by their cost. Germany, unlike the French, Spanish and British, don't have domestic banana producers or former colonial suppliers to keep happy.
Clinton's been gone only two days and politics has gotten boring.
Clinton's been gone only two days and politics has gotten boring.
Well, that, and Jexsters "Jolt Cola/Hostess Ho Ho"** sugar high has crashed.
**compliments of FU.
Okay, this can't possibly be true:
Could He Really Be This Foolish?
Moving quickly upon taking office, President George W. Bush on Saturday issued an order that blocked many of the last-minute executive orders and rules laid down by outgoing President Clinton. But one controversial Clinton action has caused a deep divide inside of Bush's inner circle: Whether to rehire Linda Tripp!
And we haven't even gotten to the environmental laws we need to relax so that CA can build lotsa coal power plants
Not even at NMD - 300 billion for Boeing and the toilet...
A few morons thought Bush wasn't a real right wing freak...some people actually fell for that Compassionate conservative crap....
Uniter my ass!
Okay, bbb, we get it. How many more times are you going to link to that story?
One more note
Nice...anyone else would be yelling SPAM.
If it weren't for the source not being the type who likes to pull legs, etc., I would say that this is beyond ludicrous and naive.
But, is it true?
"this country has only one king, Jesus Christ."
I have seen that quote attributed to Ashcroft but don't know if he said it on Larry King or not.
Janjon, you were lucky to get a post in between all of BBBs links to the same article.
End of story.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Phil Gramm, with a bipartisan boost from Democratic colleague Zell Miller, opened a campaign today to enact more than $1 trillion in tax cuts proposed by President Bush. Gramm, R-Texas, and Miller, D-Ga., said the weakening economy added urgency to the need for tax relief, and predicted the 10-year plan would win wide approval in the Senate. Gramm, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, said he was launching ''a crusade to see this tax cut in its totality adopted.''
Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different: We have no king but Jesus.
Here's the transcript.
I'm no historian, but the first I had never heard of this slogan was in Ashcroft's speech.
Some of us have no king whatsoever. Some choose to treat Jesus as their king. I believe that is called freedom of religion. I think it is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Anyone know of any other kings? (Well, there is Elvis, but last time I checked he was still dead.)
Davey Crockett was King of the Wild Frontier...
But, this is pitiful.
Try 'propagandized' and you will be more accurate.
Oh come on, JJ....it's not like every other day will be a call for his hide.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush was among many well-wishers who contacted the Rev. Jesse Jackson last week as Jackson grappled with the revelation that he fathered a daughter through an extramarital affair with an aide.
Bush called Jackson at his Chicago home on Friday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday.
He said Bush and Jackson had spoken several weeks ago about the prospect of meeting once Bush was in office ''as part of the outreach that the president is going to engage in.''
Jackson said in an interview Saturday that Bush had contacted him, and he appreciated the gesture.
''I think about the troubles Mr. Bush has had, and all of us have had, as free human beings, all of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God,'' Jackson said.
Your comments?
Glad he straightened that one out!
I can certainly think of something involving electricity I'd like to suggest you do, BBB...yes, indeedy.
by BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration flashed signals of change Monday in U.S. foreign policy. ''That is what U.S. elections are all about,'' declared Colin Powell, the new secretary of state.
Indicating a lower level of U.S. involvement in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the Bush administration was not directly involved in current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
Israel and the Palestinians have been unable to negotiate a peace accord despite intensive efforts by the Clinton administration in its waning months. President Clinton said in the days before his tenure ended Saturday that his proposed settlement formula ended with his departure.
hide.
I'd guess every week or so for the venomous little shit.
This summer in Washington will be the political equivalent of nuclear winter - Jexster 12/00
1. Higher oil prices mean more money for Texas erl 'n gas assholes
2. Nothin short of a war or an assassination attempt is going to save his ass
Entering the State Department for his first day on the job, Powell told a gathering of hundreds of enthusiastic employees that ''there will be consistency, there will be some coherence in our foreign policy.''
''But,'' he said, ''also let you know that there will be changes coming; that is what elections are all about.''
A survey of senior analysts at some of the capital's best-known think tanks produced little expectation of immediate major changes in direction for U.S. foreign policy, although the president of the Council on Foreign Relations suggested, ''Sometimes little changes can have big consequences.''
By way of example, Leslie Gelb predicted ''somewhat more favorable rhetoric toward Taiwan,'' the island democracy China considers a renegade province that must be brought back into the fold.
''It doesn't take a lot to unnerve the Chinese,'' Gelb noted.
Be nice if we had one.
It is gonna be fun in a few months.
Also, since Bush and Powell are determined to move forward toward construction of a shield against missiles, the new administration is likely to try to renegotiate quickly a 1972 treaty that outlawed national anti-missile defenses, he said.
Ellen Tauscher, a centrist demo from the East Bay, was quoted with the usual crapola about having to work with this nincompoop.
Wonder what she's gonna say about that abortion decision?
You have to learn HOW TO READ BETWEEN LINES.
My guess is that both Dems and Republicans will mishandle the power crisis. The Dems will be too wussy to be tough about it, and the Republicans will be tough in the wrong way.
This man is a disaster....
That's what happens with unelected presidents....
"To put it charitably, Bush knows next to nothing" paraphrase
This newspaper is from Taiwan,not PRC
Now he's told the state and especially those dwindling number of Republicans in the state delegation who asked for a temporary price cap to stop gouging by Texas utilities to go fuck themselves...
More like
"Bend Over America"
And who in the fuck do you think is going to support Bush in a beef over Taiwan?
Bastard Imbecile of The US?
In a sign of early cooperation between Bush and the anti-abortion lobby, the new president* issued a statement of support that was read to their annual rally on the Mall.
``We share a great goal: to work toward a day when every child is welcomed
in life and protected in law. We know this will not come easily, or all at
once,'' said Bush's statement, which was met with wild cheers when read out
at the rally.
Do you concede and retract your earlier silly comments on Taiwan's response to the Bush Administration?
I don't have to guess...Bush has already said fuck you to the state
Best you ride that fence side saddle girlie
Your links were in fuckin Chinese you moron
¡i¾¤¬Ã¬Ã¡þ¥x¥_³ø¾É¡j ¡@¥ßªk°|ªø¤ýª÷¥¤µ¤Ñªí¥Ü¡A¬ü°ê·s¥ôÁ`²Î¥¬§Æ©Ò²Õ¦¨
ªº·s¬F©²¤¤¡A¹ï¥x¤Í¦nªÌ¤ñ¨Ò¬Æ°ª¡F¤jP¦Ó¨¥¡A¥L¬Û«H¬ü°ê·s¬F©²©M¥xÆW¤§¶¡
ªºÃö«Y¡AÀ³¸Ó¤ñ¹L©¹§ó¬°²`«p¡C¤£¹L¡A¬ü°ê¹ï¨â©¤°ÝÃDªº°ò¥»¥D±i¨Ã¥¼§ïÅÜ¡A
¤´µM°í«ù¡u¤@Ó¤¤°ê¡v¥ß³õ¡A¨Ã´Á¬ß¨â©¤¾¨³t®i¶}¹ê½è¨ó°Ó¡A¥´¯}¥Ø«e»ø§½¡C
¡@¤ýª÷¥¥Nªí³¯¤ô«óÁ`²Î²v¹Îu¬ü¡A°Ñ¥[¬ü°ê·s¥ôÁ`²Î¥¬§Æªº´N¾¤j¨å¡C¦ý¬°
¤F³B²z®Ö¥|Á{®É·|°ÝÃD¡A¤ýª÷¥¦b´N¾¨å§¤@µ²§ô§Yݵ{ªð°ê¡A¥D«ù´Â³¥¨ó
°Ó¡C¤ýª÷¥ªí¥Ü¡A¥L±N§ä®É¶¡¦V³¯¤ô«óÁ`²Î±§i¦¹¦æ¸g¹L¡A¥H¤Î¬ü¤è¶Ç¹F¤§°T
®§¡C
¡@¤ýª÷¥«ü¥X¡A¬ü°ê·s¬F©²¹ï¨â©¤°ÝÃDªº°ò¥»ºA«×¨Ã¨S¦³§ïÅÜ¡C¬ÛÃö©xû¦b³
¦h»P§Ú¥Nªí¹Î·|±ªº³õ¦X¤¤³£ªí¥Ü¡A¬ü¤è¤´µM°í«ù¡u¤@Ó¤¤°ê¡vªº¥ß³õ¡A¤]·|
«H¦u¥xÆWÃö«Yªk¡C¥ĻƱæ¨â©¤¯à¦¤é´_½Í¡A¥H©M¥¤è¦¡¸Ñ¨M¨â©¤»ø§½¡A¦ýµL
½×¬O±Ä¦æ¦óºØ¤è¦¡¡A¬ü¤è»{¬°³£¥²¶·Àò±o¥xÆW¤H¥Áªº¦P·N¡C
That's what shows up for round eyes
jex:
He knows that...he's a real comedian.
It reads perfectly. Do you have a translation software to enlighten us?
Get over it.
The Clinton "legacy".
The Clinton "legacy".
Why do you CHANGE your post from Chinese-readable to a new version?
HaHaHa!
Here it comes, the first shots fired:
Bush Starts Down The Road To Overturn
Washington, Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said he'll "soon" block U.S. funds from being used by family planning groups that provide abortion counseling overseas by reversing an order signed by former President Bill Clinton.
Bush's decision, announced by White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and confirmed by the president in remarks to reporters, marks the first reversal of a Clinton policy after Bush aides spent weeks reviewing executive orders and regulations issued by Bush's Democratic predecessor.
Bush's experts also ''have talked about getting tougher on North Korea and Saddam, but what that means in practice we don't know.''
Ivo Daalder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said ''their inclination is to change foreign policy quite a bit.''
JAH,
C'mon. You can't be very serious.
1) that has nothing to do with Roe,
2) it's been done before, and Roe survived, and
3) Who the hell cares? I sure the hell don't. I suspect, down deep inside, that *you* don't really care too much, either.
A small step, sure, but he did it. And if Ted Turner wants to pay some of the money he's making from AOL subscribers for international abortion programs let him.
Catholic Republican kids are the future of the country, Democrats.
It's amazing to see how many children I see every Sunday in church.
Gotta love Brit Hume...
From Salon:
Jan. 22, 2001 | Over the weekend, an e-mail was sent to political reporters from someone calling himself "libguy9754" blasting members of the media for focusing their coverage of President George W. Bush's inaugural instead of nationwide protests over the election results, prompting at least one spirited defense from a Fox News anchorman.
"Why have you not covered the grass roots anti-inaugural protests as much as the Bush-sponsored inaugural events in Washington DC?" the e-mail asked. "Why have you chosen instead to serve as a public relations arm for the Bush presidency?"
Fox News managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume responded privately to the spam:
Actually, those inaugural festivities at the Capitol are sponsored by the joint congressional inaugural committee. Do you seriously think a news organization should ignore the swearing-in of a new president in favor of scattered protests around the country?
Besides, we knew that covering it the way we did would infuriate you personally and that was an added plus.
Best wishes, Brit Hume
This was what you posted the first time. Why change it?
Íõ½ðÆ ½£ºÃÀРÕþ¸®ºĮ́ž ³êP‚SŒ¢¸ü žéÉîºñ (23:28)
¡¾ÀèÕä Õ䣯̨±±ˆó Œ§¡¿¡ ¡Á¢·¨ ÔºéLÍõ½ ðƽ½ñÌì± íʾ£¬Ã À‡øРÈο‚½y²¼Ï £Ëù ½M³É µÄÐ ÂÕþ¸ ®ÖУ¬Œ¦Ì¨ÓѺ ÃÕß± ÈÀý Éõ¸ ߣ»´óÖ Â¶øÑ Ô£¬Ëû ÏàÐÅÃÀ‡øÐ ÂÕþ ¸®ºÍ ̨ž³Ö ®égµ ÄêP ‚S£¬‘ªÔ“ ±Èß^Íù ¸üžéÉ îºñ¡£²» ß^£ ¬ÃÀ‡ øŒ¦ƒÉ°¶†–î }µÄ»ù ±¾Ö÷ ˆKδ¸ Ä׃£¬ ÈÔÈ»ˆÔ³Ö¡ ¸Ò»‚€ ÖЇø¡¹Á¢ˆö£¬K ÆÚÅ΃ɰ¶ ƒËÙÕ¹é_Œ Ù|…fÉÌ £¬´òÆÆ Ä¿Ç°½©¾Ö¡£
¡¡Íõ½ðƽ´ú±íê Ë®±â¿‚½yÂʈ F¸°ÃÀ£ ¬…¢¼ÓÃÀ ‡øÐÂÈÎ ¿‚½y ²¼Ï£µÄ¾ Íš´ó µä¡£µ« žéÁËÌŽ ÀíºËËÄ ÅR•r• þ†–î}£ ¬Íõ½ð ƽÔÚ¾ Íšµä ¶YÒ»½Y Êø¼´¼ æ³Ì·µ ‡ø£¬Ö÷³Ö ³¯Ò°…f ÉÌ¡£Í õ½ðƽ±í ʾ£¬Ëû Œ¢ÕÒ•ré g ÏòêË®±â¿‚½yÃæ¸æ´ËÐÐ ½›ß^£¬ÒÔ¼°Ã À·½‚÷ß_Ö®ÓÏ ¢¡£
¡¡Íõ ½ðƽָ³ö £¬ÃÀ‡øÐ ÂÕþ¸® Œ¦ƒÉ° ¶†–î }µÄ»ù±¾‘ B¶ÈK›]ÓÐ ¸Ä׃¡£Ïà êP¹Ù†TÔ ÚÔS¶à ÅcÎÒ´ú±í ˆF•þÃæ µÄˆö ºÏÖÐ ¶ ¼±íÊ ¾£¬ÃÀ·½ ÈÔÈ »ˆÔ³Ö¡¸Ò »‚€ÖÐ ‡ø¡¹µÄÁ ¢ˆö£¬Ò²•þ ÐÅÊØ Ì¨ž³ êP‚S·¨¡£ Ëû‚ ƒÏ£ÍûƒÉ° ¶Ä ÜÔçÈÕÍ Õ„£¬ ÒÔºÍƽ ·½Ê½½â ›QƒÉ° ¶½©¾Ö £¬µ« ŸoÕ“ÊÇ’ñРкΠ·N·½Ê½£¬ ÃÀ·½Õ Jžé¶¼± Øíš«@µÃÌ ¨ž³ÈË ÃñµÄÍ¬Ò â¡£
¡¡ Íõ½ðÆ ½Ö¸³ö £¬ÃÀ·½Ðû ·Q´òÆÆ ƒÉ°¶½©¾Ö Ö®µÀí š½›Ì¨ ž³ÈËÃñÍ ¬Ò⣬¿ ÉÕfÊÇ Œ¦Ì¨ž ³µÄÒ»´óÉÆÒâ ¡£¶øÄ ÃÀ‡ø ÐÂÕþ¸®µÄ ½M³ÉÓ^ ²ì£¬Ð ƒÈéw³É† TÓв» ÉÙÈËŒ¦Ì¨ ž³Ý^žéÓ ÑÉÆ¡£Òò ´Ë£¬ËûÏà ÐŲ¼Ï£Õ þ¸®Î´í‘ª •þŒ¦Ì¨ž³¶à Ò»ücêPÐÄ£¬ ±Ë´ËÖ®égµÄê P‚SÒ²‘ª±È ß^È¥¸üžéÉîºñ¡£
BBB,
Counter-spamming is not an acceptable response to spamming. Take Jexster to task but do not emulate his tactics.
As a favor to a fellow conservative. Please?
Thanks,
Ace of Spades
So, who is responsible for this fine mess?
Mark Sandalow, KRON/SF Chronicle Washington correspondent....
now if you want to tell us how great the Bastard Imbecile is doing
bwahahahahaahha
fried wingnut Ace?
Jexster,
Please explain why you believe the federal government should take my money to help Californians with their electric bill.
I'm all ears.
Ivo Daalder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said ''their inclination is to change foreign policy quite a bit.''
Lets see. We're at peace. Bush needs a war to save his sorry ass. Oh I get it!
Do you have any idea what this issue is about?
Bush to state: Fuck off.
Hee, hee, hee. I wonder who'll win that one.
Giggle.
I'm sure Bush is just a-tremblin' in his boots.
Californians apparently want power without power plants, and they furthermore have voted themselves a cap as to how much they'll pay for this "Magic Power."
But they're all so surprised that no Magic Power exists, especially not at the low prices they'll deign to pay.
Fuck 'em. It's their problem. It's a structural, permanent problem, not a man-made disaster. If they want to fix the problem, they have to do it themselves, not boo-hoo-hoo to President Bush (I LOVE writing that) about how much they have to pay for energy.
No. Since I'm talking to you, I didn't think that was necessary.
As to "All the GOP Republicans" writing a letter...
Giggle. OF COURSE they wrote a letter, idiot! Just like Iowa Dems & GOPers all vote for ethanol subsidies!
How much longer before the thread corrects itself?
Jex,
I do know that if Californians were willing to pay market prices for power, then they'd certainly get all the power they wanted from neighboring states.
like a leeetle girl
As for whether the Moron is quakin in his Tony Lamas, I don't think the Moron has a clue but he may when he loses another 4-5 House seats in the next election - unless Scalia can figure a way to pull the Imbecile's gonads out of the fire
Now you have a little more knowledge you gigglin little thing you
Jex to Ace: "Waaaah. Help me pay my electricity bill. I've voted all sorts of price-caps so that I don't have to pay market-price for it, while simultaneously voting for generator restrictions that make power cost more than my other law allows me to pay.
"So I'm now stuck with the (perfectly predictable) situation of a shortage.
"Since I don't want to pay more for electricity, and I don't want to change my laws which limit supply, I would like you to help pay my electric bills, by perhaps paying more for YOUR electricity in order to subsidize me. I will also accept a direct subsidy, taken straight from your taxes."
"Love, Jexster"
Ace's Response:
"Wow. That's a very compelling case. Certainly I *WANT* to give you some of my money, so that you can live richer while I live poorer, but let me weight the plusses and minuses.
"Hmmm. Although I'm very tempted, I must refuse your offer to allow me to give you money out of my pocket.
Sincerely,
Ace of Spades"
Jex's response:
"Please?"
Ace:
"Tempting. But, still, no, I'm afraid."
Jex,
You're saving electricity? Hee-hee. I'm wasting as much as I can. I have a fan blowing despite the fact that it's freezing out, and I have my refrigerator door open to cool my electric space heater (which is of course running as well, despite the fact that I have oil heat).
Oh, well. Such is life.
And I agree with Bush-- It's your mess. Deal with it. You fucked up; the country is not obliged to dig you out of your own hole.
I also like how Bush answered the question: SHort and to the point. While Ex-Impeached-Rapist President would talk and talk and talk for twenty minutes about the question, never quite saying he would help out or not, but simply summarizing both positions, giving both sides the belief and hope he would side with them, while just delaying and delaying on making an actual decision until the polls and focus groups told him what his "core beliefs" dictated...
Bush just said, "No." No jerking off one side so that they think he's going to help. No delegating the decision to his subordinates so that he could avoid the personal, political consequences himself.
He just said, "No."
What part of "No" don't you understand? The "Nnn" or the "Ohh"?
Cellar,
Such a pity you don't have the juice to run it.
Perhaps if you had a subsidy of some sort...?
The Leftist Paradox:
Execute killers & rapists? Hell no!
Execute law-abiding political opponents? Hell yeah!
This isn't true. I've said this before--the price caps were a requirement of the utility companies. They thought they were freezing prices at a high rate. Also, California consumers had nothing to do with deregulation, and were paying higher prices for energy without complaint.
I don't think the solution is to force companies to provide power without pay. I think the solution is for Davis to take back the power companies.
Again, this isn't true. I really should post my notes on the Great "Deregulation". It's a fabulous cluster fuck, but it wasn't the consumers fault.
And Ace, it is not just CA's problem; if this goes on much longer, it will constitute a problem for the industry in general, perhaps the national economy in general.
That doesn't mean he has to bail out California.
The ideal short-term solution is to put caps on all the markets. California will struggle along without power at times, which is a perfectly reasonable solution. Over the long haul, companies will start selling again. The bailout of PG&E should not be done--the investors can take the heat of the bankruptcy.
Of course, what is ironic is that Bush will instantly step in once investors start complaining, rather than California residents.
Cal,
You hang alot on this nonsense about california being "the world's seventh largest economy."
Who cares? New York is the world's twelfth largest economy. Are you gonna pay my oil bills?
Shame!
Is New York the 12th largest? Good for it. But didn't we bail out New York at one point? Or at least help it along?
Nonetheless, you seem to have missed the several times I said that the solution isn't for Bush to send money. I realize that this spoils your rant, but I don't think that's the right answer.
New York City, the world's largest and richest city, and the Capital of Capitalism -- the Big Enchilada, the Hamster that Pedals the Wheel of the World -- almost went bankrupt ten years ago.
The federal government didn't bail us out, and they were right not too. NYC's problems were of its own creation, and required belt-tightening and fiscal discipline, not subsidies. Subsidies only encourage a state or city to continue along with the same unstable, unsustainable problems in place.
You have a problem. You fix it. Do not ask me, via the federal government, for help.
If you have blackouts from time to time, so be it. Arkansas just had blackouts for three weeks straight, due to frozen power lines & transformers. They survived. So will you.
Please pay attention. You have thus far said any number of things that are untrue about the power situation and you don't know anything about it. And no one with sense is thinking that an emergency bailout will help out.
However, New York had troubles back in the 70s and I believe that there was help then?
It's still not as bad as California's. It's not that I think Bush should bail us out, but for him to shrug his shoulders is just stupid.
"Nonetheless, you seem to have missed the several times I said that the solution isn't for Bush to send money."
No, I think you suggested that the federal government impose caps on OTHER STATES' power prices, so that what california offers will be acceptable. Other states do not have a problem. Do not drag them into your mess, or force them to aid you.
This is just an indirect way to take from Peter to pay Paul. This is Hillary-Care type thinking-- we'll impose price controls & restrictions and such, and we'll pretend we're not imposing taxes and granting subsidies, by simply not doing it directly, though the net sum of our various indirect efforts achieves the same goal.
California will have power when it modifies its bad deregulation law. It will not have steady power until then.
No, you want him to pass an executive order directing other states to sell California enough power to keep her running.
If you want more power, pay more for it, and I promise you you will have so much power you don't know what to do with it all.
As for Bush "shrugging his shoulders" --
He has said that he believes there is a federal law or executive order forbidding power plants to operate at full capacity, which helps to limit supply. He has said he will examine the possibility of lifting that order, so long as its safe to do so, in order to help ease the supply problems.
Other than that, I can only say what he said: It's your problem, you fix it. You are not special, despite being the sixth largest economy in the world, and if no help is offered to you, you will fix things yourself quickly enough because you have to.
I suspect the real problem is that your governor is loathe to make a move which, while solving the problem, will be politically unpopular, such as simply allowing power costs to rise as high as the market will bear.
That, of course, would solve everything, because high prices would force conservation while simultaneously bringing lots of power from outside states.
Now, I realize that all good California Liberals don't want Grey Davis to do anything unpopular. However, I don't think GWB is obliged to help his chief rival in 2004 out of a political jam.
Do you?
Ford to NY: Drop Dead
No bail-out from the Feds.
One last note:
You say there are no price caps on power. I find this hard to believe. There are either direct price caps or some mechanism to indirectly cap prices.
I am fairly certain that if California customers could/would pay double what they're paying now, there are any number of New Mexico companies who would be delighted to sell their power at windfall prices.
So I supect there are either actual price caps or some law which prevents power companies from paying high prices for power and then reselling that expensive power at a profit.
mgleason:
Yes, I remember that headline.
Ford was right. New York City would have gone bankrupt... except that the possibility of bankruptcy forced it to reform.
There are only two possibilities:
1) The problem is technological-- California does not have adequate power line capacity to distribute power
I've never heard this suggested. Or:
2) The problem is legal/economic, and is rooted in a misguided attempt to avoid the consequences of the market.
Which you simply cannot do. You can try all you like. But the market always wins. If you refuse to pay market prices, you simply won't have adequate power sold to you.
What sort of sick masochistic urge must Califorlornians have to subject themselves to rolling blackouts?
Wrong again. Why not actually read what people say, rather than decide that everyone who disagrees with you is saying the same thing?
No, you want him to pass an executive order directing other states to sell California enough power to keep her running.
No, "I" don't.
If you want more power, pay more for it, and I promise you you will have so much power you don't know what to do with it all.
The problem is that the utility companies should pay for it, and they are refusing to. It was their poor business decisions. They are responsible for providing power, they committed to doing it, and they demanded price freezes. Their responsibility.
The problem is legal/economic, and is rooted in a misguided attempt to avoid the consequences of the market.
True. But it was the utility companies who did this. Therefore they should be the ones held responsible for their decision. It wasn't the state of California who insisted on price freezes.
I mean, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, etc., all presumably have surplus power at the moment. Washington, Oregon, and Idaho all have surplus power.
And all of these neighboring power systems are connected. Power can be quickly moved from one grid to another, at the speed of light.
So, you don't have enough power.
Other states have a surplus of power.
How on earth can it be that the surplus does not simply come to you, unless their is either a technological barrier (no connected power lines; alternately, that these six states combined don't have enough surplus power to meet California's shortfall) or market barrier (law forbids the purchase & sale of power above a certain price)?
I don't get it. You can say "it's a complicated problem" all you like.
But a state might not have enough bread, and that too might be because of "complicated problems." Nevertheless, if the price of bread is allowed to rise to $6.00 per loaf, that state will soon find itself awash in bread.
They lost and I don't shed any tears for them....
But this mess has moved well beyond the survival of the utilities. To date we've been living on surplus generated by interruptible customers, ie those who for a cut rate agree to up to 100 days of service interruptions....
The average now - 96.
Laugh.
Well, Cal, if you're saying "They should pay $6.00 per kw and sell it to me for $5.00 per kw," then hardy-har-har. They will simply go bankrupt. And you'll have really "shown them."
No one is required to sell to you for less than they've paid.
So here we go. It IS a market problem, and the problem IS that Californians refuse to pay market prices for their energy. You want the energy companies to sell to you at loss and then to eat those losses... indefinitely, for the foreseeable future and beyond.
It's only a Californian who could possibly think that this "system" can last more than a month.
Why would I stay in business if my business is losing money and will *always* lose money?
Do what you like. Refuse to pay market price for power, and your power companies will soon go bankrupt, to be taken over by the state, and then the taxpayers of California will simply pay for the continuing shortfall.
Which is fine by me.
But one thing I'm not doing-- and that's paying for your electricity. We have a housing crisis in NYC, and apartments' rents are stratospherically high.
The day you chip in on my rent is the day I'll subsidize your power.
The problem is bad business decisions by the utilities. There are three power markets--daily, hourly, and backup. They didn't sign long-term contracts to guarantee their ability to purchase daily power at a particular rate. This means that they have to purchase hourly and backup power, and when you need power in a hurry, the provider can price it as high as he likes. (and there is no price cap on the backup market).
Worse than that, many of the power companies that are providing power to the utilities are wholly owned subsidiaries of the utility companies. Which seems to me is a conflict of interest, but I haven't quite figured that part out.
In any event, it is the utility companies that are fucking up, here. They demanded the price freezes, they made the bad decisions, and as far as I'm concerned, they can go bankrupt.
Get this...they shut down their aluminum operations in the NW because they would make more money selling their power back...this even so they agreed to pay all workers 100% for staying home indefinitely...
Now who's pockets are being picked?
No. I'm not saying anything like that at all. As I said, bankrupt or not, I think the state should take control again.
But you are missing the point. They demanded the price freezes. Is that sinking in yet? Do you have that yet? They demanded the price freezes. Please acknowledge that and fit that into your world view.
And I don't know who you are talking to, but I'm not asking for your money. So kindly point that rebuttal at someone who is making the relevant demand.
IT DOESN'T MATTER. If Ford Motors fucks up so that their sedans cost "way too much," tough shit. You can either pay "way too much" or not have a Ford sedan.
It's your choice. I really don't care.
"Worse than that, many of the power companies that are providing power to the utilities are wholly owned subsidiaries of the utility companies. Which seems to me is a conflict of interest, but I haven't quite figured that part out."
Huh? Once again, if you were willing to pay more for power than these utility companies, or any companies, you'd have power. But you're not.
Which is your choice. But it ain't my problem, Sister.
"In any event, it is the utility companies that are fucking up, here. They demanded the price freezes, they made the bad decisions, and as far as I'm concerned, they can go bankrupt."
Good! They will go bankrupt. Companies that are forced to sell their products at less than the cost of production always do go bankrupt; it is a mathematical certainty.
When they all go bankrupt, the state can take over power production. Problem solved.
No, I get that. And now the price of power must be unfrozen.
You seem to be saying that they can't unfreeze their prices and charge you more. Which is fine. Because then they'll go bankrupt, and you'll have no power for a time, until the state gets things running again.
Sorry, but that sounds all wrong to me? Why would California utility companies 'demand price freezes'? Why wouldn't they, instead, set their price limits voluntarily?
Sorry, but that sounds all wrong to me. Why would California utility companies 'demand price freezes'? Why wouldn't they, instead, set their price limits voluntarily?
Exactly. I've been saying that for some 20 posts. I've never said it's your problem.
Once again, if you were willing to pay more for power than these utility companies, or any companies, you'd have power. But you're not.
No. WE CAN'T pay more. There are price freezes. Demanded by the utility companies.
Now, I don't think we should pay more now, either. But that's because the prices aren't high because of demand. The prices are high because the utility companies managed their business badly, and I think they should go bankrupt rather than be bailed out by making us pay higher rates.
Californians have always paid higher rates, and there is nothing wrong with paying higher rates if we have to. But right now, rates are somewhere around 10-20 times higher, not because of demand, but because the utility companies didn't bother writing contracts properly to guarantee a steady supply of power.
As a result, power generators are withholding power from the daily market in order to provide to the much more expensive hourly market and setting the price as high as they like.
This is not the consumer's fault, this is mismanagement by the utility companies.
Toss in the price freeze--which was their requirement--and they are now getting lousy interest rates to borrow money to pay. Also their fault.
The whole thing is their fault. It is not the consumer's fault. For once.
Concerned:
That sounds rather odd to me, too. I've never heard of a business demanding that the government freeze their prices at a certain level, never to be raised.
More likely, they AGREED to the price freezes in exchange for a provision they really DID "demand," such as the right to sell to out-of-state customers.
And from that, Cal gets "they demanded price freezes."
In any event, even if Cal is right, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who wanted the price freezes; frozen prices are acting as they always do-- that is, limiting the supply to the persons who will not pay above X for the product.
When you have price freezes, you have supply problems. This is life. This is a tradeoff.
Whoever "demanded" the price freeze, it is obvious that the price freeze must be undone. And then California will have to pay more for its power, but its supply problems will be over.
No. Why should it be? They demanded it, they said it was necessary to do business. Their contractual requirement. Fuck that noise, let them go down and the state can take over.
Because they were morons who thought that the prices would drop, of course. No one ever thought that prices would go up.
Yes YOU CAN pay more. You can pass a law undoing these price freezes.
"Now, I don't think we should pay more now, either."
Of course you don't. This is your problem.
"But that's because the prices aren't high because of demand."
Of course they are.
"The prices are high because the utility companies managed their business badly"
Which has decreased supply, which has increased demand. In any event, it doesn't matter once again. If Ford "fucks up" and only produces three SUV's next year, those SUV's will sell for very high prices, because demand is much, much higher than supply. That is Ford's fuck up, but you do not have a right to an SUV at last year's price. You will pay the market price, whether it's inflated due to "bad business decisions" or due to Arab sheiks cornering the market on SUV's.
"and I think they should go bankrupt rather than be bailed out by making us pay higher rates."
Of course. Which will happen. Once again, this is your decision. I have nothing to do with it, and neither does the federal government or President Bush. You can make whatever decision you like, but you will not have the consequences of your decision underwritten by this taxpayer.
Nevermind. I saw CG's 4224, but I still have trouble thinking that they would intentionally burn their bridges in such a blatant fashion, regardless of what they though of energy price trends. But, hey, it's California.
Yes, it can. They did so demand. No one thought prices would go up. They froze the prices because they thought they were guaranteeing themselves a huge profit to cover their stranded costs.
No, they aren't.
Which has decreased supply, which has increased demand.
No, this isn't true. It just decreased supply to the cheaper market, not supply overall. The supply was manipulated (legally) to only sell to the higher priced market. How? By withholding the power from the daily market.
This is either a market failure or it is a failure of the utilities to properly contract for power. In either event, it is not the responsibility of the consumer to pay for a utility companies bad management decisions.
Concerned:
I will sell you my motorcycle, but I DEMAND a price-freeze, and I will not allow you to pay more than $5000 for it.
Don't even try to get me to budge on that. $5000 is the most I am willing to accept.
Get the fuck out of here with your $6000. I spit on your extra $1000.
But it is not the responsibility of the consumer. Make it the taxpayer's problem.
Of course, as Gray Davis has warned, you piss off either the taxpayers or the consumers in California and they will come back with the initiative. Something I usually oppose mightily, but am delighted to see used as a threat in this case.
I wonder how large a part California regulatory and environmental legislation played in all of this foolishness.
Rolling blackouts for the next two years? Sweeeeet!
Cal,
The energy companies did not demand price freezes. Californians demanded set prices. The energy companies merely negotiated that price up the point where they thought it could be profitable.
So, now you're stuck.
I can only say it so many times: I don't care what you do. I don't care if you allow market-pricing or if you force the power companies into bankruptcy after a couple of years of supply-interruptions.
But you can only have your cake and eat it too if I give you some of my cake.
And you're not getting my cake.
Because I likes da cake.
No. I will sell you my motorcycle, but I DEMAND that I sell it to you for $65,000. No, I demand it. Yes, I know that motorcycles usually sell for $6,000. But I demand $65,000.
Oh, and by the way, everyone has to buy a motorcycle from me, or pay me $25,000 not to buy one.
But I forgot to sign a contract with my suppliers and they know that everyone has to buy a motorcycle from me, so they demand prices that increase the cost of a motorcycle to $65,000.
This is completely untrue. I am deadly serious.
More California logic for you.
It's not my responsibility as a consumer!!! It's my responsibility as a TAXPAYER!!!
Uhhhhhh... ummm... either way, it's coming out of your pocket.
My guess is that it will cost you less as a consumer. But if you want to do it through taxes & state debt which your kids will be paying off for years, fine by me.
None.
No, I'd rather it go to the state. Because the state will end up having to give some money to the bankrupt utility companies, but it won't be as much as they want, and it won't be as much as they would charge if they were just trying to make a profit.
Cal,
I repeat:
1) If you tell me again "the power companies fucked up," I will scream. Once again, it doesn't fucking matter if they fucked up. I am running out of analogies, but how about this: My local McDonald's fucked up and now burgers cost thirty-seven thousand dollars each. I have two options: Pay $37,000 for a burger or go hungry, wait a couple of years for a new franchise to open, and then eat burgers in 2003.
2) But in any event:
You can only have your cake and eat it too if I give you some of my cake.
And you're not getting my cake.
Because I likes da cake.
There's no point to discuss this further.
But you spent some 50 posts saying that the consumers demanded a price freeze and so it's their fault.
No, they didn't demand a price freeze. No, it's not their fault.
Now you are saying "So it's the utility companies that fucked up. So what?"
Well, for starters, you were fucking wrong. Now that doesn't mean that the feds should bail us out. It just means you shouldn't go around talking about things that you don't have a clue about.
Yes, it was AB1890. But check out the Slow Thread, where I've written up about it in more detail.
Cal,
Fucking PLEASE. Companies do NOT demand price freezes on their product!
What they may demand, or at least agree to, is a fixed price, which they claim they will honor both when the costs of production are low and when the costs of production are high.
When the costs of production are high, expect supply interruptions.
And no, I don't believe the power companies "demanded" a "price freeze." You can keep saying it, and I will keep on not believing you.
"We can't opt out of power."
Yes you can. In fact, California is doing that right now.
"We can't go to a new power company without paying a ton of money that the utility companies demanded."
So what? So it costs you more? Once again, how does this involve me or any non-Californians?
If it costs you more, so be it. You fucked up. You made an agreement with a company which is either a) incompetent or b) was constrained from operating profitably by restrictions you've placed on it and refuse to undo. Either way, your bad, and you will have learned a lesson.
Finally:
After whining that you can't pay more (your bold face) for three or four pages, you now admit that of course you COULD allow companies to charge more for electricity... you just don't want to, since "they fucked up" and it's "not your responsibility."
Well, whatever. I'm not the one with rolling blackouts. Do watcha wanna do. I'll just be sitting here with my windows open, letting electrically-produced heat spill out into the cold night.
Heating the world. With cheap electricity.
"Once the stranded costs were paid off, the utility company had to go to market rates, which was expected to give the consumer even more of a break."
Let them to market rates *now*. No wait, I remember: You don't want to let them do that, because *they* fucked up with their bad business practices and it's not *your* responsibility (at least not as a consumer). After declaring the system "fragmented, outdated, arcane and unjustifiably complex," the PUC voted in December 1995 to open the state's electricity industry to competition.
The commission's order resembled an agreement that Dunn had brokered three months earlier, largely behind closed doors, with Southern California Edison, its biggest industrial customers and an association of independent power producers. All parties pledged to support legislation that would create an independent power market.
The parties also agreed that the utilities could pass on an estimated $28 billion they spent investing in nuclear and alternative energy.
Consumer activists argued that many of those investments were the result of bad decisions by the utilities and should be absorbed by shareholders. But consumers were largely shut out of the negotiations.
........
The PUC decision alone could have dictated deregulation. But utilities wanted more certainty for California's $23-billion-a-year electricity industry than a regulatory order that could be changed by a new governor.
So in the summer of 1996, the Legislature intervened.
........
To make the change politically palatable to consumers, the lawmakers rolled back electricity rates by 10% for the 27 million people served by the three big utilities, and froze rates until March 31, 2002, or until the utilities paid off all of their past investments, whichever came first.
Cal,
That doesn't sound like "the power companies demanded a price freeze" to me.
That sounds like a legislatively-enacted price rollback.
...in exchange for other changes they wanted. Which is what I hypothesized the situation really was, lo, those five or six pages back.
Thank you mgleason.
This ain't nothin'. Wait till June. Low snow-pack, high temperatures,irrigation pumps, and Salmon salvation.
Poor people have no patience and nothing to lose. The troops are comprised of their children.
As the saying goes; we ain't seen nothing yet.
Good lord, I love being a conservative.
Why?
Because our surmises are always right.
I confess I didn't know the California situation very well. I admitted as much to Jexster.
But, being a conservative, I understand the relatively simple notion of supply and demand. So I know that if supply is interrupted, that's because price has been artificially fixed below market price. (Assuming no technological or geographical problems which prevent delivery.)
So Cal kept telling me I was wrong. Not really having read much about the situation, I was still fairly confident in responding: "No, you're wrong."
And looky-looky. I was right.
Not because I knew the "facts." But simply because I understood that if you have a shortage, you're not paying enough. If you were paying more, you'd have no shortage.
It's a simple rule. And it's always true.
"Low snow-pack, high temperatures,irrigation pumps, and Salmon salvation.
Poor people have no patience and nothing to lose. The troops are comprised of their children."
Hee, hee, hee.
Two funny things:
Lemwalker believes that "Salmon starvation" is dire enough a threat to be mentioned in the same breath as an armed revolution by the military & poor people combined.
Hah, hah. Excuse me, but, um, isn't one of slightly more import than the other? Not to a liberal, I guess.
And as to the second, the part about the Coming Revolution:
Well, you know, I've heard the Revolution was coming since 1967. And I wasn't even born then. And I say now what I've always said: Bring it on. We're better armed.
We won't be sticking daisies in any rifle-barrels, neither.
Viva la Contre-Resistance.
The military has executed a coup against the legitimate government, poor people are looting and beheading the wealthy, the country has broken up into small feudal liege-lands controled by warlords who have seized the local armories and Air Force bases...
...and even worse: The Salmon are starving.
The salmon are starving, the salmon are starving! Oh my!
Salmon salvation.
Ummm.
Rant over.
Although I have no idea what salmon salvation could possibly mean.
I am used to going without power. Damn trees blow across the lines or some fool takes out a pole. After a good wind the power can be out 3 or 4 days.
The point to the whole matter is what effect this fiasco has on society. I don't care who is at fault. That facts are a bit disconcerting.
Oh and fuck everybody east of the Rockies and south of the Columbia.
Here's an idiot who's lost power for a couple of hours and he's ready for some good lootin' and arson.
Real stable.
"Salmon are impacting our lives already."
Of course they do. I eat lox every Sunday.
But I'm just wondering what "Salmon salvation" is. Perhaps a failed flavor of Ben & Jerry's?
It is to far to drive to do any serious looting. Besides I don't need any stuff.
Ace if you think that a serious wobble in the worlds 6th largest economy, known colloquialy as California, is not going to have some impact on how far your window is open, you are mistaken.
"Ace if you think that a serious wobble in the worlds 6th largest economy, known colloquialy as California, is not going to have some impact on how far your window is open, you are mistaken."
Wow. The American can-do spirit is alive and well in California.
please save me from having to pay higher energy costs... sniff... or our economy will have a "wobble" and there'll be rioting and you'll see what happens to you... sniff...
Christ. What a bunch of punk-ass babies.
Deal with it. Take it up with your Governor.
And next time: Try voting Republican.
Ace: No. Since I'm talking to you, I didn't think that was necessary.
Bwahaha. Good stuff.
I have no idea what salmon salvation could possibly mean.
It's time to reimberse the fishing Indians for their loss of livelihood. Federal authorities are legally bound to override state and local jurisdictions to enforce the payment schedule. The Indians insist on being paid in live fish. You know how they are.
In the remarks, provided Monday to the Senate Judiciary Committee, then-Sen. Ashcroft said it was time to stop ``judicial tyranny'' on issues including school desegregation, abortion and affirmative action in education.
More
Bank on it.
By Steve Sailer
George W. Bush's strenuous efforts at "minority outreach" were rewarded by the lowest fraction of the black vote since Barry Goldwater. Depending on which exit poll you consult, Dubya carried between 8% and 10% of African-American voters. Since Election Day, the Democrats and the press have gleefully been asking Republicans: "How are you going to stop doing so shamefully badly among blacks?" For them, it's as much fun as asking: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Strikingly, Republicans seem to agree that there is something illegitimate about their victories unless a larger fraction of the "black community" gives its blessing. Consider the January 10th Wall Street Journal column hyping the Martin Luther King Day wingding at the Heritage Institute on "How the new administration can reach out to black America." Gerald F. Seib gave a revealing example of what he sees as the GOP's need to win more black votes:
"In three states --Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana -- more than half of Al Gore's total votes came from blacks. Yet he lost all three because the white vote went heavily for Mr. Bush."
Hmmhmmh … Maybe I'm missing something, Mr. Seib, but wouldn't the Republican sweep of those three states be a problem for Democrats, not Republicans?
...
Q. Which would have increased Bush's popular vote total more?
1. Tripling his share of the black vote from 10% to 30%.
2. Increasing his share of the white vote from 54% to merely 57%.
A. #2. This seemingly tiny gain among whites would have done Bush more good. Because African-Americans make up 10% of voters, tripling his share would have netted him 2.0 percentage points more votes. In contrast, whites cast 81% of the vote, so 3% of 81% would represent 2.43 percentage points more votes.
Second thing to remember: blacks have perfectly good reasons for voting Democratic. Republicans seem to assume that they could get their laissez-faire messages across to blacks if they just keep repeating it very loudly and slowly. The funniest example of this came from Seib's column. In it, he endorses a black Republican who suggested that "working-class minorities are deeply concerned about building retirement savings and passing on assets to their children, meaning that Bush appeals to eliminate the estate tax and reform Social Security should resonate with them."
"Eliminate the estate tax"?
Double Hmmhmmh …So, Mr. Seib, why exactly didn't Dubya's plan to eliminate the inheritance tax "resonate" with blacks on Nov. 7? Could it possibly be that African-Americans, on average, have a rational reason for voting for Democrats who want to keep the inheritance tax? Is it possible that on average blacks tend to have slightly smaller estates than the subscribers to the Wall Street Journal?
Third thing to remember: even though the reasons most blacks don't vote Republican are perfectly obvious, it is definitely worth investigating in detail why Dubya did worse than his GOP predecessors.
Republicans can't understand why this happened. After all, didn't Dubya outreach to minorities like crazy? For example,
o Didn't Dubya speak Spanish all the time?
o Didn't he boast about how many Mexican-American votes he got in Texas?
o Didn't he talk about how "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande"?
o Didn't he send his half-Mexican nephew George P. Bush out to campaign for him?
o Didn't "P" tell a Spanish-speaking audience at the Republican convention about how his Mexican-born mother, the wife of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, instilled in him the values of Cesar Chavez and "told me we have to fight for our race ..."
"Gosh," Republicans keep asking themselves, "How come African-Americans didn't appreciate all these pro-minority gestures?"
Well … because African-Americans aren't Mexicans. They aren't Central Americans. They aren't Cubans. And they sure aren't immigrants.
Blacks and Hispanics have radically different interests. Immigrants drive blacks out of blue-collar jobs and drive down wages in general. They are shoving blacks from political power across Southern California. Amusingly, Democratic Congressgorgon Maxine Waters now represents a district that has a Hispanic majority. African-Americans have been fleeing L.A. and Cuban-run Miami for black-run Atlanta.
Dubya chose first and foremost to pander to Hispanics, not blacks. In turn, African-Americans punished him for being biased toward their rivals. In the states where Dubya's Hispanic strategy worked best -- Florida and Texas -- his share of the black vote was abysmal. Here are the data from the Voter News Service exit polls:
[polls show that where Bush did well with Hispanics, he did abysmally with blacks, and where he did better-than-average among blacks, he did worse than average among hispanics--edited out.]
In other words, in Texas, where the Republican Party is reputed to be pro-Mexican, Dubya did only about 1/15th as well among blacks as among whites. But in California, where the GOP has a reputation as anti-Mexican, Dubya did almost a whole 1/4th as well among blacks as among whites.
So, here's the Republican dilemma regarding minorities:
· The only clear way for Republicans to do better with African-Americans is to campaign against Hispanic immigration.
· Dubya ran an almost state-of-the-art campaign of multiculturalist identity politics campaign aimed at Hispanics. Yet, he still did worse among Hispanics by pandering to them than Ronald Reagan did by talking to them about patriotism. Dubya's mediocre showing with Hispanics in Texas is just about all the GOP has to show for their minority outreach program.
Perhaps Mexican-Americans in the rest of the country will come to tolerate President Dubya to the same degree as those in Texas got along with Governor Dubya.
Mexican immigrants are increasingly coming from the impoverished South. So the future for the GOP looks bleak.
As we've seen since Nov. 7, the Republicans have gained next to no kudos from winning 35% of the Hispanic vote. And winning it cost them a sizable fraction of even the few black votes they'd normally get. In America's game of moral one-upmanship, Hispanic support is far less sexy than black support. (Although it's more glamorous than Asian support.) For better or worse, African-Americans remain lodged in the public imagination as America's "real minority."
In short, Dubya's "diversity" strategy has proven to be - at best - a zero sum game.
Steve Sailer is president of the Human Biodiversity Institute and Adjunct Fellow of the Hudson Institute.
Well, it's an interesting take, I thought.
Everyone has much smaller estates than Wall Street Journal subscribers, as a recent separated-twins study conclusively showed...
Stumbo:
But it does point out a bit of thick-headedness on the part of Republicans.
Republicans assume (or do we really?) that blacks just hate us because they perceive us as being "Racist," whatever that means anymore.
But that's only part of it. Maybe one half of it. Half of it is simply that blacks, as a group, want Affirmative Action and such. As there is simply no way conservatives (as a group) can ever chuck aside that principle, or fudge it successfully, perhaps blacks should simply be written off as a target demographic altogether.
Now, about that "Do we really?":
Republicans aren't ever going to get more than 15% of the black vote... least not until 15% of blacks are upper class.
But, as was pointed out during the campaign: But there is still an advantage to be seen courting black votes you'll never win... if only to mollify the liberal white soccer moms who believe everything Jesse Jackson says.
So, courting blacks may never result in many black votes, but it could result in a nice chunk of dopey "independent" white women swing voters.
Clinton Pardon of Tax Fugitive Stinks of Payoff
Among the list of Bill Clinton’s last-minute pardons is a notorious tax fugitive.
Marc Rich has been a fugitive from justice for almost two decades after getting caught cheating the IRS of more than $48 million in taxes.
Historically, presidential pardons have been granted to those who show just cause, or have earned, through public service, to have their guilt wiped clean.
Some are wondering why the golden gloves treatment for fugitive Rich.
The Rich pardon has ignited a strong response from New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who, as U.S. Attorney, prosecuted Rich.
Giuliani noted that Rich has done nothing to earn the relief of a pardon.
"He’s been living in luxury in Switzerland," Giuliani told the New York Post.
One obvious reason for the Clinton pardon may have been the fact that Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, is a mega-Democratic fund-raiser in New York, and helped Hillary’s Senate campaign.
Gossip columnist Neal Travis is also reporting in the Post that he hears that Rich "may have promised a huge and untraceable donation to Clinton’s grandiose and financially lagging presidential library in Little Rock."
Yawn.
Treason never prospers,
for if it prospers,
None dare call it treason.
Unpardonable
E-Mail This Article
WHAT CONCEIVABLE justification could there be for former president Clinton, on his last morning in office, to have pardoned fugitive financiers Marc Rich and Pincus Green? Indicted in 1983 in an oil trading scheme in which the government said it had been bilked of $50 million, the two fled to Switzerland, where they have ever since avoided trial. Their lawyers have argued that the charges against them were legally deficient and that the indictment would never have been brought today. Yet for nearly two decades, they have avoided making those arguments in court. Unlike most of those pardoned on Mr. Clinton's last day, Mssrs Rich and Green have never paid a fine, served a day in jail, disgorged a single dollar of allegedly ill-gotten gains or reimbursed U.S. taxpayers the money that is allegedly owed. On the contrary, while flouting the U.S. justice system in Swiss comfort, they have continued to amass enormous wealth, including in less-than-savory deals in post-Soviet Russia.
Mr. Rich's ex-wife in New York is a major donor to the Democratic Party. His lawyer, Jack Quinn, served as Mr. Clinton's White House counsel. For an ethical administration, neither would be a factor; we hope neither was. But Mr. Clinton has yet to offer any satisfactory explanation for an act that seems, on its face, indefensible.
We have long complained that the pardon power is underused. A president so inclined could do much good with it -- freeing low-level drug criminals serving excessively harsh sentences, for example. Many of the pardons and commutations Mr. Clinton issued on his way out the door were in that constructive spirit. Yet they will be overshadowed. Indeed, with his scandalous present to Mr. Rich, Mr. Clinton has diminished the integrity and grandeur of the pardon power just as surely as he diminished the various privileges he abused by invoking them to defend his tawdry conduct in office. What a way to leave.
-- Washington Post editorial staff
No, it wasn't a legislative rollback. The prices were deliberately maintained at a high rate--or what was expected to be a high rate. The state legislature wanted to let prices be market driven, not frozen. It was the utility companies that wanted the rates frozen. The utility companies won. In fact, they were paid for the rate cut through state bonds.
Also, it was the Republicans who did this, not the Democrats. It was a Republican controlled CPUC that mandated deregulation. It was a Republican controlled legislature that agreed to the price freeze rather than allowing prices to go to the market rate. Not that Democrats were guilt free, of course--they voted for the final bill. But it wasn't the Democrats who declared deregulation necessary, nor was it the state legislature that demanded it.
Read the article. It says that the legislature mandated a 10% price ROLLBACK from previous rates (which were higher) to make the entire deregulation package "politically palatable."
You have your "theories" and your "beliefs." On this topic, however, I'll take the word of the LA Times, thank you very much.
I've read far more articles than you have. The legislature mandated a 10% price rollback BEFORE the rates were frozen. The utilities wanted the prices frozen at the higher rate. The legislature said no, if you must freeze them, they have to be frozen at the lower rate.
Then they went and gave the fucking utility companies the money anyway in a bond.
None of what you have said has made sense from the start. Your position-- that the legislature and voters really wanted the power companies to charge as much as they'd like, as much as the market would bear, but the power companies -- giggle -- insisted on a price freeze at sub-market-price levels.
"Please, please, charge us more for power!"
"Absolutely not. I insist on a price freeze at x level. I refuse to charge you more, even if power costs me more than the price I'm selling it to you at."
"But then you'll eat the losses--"
"--WITH RELISH!!! Now begone. I will not hear another word on this. I will not charge you more than x. No matter how much you beg."
Uhhhhhhh... sure Cal. Is this the nonsense they're pedalling in San Francisco?
"I've read far more articles than you have."
As has been pointed out, chimpanzees can read, Cal. They just can't comprehend.
Of course.
"Not that Democrats were guilt free, of course--they voted for the final bill. But it wasn't the Democrats who declared deregulation necessary, nor was it the state legislature that demanded it."
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh... of course. All the Democrats did was vote in favor of the legislation. Oh, that's all these legislators did-- legislate in favor of deregulation. Ohhhh, I see.
See, that's all they did. All they did was vote for it.
I get it now.
It's not "my position". It is fact. Made utterly understandable if you realize that everyone expected rates to go down.
But they didn't have a parade. The bill got their votes but not their parade. And that's all it got.
The plan, requested by the California Public Utilities Commission, would freeze electric rates for the next five years, through 2001. After that it would let all customers, from large industrial plants to ordinary residential users, buy from the supplier of their choice at free market prices.
Based on current inflation projections, the rate freeze would gradually bring the real cost of power down about 15 percent by 2001 from today's average for all customers of 9.9 cents per kilowatt hour, which is nearly 40 percent above the national average.
PG&E said the plan will cost it about $3.7 billion, mainly because it will cut revenues from its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.
Please note the date. It's not some article written four years later summarizing it. This is at the time. PG&E (as well as the other two utility companies) demanded the rate freeze.
And then, please note the consumer organization reaction:
But Bob Finkelstein, a spokesman for Toward Utility Rate Normalization, said the plan might not be a good deal since it freezes rates that regulators would otherwise cut next year in response to the utility's falling costs.
See, the consumers opposed it. Why? For the same reason the utility companies wanted it--because everyone thought that prices would go down, and freezing the prices was meant to keep them artificially high.
Hey. You're saying that this problem was caused by Dems. It wasn't. It was caused by Republican free market fanatics (and I speak as someone who generally approves of the free market). No one thought it would hurt consumers, or they wouldn't have done it. But it was a Republican deal.
I'm not excusing the Dems at all--I'm just saying it wasn't their baby.
Please note mgleason's article, which states that the legislature insisted on the price freeze, not the power companies, in order to make deregulation "politically palatable."
I have no doubts that someone thought they could make money, even with a price freeze. Otherwise, they would not have agreed to the terms of the deal.
But the facts are:
--the legislature, not the power companies, insisted on capping the price the power co's could charge for electricity (a big DUHHHH! on that one);
--and the estimates were wrong-- California is in a power crunch. Thus, prices rise. And when prices are frozen, such that Californians will not pay the current market price for power, the power flows elsewhere, to customers who will pay market prices.
Lawmakers yesterday refused to back a multibillion-dollar plan by utilities, oil companies and steel plants to change the way electricity is sold because it contained no cut in residential rates.
The plan is the culmination of two years of wrangling between utilities and their largest customers over what will happen during the next five years as the state moves to an open marketplace for buyers of electricity.
``There is a limited degree of value for residential and small commercial ratepayers in this deal,'' said Senator Steve Peace, D- Chula Vista, admonishing a large audience of executives and lobbyists from Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison and some of California's biggest employers.
``Until you are able to embrace a proposal that brings a benefit to residential ratepayers in the form of an actual rate decrease, . . . we're not going to get to the other issues,'' he said.
The thinking was that rates would drop. The legislature thought they were limiting the amount of profit the utility companies would make by cutting the price freeze by 10%.
But if the utility companies had gotten everything they wanted, the prices would still be frozen--just 10% higher. Which wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
And, as I said, the 10% cut was paid for by the taxpayers anyway, in a bond.
sorry.
"Based on current inflation projections, the rate freeze would gradually bring the real cost of power down about 15 percent by 2001 from today's average for all customers of 9.9 cents per kilowatt hour, which is nearly 40 percent above the national average."
Good god! You're quoting material you don't even understand! This supports ME, not you!
Let me translate:
The price-freeze means that by 2001 (which is now), the real price of power charged to the customer will have DECLINED, due to inflation.
Not the COST of power to the producers, Cal. The PRICE of power to you, the customer.
So the price-freeze automatically drops the real cost to the customer in 2001, and will drop it further and further in 2002, as inflation makes each 1998 dollar worth less.
You froze prices. You are now suffering with the unavoidable consequences-- shortages, because not enough sellers are willing to sell you power at the price you're willing to pay.
Goodness god gracious almighty, this is simple, elemental stuff.
Not true. Why isn't this tracking? The freeze was demanded by the utility companies. The amount of the freeze was what the legislature insisted on. Then they turned around and gave it to the utility companies anyway.
Cal,
You're wrong. Please stop it already.
Every article you post shows you to be more wrong.
The price freeze was demanded by the utility companies. My lord, the headline says so. Are you even reading it? The utility companies thought the prices would drop.
"You're saying that this problem was caused by Dems. It wasn't. ... it was a Republican deal."
And "all the Democrats did was vote for it." Got ya the first time, Cal. All the Democrats did was vote for it, so they're not responsible. After all, what could they have done? Vote against it? Out of the question.
This is a very silly idea favored by many liberals here: When Democrats vote for something, they're not really voting for it, and cannot be held responsible for their votes. Hey, they're just stupid Democrats, after all.
"
``There is a limited degree of value for residential and small commercial ratepayers in this deal,'' said Senator Steve Peace, D- Chula Vista, admonishing a large audience of executives and lobbyists from Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison and some of California's biggest employers.
``Until you are able to embrace a proposal that brings a benefit to residential ratepayers in the form of an actual rate decrease, . . . we're not going to get to the other issues,'' he said."
Goo Christ almighty. Yeahp, it sure sounds like the utility companies are insisting on the price-freeze. It doesn't sound at ALL like the legislature is insisting on a price-freeze, in exchange for passage of the bill, which the utilities reluctantly accept.
Stuck With "Stranded Costs"
The utilities will pay off the stranded costs in a couple of different ways. First, there is the 10 percent rate reduction.
Doesn't sound like a way to pay off stranded costs, but it is. A group of state agencies are floating $7.4 billion in bonds and using the proceeds to pay off some of the Big Three's stranded costs.
Ratepayers will get a 10 percent reduction out of it because the utilities will charge ratepayers less since they have $7.4 billion less in stranded costs to pay off.
...
The rate freeze is important because it allows the utilities to keep rates at an artificially high level. Electricity generating costs are actually going down due to reduced natural gas prices, low inflation, the expiration of expensive power contracts and efficiencies at the utilities.
Thus the utilities, while collecting the same amount from ratepayers for the next four years, are expected to have lower costs. That means higher profits to recoup stranded costs.
Emphasis mine. The utility companies demanded the rate freeze. The legislature demanded that it be 10% lower than the utility companies wanted, then gave them the money to cover their losses.
Cal:
Perhaps you missed the import of THIS headline:
SACRAMENTO -- Electricity Deregulation Plan Draws Fire
Legislators demand residential rate cut
Legislators demand residential rate cut.
Which part of that don't you get?
I have said several times that I hold the legislature responsible, both parties. This is a clusterfuck, not a Republican attempt to ruin life for the poor. I only said that in response to your comment about "Vote Republican", since it was mandated by an entirely Republican public utilities board. Dems had no desire to deregulate. The legislature was just fucking stupid in not thinking it through.
Legislators demand residential rate cut.
Yes. The utilities demanded a price freeze. The legislature said that the freeze has to be lower. They didn't want the freeze.
The freeze was expected to delay lower rates for the consumer. The push was to reduce rates for the consumer. The price freeze was for the public utilities.
It is the price freeze that is causing the damn problem, Ace. Not the fact that it was frozen 10% lower--and as I said, they've already gotten that money back.
In other words, the public utilities said, "We want a guaranteed rate of 4 cents per kilowatt hour for the next four years. No going to market rate, because we won't get our money back."
The state legislature said "We'll give you a guaranteed rate of 3.6 cents per kilowatt hour for the next four years. Then we'll give you the .4 cents per kilowatt hour in one big chunk."
"I only said that in response to your comment about "Vote Republican","
I meant that as: Vote Republican if you want help from a Republican President. I do not care a whit about California politics.
"Dems had no desire to deregulate."
Except for that little matter of actually voting for deregulation.
What color are the skies in your world?
On to other business: Yes, I see now that the utilities wanted an artificially high market price for the first few years, because they were afraid of the immediate competition. You were right... sort of.
But they didn't want a "price freeze." They wanted an artificially high price, above market prices. As market price is now obviously higher than expected, the agreed-to price, which was intended to be ABOVE what the market would bear, is now apparently below what the market is bearing.
"But they didn't want a "price freeze.""
Let me clarify: Yes they did. They wanted a "price freeze" at above-market-prices, which isn't the normal sort of price freeze, but it is a price freeze.
Oh, okay. Never mind, then. I agree with that--Bush is thinking he's fucking us over for not voting for him. He'll change his tune as soon as PG&E investors start screeching.
Except for that little matter of actually voting for deregulation.
Sure. No one thought it would be a bad thing. It was a clusterfuck. My point was minor--it wasn't originated by them, it wasn't their idea, and it wasn't put in place to benefit the consumer. Neither party, Republican or Democrat, had any intention of this happening, and aren't happy that they have ended up screwing the consumer.
...but there are two elements of a price-freeze: The part that says you can't charge more and the part that says you won't be asked to charge less.
The power companies wanted the second part. You are now insisting on the first. And the first is what is causing your problems.
I was right ENTIRELY.
But they didn't want a "price freeze." They wanted an artificially high price, above market prices.
Fucking DUH. I've only been saying that for the past 50 posts. Check out how many times I used the word "artificial". 4294 for starters, but keep paging back and you'll see it used again and again. You just don't read, dammit--you just assume you know what people are saying, because you've got a canned bunch of responses ready for arguments that you want to take on.
As market price is now obviously higher than expected, the agreed-to price, which was intended to be ABOVE what the market would bear, is now apparently below what the market is bearing.
Oh, sez you. Just one problem. Read in my last link--the last paragraph. Here, I'll quote it for you.
But PG&E chief executive Gordon Smith notes that the utilities aren't home free.
``If this were a guarantee, I'd sleep better at night, but it's not,'' he said. ``We take the risk if our costs go up,'' he said, noting that PG&E's costs could go up if natural gas prices increased or if there were a drought, which would limit cheaper hydroelectric power.
Still, Smith admitted, ``At this time we think we have a reasonable opportunity to recapture stranded costs.''
It's called risk, baby. They figured prices would be so low that they would not only pay down their debt but be able to take a nifty big chunk of profit on top of that. But instead, rates went up. That was their risk.
Yes, cal, it's called "risk." And when you will not pay a supplier the costs of production, there comes a thing called "shortages," because suppliers are none to eager to sell at a loss.
"The moral: nothing that involves price controls should ever be referred to as "deregulation," regardless of which party's baby it is."
Indeed. Half assed partial deregulation is worse than none at all. At a minimum, it makes real deregulation look bad -- "Well, we'll never try that again!"
But the problem here, as ever, is fixed prices. California refuses to pay what is now fair-market-value for power, and they do so through law.
The utlities wanted PROTECTION for five years, not a price cap. They didn't WANT to be in this situation-- that part was the legislature's doing, surely, who demanded that if they agreed to a MINIMUM guaranteed price, they wanted the reciprocal guaranteed MAXIMUM price.
The utilities did not want a guaranteed maximum price, obviously. They agreed to a maximum price to get the minimum price.
Now, the maximum price is also the minimum price. But it's the maximum part of the price control -- the price cap -- that is causing shortages.
And I still think it's very funny that it's not your fault, even if you vote for it. If you're a Democrat, at least.
Not true. They wanted prices frozen. They just didn't anticipate that prices would go up. And, as you can see, at the time they acknowledged that this was a possibility and a risk. They're just backing off from it now.
Had they wanted a price basement, they should have said so. They didn't say so.
Now that you have finally allowed yourself to be educated on that bit, we can go onto the next:
The problem isn't inflated demand. In fact, Californians are using less power this year than last year.
The problem is the fucked up market and the utility companies incompetence in not ensuring they had long term contract.
God knows why, but they all decided to turn power purchases into a fucking stock market. There are markets: daily, hourly, and backup.
What is happening is that power companies are refusing to sell the utility companies power on the daily market to ensure that they run out of power. They are then jacking up the price on the hourly market because the utility companies are desperate for power and can't get it on the daily market. This causes their backup resources to run dry--and there is no price limit on the backup market.
So the power companies have an incentive not to sell on the daily market. This is, at the moment, entirely legal--because everyone was too fucking stupid to realize that this is what would happen. The utility companies never guaranteed a daily market by putting in long term contract.
The fact that there is a shortage is entirely manufactured by the market. It is every bit as artificial as the price freezes.
So half of it is incompetence and the other half of it is astonishing arrogance.
Gray Davis is trying to get the President to force power companies to sell to the utility companies even though they can't pay. This is fucking stupid. Any bailout that includes money to pay off the utility companies debt--equally fucking stupid.
They should have demanded it. But they didn't. What they demanded was a freeze. Because everyone thought the prices would go down.
And in fact, they would be going down were it not for the market. This is a market problem.
Stumbo,
No one is arguing that this is not actually true deregulation. That wasn't scheduled to start until 2002. This was the preliminary period that was supposed to cover the costs of the utilities. It was a joke--in fact, there is no reason why we should cover their costs. But that's what it is. The entire power exchange is a disaster--with or without price freezes.
But the problem is a market failure--or incompetence, depending on whether you think the problem is the utility companies incompetence in not getting contracts or the exchange's failure in not putting a penalty on hourly markets.
And I still think it's very funny that it's not your fault, even if you vote for it. If you're a Democrat, at least.
Sigh. My point was quite simple: the mandate to deregulate did not come from the Dems, and no one in the legislature had even considered it or wanted it--of either party.
It was the CPUC whose grand plan this was--not only the deregulation, but the ISO and the power exchange, which is the real source of the problem. As well as their willingness to give the utilities everything they wanted. And the CPUC was entirely Republican at this time. That's it. Full stop. Only point I was making. No one in the legislature gets a pass or a disproportionate amount of blame on partisan grounds.
Here's something to warm the cockles of your heart:
Global Warming Report
SHANGHAI, China (AP) - Global temperatures could rise by as much as 101/2 degrees over the next century, triggering droughts, floods and other disasters from shifts in weather patterns, a U.N. report said Monday.
The projected rise in average worldwide temperatures is sharply higher than the 21/2-51/2 degrees previously thought, said Robert T. Watson, chairman of the U.N.-affiliated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which organized the meeting in Shanghai.
The U.N. report, by scientists from 99 countries, said new evidence shows more clearly than ever that rising temperatures are the fault of industrial pollution, not changes in the sun or from other natural causes.
the 5% votes needed for federal funding.
Has Algore apologized to Nader yet?
Do you have a link?
AP's Shanghai bureau?
Bill Clinton can keep the piece of paper that calls him an Arkansas lawyer, but he gets an asterisk beside his name on the state's roll of lawyers to note a five-year suspension of his law license.
The suspension and a $25,000 fine mark the price Mr. Clinton will pay for giving misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual misconduct case. A deal was announced Friday to settle a disbarment attempt by the state Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct.
The committee sued last summer to strip Mr. Clinton of his law license, contending that he was unfit to practice because of intentionally misleading statements.
Mr. Clinton also spared himself a possible indictment by independent counsel Robert Ray by acknowledging for the first time that he had made false statements under oath about his relationship with the former White House intern.
Mr. Clinton has 30 days to comply with Arkansas rules for suspended lawyers, few of which apply to him.
I bet Bill is just devastated by this "punishment".
Probably Ken Starr is, too.
Regarding the California energy crisis -
An above-market-value price floor should promote a surplus of the demanded good. Utility companies had what, three or four years between the time that deregulation was passed and they actually realized that the price of power was going to exceed the fixed price? While they were reaping all these windfall prices from the artificially inflated price, why weren't they investing in infrastructure? There is obviously something about the utility industry which makes it less reflective to market forces than other areas.
Well, sure. I've started writing up the history of it in the Slow thread, btw.
In a new Field Poll, nearly 60 percent of residents accused energy companies of exaggerating the severity of power shortages as part of a ploy to raise their rates. About 60 percent also called California's partial move to deregulate its energy markets, which capped consumer rates but left wholesale power prices vulnerable to wild market swings, "fundamentally flawed."{thank you Pete Wilson!} W. Post
Deli in Hayward looked like somebody's sweet
grandma. But she came to pay her latest PG&E bill
--and unleashed a gusher of profanity in protest.
"I really didn't expect the f-word coming from her
mouth," said manager Shah Shaghasi, whose store
serves as a payment station for Pacific Gas &
Electric Co. "But when she said her utility bill had
gone from $50 to $120 a month, I understood
where she's coming from."
Across Northern California, people are opening
their latest utility bills with a sickening sense of
dread and paying them with a mix of resignation and
outrage.
Billing inquiries from irate customers are up 80
percent over last year at PG&E, whose customer
service reps are fielding about 1,000 calls a day,
said company spokeswoman Staci Homrig.
It's an ill wind...
Houston Chronicle--Enron Corp. reported record results Monday for the year 2000, with net income up 32 percent and revenues topping the $100 billion mark for the first time.
"This is the first time in the history of Houston that the city has had a $100 billion company," said Jeffrey Skilling, the Enron executive who will become chief executive officer on Feb. 12.
The surge in earnings and sales resulted primarily from a big jump in the amount of power and natural gas that was handled by the company's wholesale energy sales and trading business, as well as higher prices for those commodities.
In autumn, the Indians asked their Chief if the winter was going to be cold or not.
Not really knowing an answer, the chief replies that the winter was going to be cold and that the members of the village were to collect wood to be prepared.
Being a good leader, he then went in to town to a phone booth and called the National Weather Service and asked, "Is this winter to be cold?" The man on the phone responded, "This winter is going to be quite cold indeed."
So, the Chief went back to speed up his people to collect even more wood to be prepared.
A week later he called the National Weather Service again, "Is it still going to be a very cold winter?" "Yes," the man replied, "it's going to be a very cold winter."
So, the Chief goes back to his people and orders them to go and find every last scrap of wood they can find.
Two weeks later he calls the National Weather Service again: "Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very, very cold?"
"Absolutely" the weather man replies, "the Indians are collecting wood like crazy!"
Fine $ 25,000.
Honor and Legacy,Priceless.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Sen. Strom Thurmond (news - bio - voting
record) on Tuesday nominated his 28-year-old son, Strom Thurmond Jr., to be the top federal prosecutor in South Carolina.
The South Carolina Republican's recommendation of his son for U.S.
attorney was among six he made to President George W. Bush (news - web
sites).
The younger Thurmond is an assistant state prosecutor and a 1998 University of South Carolina law school graduate(!!!!!!)
Maybe they work for a living
JAH -
Well, I have a report that says that all the world's icecaps will be melted and the oceans will rise 280 feet by the year 2030. And I have another report that says that we are slipping into an ice age.
More seriously, that is just advertising for OWG by the UN by scaremongering about climate. They have got some grubby wacko in a lab coat and a computer with an inadequate climate modeling program working off of Doomsday scenario assumption. And, best of all, most of the world's pollution won't be curtailed appreciably with any of the plans on the table which won't apply to any of the emerging industrialized nations in Asia, South America and Africa anyway where 3/4 of the world's people live and most of the offending pollutants are generated.
What's with you Lefties and your fucking death wishes anyway? Perhaps Thurmond's son resulted from a youthful indiscretion of his. Maybe some DNC slime grubbers ought to look into it.
Republicans=Adults, Democrats=infantile weenies
But maybe there's a 75-year-old Strom Thurmond love child out there . . .
Unless you revise it to Republicans=Selfish Adults. Then it is BINGO.
Sr. may not be dead yet, but I do think it is wise to occasionally check and see if he really is being operated by remote control.
concerned:
Well, I have a report that says that all the world's icecaps will be melted and the oceans will rise 280 feet by the year 2030. And I have another report that says that we are slipping into an ice age.
Hey, I'll be dead by then anyhow so what the hell, right?
I was trying to make a funny, heh. 
Welcome Back, Jesse. We hardly missed ye.
I love the global warmistas.
When it's a mild, warm winter, they cite that as evidence of global warming.
When it's a cold, snowy winter, they cite that too as evidence of global warming.
Basically, whenever the winter doesn't remain within 3 degrees of the hundred year average, day in, day out, that's evidence of global warming.
Apparently we are to believe that variable weather -- cold winters, mild winters, mild summers, hot summers, rainy springs, clear springs, glorious autumns, gloomy autumns -- is a recent thing, and that only global warming has brought us any year-by-year variation whatsoever.
Before the industrial age, summers were exactly 75 degrees, day in, day out, and it rained precisely ten times for ten inches of precipitation. Before the industrial age, winters were exactly 35 degrees, day in, day out, and it snowed precisely seven times for three feet of total accumulation. (Don't ask how snow formed in super-freezing air; it just happened. Odin willed it to be, and it was.)
But now, everything is frighteningly off-kilter. Why, last summer was WARM! And this winter is COLD! And the year before that the summer was MILD, as was the WINTER! What could account for these bizarre changes?
Al Gore knows: Chlorofluorocarbons.
Ace:
Surely you don't think ALL this stuff being spewed into the air daily has no effect whatsoever?
"Surely you don't think ALL this stuff being spewed into the air daily has no effect whatsoever?"
There is no real evidence to suggest it does.
Do you think that all the people who smoke cigarettes are affecting the environment with smoke? Do you think that is changing weather patterns?
Of course not. There's just not enough cigarette smoke to affect the weather.
So the question is-- is there enough industrial pollution to affect the climate? Obviously, there's more pollution, but is there enough pollution to change the climate, or is the amount of pollution more like cigarette smoke, not enough to affect anything much?
Again, there's no evidence. Aside from lunatics who claim that a mild winter in 1999 is evidence of a global warming, and now that a cold winter is ALSO evidence of global warming.
They've got all their bases covered.
It's a bit like me proposing this hypothesis: If it rains, that's evidence Judith is an idiot.
If it doesn't rain, that's ALSO evidence that Judith is an idiot.
Pretty much my "evidence" will prove you an idiot come rain, come shine. Are you convinced by my theory?
No, but evidently some aroud here are.....
By the way, Ace, my last post was supposed to be humorous.
For a theory to be sound, it must be disprovable. That's one of the main planks of the scientific theory-- that there must be some way to disprove a theory. Otherwise, how do you know if it's right or wrong?
If the claim were simply that "If winters get more mild, then we're experiencing global warming," then we could disprove that-- either the winters will get mild, in which case perhaps we're faced with global warming, or they'll get colder, in which case we've disproven the theory.
But global warming isn't a scientific theory-- it's a religion. And like a religion, it covers all the bases such that it can never be disproven.
Religion says that all the goodness in the world is evidence of God. Religion ALSO says that all the evil in the world is evidence of God's absence from people's lives, which also proves the existance of God in a roundabout way, because people wouldn't be so evil if they didn't feel so separated from God, now would they?
Of course not. Case closed: God exists. If the world gets more "Good," then that proves god exists; if the world gets more Evil, that proves that God exists, and that God is ANGRY.
You can't prove this theory one way or the other. And that's the way it's meant to operate.
Similarly, Global Warmistas are adepts of the Church of Curiously Mild or Curiously Cold Winters. Too mild? Global warming. Too cold? Global warming. Just right? Global warming, but either a) El Nino b) Mount Pinitubo or c) the Kyoto Accords changed global warming's effects this year.
Uh oh...the news just said it's gonna rain tomorrow. Idiot time for Jude.
Rask,
I'd be mightilly curious how "anthropological evidence" can prove the existance of a phenomenon which has only existed (hypothetically) for the past hundred years.
And you *are* aware that the earth goes through periodic ice ages, correct? And that we are currently in a warming phase of a mild ice age, correct?
Now, how you can prove with perfect certainty that the "right temperature" for this point in the glaciation cycle is X but it is actually two degrees "too hot" with any degree of certainty -- based on "anthropological evidence" (!) -- is quite beyond me.
"We find no intact clothes on these bodies of Cro Magnon men. Ergo, they didn't wear clothes, because it was too hot. Ergo, it is actually colder now. Ergo, there must be global warming, because the fact that's has become colder actually proves that it has become much, much hotter."
1) average global temperatures will increase.
2) average temperature variation will increase.
3) Some regions may actually experience global cooling as global weather patterns change (imagine what a shift in the gulf stream would do to Britain).
These things are not contradictory. As such, a given cold winter *may* eventually help show a pattern of greater seasonal temperature variation even as average temperatures increase. Or it may eventually show a pattern that average temperatures are *not* increasing. You need a lot more data points to be sure.
Last year, or the year before, Al Gore visited a flood site, and declared, "This proves that global warming is happening."
I recall a moment in Ghostbusters, when the gang of academic parapsychologists encouter a six-foot-high stack of books.
"Obsessive ectoplasmic object-stacking," Ray Stantz observes. "A classic sign of a extradimensional visitation."
"Yes," Bill Murray deadpans. "No human being could have stacked books like this."
*Anthropogenic*, not anthropological - caused by human beings. I recommend looking unfamiliar words up in the dictionary before making a fool of yourself by misreading them.
"And you *are* aware that the earth goes through periodic ice ages,
correct? And that we are currently in a warming phase of a mild ice
age, correct?"
The first is well known, but I would like to see your evidence for the second. I suspect you are trying to bluff knowledge on this issue.
" Now, how you can prove with perfect certainty that the "right
temperature" for this point in the glaciation cycle is X but it is actually two degrees "too hot" with any degree of certainty -- based on "anthropological evidence" (!) -- is quite beyond me."
Perfect certainty is an impossible standard for any scientific theory. You should know better than this.
You can never be sure, because there is simultaneously an aeons-old process of warming going on, as part of the natural glaciation cycle.
If you prove it's warmer now than it was in 1500, what does that prove? Nothing. We already have a theory which predicts that it should be warmer now than it was in 1500.
Now, how much of that increase in temperature is due to the inter-glaciation warming effect, and how much is due to aerosole deodorants? What "data points" will clue you in one way or another?
Add to that that we've only kept weather records for 100 years, and before 20-30 years ago they were pretty spotty and they didn't have the cool infrared Doppler radar shit, and it's pretty clear to me, at least, that efforts to prove this dubious theory one way or another are doomed to be fruitless...
...unless, like a zealous religioso, you see "Evidence of God" everywhere you look... on every baby's face... in the colors of every rainbow... in the credits of Simon & Simon.
I saw a pretty good documentary which "proved" that the Sphinx was built by an unknown civilization, not the Egyptians, but an even more ancient race, ten thousand years before it was supposed to have been constructed.
The guy had numbers and graphs and everything.
Some other guy also proved that the ground etchings at Nazca are road-signs for extraterrestrials. I was pretty impressed by that guy, too.
"In the most forceful warning yet on the threat of global warming, an international panel of hundreds of scientists issued a report today predicting brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century because air pollution is causing surface temperatures to rise faster than anticipated."
And when Mars is in the House of Ares,
And the New King takes the throne of broken bones,
There shall come a time of mighty tribulations,
Floods, rains, storms, fire, betrayal, and War.
-- Nostradamus, Quatrain 103, Cycle 8
He was RIGHT, goddamnit! We've had all sorts of floods and Wars since then!
(Hey, I made that Nostradamus quatrain up. Whaddaya think?)
I knew it was something that began with a "c."
Rask,
I have no doubts that it's a "good thing" to reduce pollution.
But I simultaneously have no doubts that it's a "good thing" to use machinery to produce food so that the world doesn't starve, and that it's a "good thing" to burn fuel to get this food from the farms to the cities, and that it's a "good thing" to burn oil in the winters so we are not forced to migrate to the South every winter like nomadic Indians.
You're pissing up my leg and tellin' me it's rainin'... and that that rain is exhibiting greater "variability" than previous rains.
I should also note that I find the hundred year projection something of a cover-your-ass move. I can predict that Jesus Christ will return to the earth in 2070, and I'm pretty damn safe in that prediction, cause I'll be long dead by the time you figure out I was a charlatan.
But, let's stop and look at some facts here. The only time that the Gulf Stream at least largely stopped flowing since the glaciers began melting was during a period called the Younger Dryas about 9000 years ago. What happened is that huge lakes in Southern Canada and the North-Central United States, such as Lake Agassiz, probably an order of magnitude larger than the Great Lakes of today heretofore dammed up, found a path to the Atlantic Ocean through the St. Lawrence Seaway. The vast, sudden influx of fresh water diluted the cold salt-laden water of the Gulf Stream return path, interrupting this oceanic current for a few decades, upon which Western Europe became several degrees colder for a century or two.
Nothing comparable can happen today. Certainly not the relatively slow melting of the Greenland icecap (parts are actually thickening), the majority of which meltwater does not even flow into the sea anywhere close to where the Gulf Stream is.
I think the jury is still out as to how much of it is anthropogenic or natural. It's impossible to say whether we are on a natural cycle because the climate follows cycles within cycles. We may be only be approaching a local maximum, and temperatures may decline over the next 100 years. But you certainly can't deny the temperature increases of the past 100 years.
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/index.html
There are things that affect climate beyond just pollution. Deforestation reduces an important component of the readily exchanganble carbon sink (forests and soils). By deforestation I do not mean sustainable forestry practices which _may_ employ clearcuts and other forestry operations. Instead I am talking about non-sustainable practices such as the slash and burn methods used in the tropical rain forests.
Global warming is definitely a concern, the magnatude of our impact, however, is not well established. There is still a lot of conjecture out there being sold as fact... but I wouldn't blow off the issue outright.
I don't "blow the issue off." The claims are theoretically plausible. But there's no real evidence that what is theoretically plausible is actually happening.
iiibbb,
I can't say I find that chart particularly impressive. What are we to make of a +0.8 change in the long-term mean temperature over such a short period of time?
Something? Or nothing?
And most people know about the Vikings raising wheat in Greenland during the Medieval Warming Period when temperatures wee 1.5C higher than today. At the time, England was so warm that wine grapes were a major crop there. Now, many British people are reduced to masticating offal such as haggis in their reduced cold windswept environment.
I'm not necessarily refuting you Ace. The jury is out... I simply don't agree that you can just blow it off.
You can't ingore the trend. It's more than 0.8 degree, it's up about 1.2 degrees since the 1800's. This may not seem like much, but that is actually a big deal. We're only 2 degrees (4 deg C) warmer than the last Ice age. Single degree changes in annual mean temperature can result in big difference in climate.
http://www.dkrz.de/dkrz/broschuere-eng/research/iceage.html
I won't say whether the trend we're seeing is antropogenic or not. The world climate is an exceedingly complex thing to model.
I will say I don't agree with your position that the changes of the past 100 years mean nothing. I will agree with you that we can't necessarily enact a lot of bogus legislation to _try_ to affect something no one really understands.
Message # 4369
A lot of people just feel the need to do _something_. While this is understandable, and I agree that if we're changing the climate something should be done... I have to say I don't think people really know what "somethings" to do, why they would work, and how much of an impact on the trend they might have. I feel it's just as bad to do the wrong _somethings_ as to do nothing at all.
You call them "changes." They aren't necessarily "changes."
If I role a six-sided die ten thousand times, I guarantee you I will have a stretch of 100 rolls where the local average seems to rise from 3.3 to 3.7. This will look like an awfully big spike on a graph, and will look like an awfully big deviation from the long-term average of 3.5, and it will look like a scary trend which will certainly continue into the future.
You might even postulate that somewhere along the lines I began using a loaded die. That would explain the increasing average.
Another thing that would explain the increasing average is simple chance and expected deviation from the norm. A stretch of die-rolls might climb from 3.3 to 3.7, then "plummet" back to 3.3 over the next hundred rolls.
What does it mean?
Nothing. I was using the same die along. I didn't change the conditions of die-rolling. Nothing "changed." The local average just went up for a time, then it fell back down for a time.
And that means they know everything.
Don't you know?
Mind if I ignore you, Oh Empty Headed Sloganeering One?
cllrdr -
At least I form my own thoughts. I'm not dependent on others putting them ready-made into my head like you doctrinaire types.
The News Corp. cable network proves again that it's CNN's nemesis, particularly when it comes to covering Republicans.
by Tom Bierbaum
Cable viewers flocked to Fox News Channel to see George W. Bush sworn in as president, boosting that channel past CNN in inauguration Nielsens and giving Fox News its third-highest-rated day ever.
From 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday, Fox News averaged a 2.5 rating in homes that receive the service, to beat CNN's 2.0 and MSNBC's 1.6. CNN won in total households, with 1.6 million to Fox News' 1.42 million, but that's with CNN available in 80 million homes while Fox News currently reaches just 57 million. MSNBC's household average Saturday was 954,000.
It gets better and better. FoxNews is experiencing all-time highs in ratings, while CNN (and the nets, for that matter) are experiencing all-time lows. CNN is laying off oodles of staff, and internal memoranda warn of more bad news likely to come.
Meanwhile, O'Reilly (who's a jackass, but still) is now beating the once-untouchable Larry King with some consistency.
CNN only maintains its slight edge due to the much-greater number of homes it's available in. That will change, of course.
- 1/22/2001 09:00:51 PM
--Andrew Sullivan, who, resolutely, remains a homo
I'm flabbergasted. This is the third time I've posted articles about this outrage (once using the old "None dare call it treason" as bait), and yet none of our Stalwart Apologists have rushed forth to explain how important it was to give this white-collar thug and fugitive a pardon.
Geeze, I wonder why he was pardoned? Couldn't have been that $600,000. Nah. That's just crazy.
Liberals claim that it's important to ban such big donations to the parties because they corrupt the system, but then they claim that there's NO WAY the Clintons-- those paragons of rectitude! -- could be tempted by such a piddling amount.
It seems big money contributions only "corrupt" in the abstract. Never in a concrete, specific case-- especially not in the case of the Clintons.
Year to Year Ace I agree, a difference is no big deal. Perhaps "change" was the wrong word... I got tired of using "trend" maybe. If you look at the long term averages that's what's different. At present, we're only 4 degrees Celcius warmer than the ice age... 100 years ago we were only a little over 2 degrees Celcius warmer than the ice age.
Is it anthropogenic? Will it turn around on it's own? I admit no one really knows for sure. I'm only saying that according to the data we're warming up and my feeling is it isn't attributable to any _one_ thing.
said the Freeper.
"It gets better and better. FoxNews is experiencing all-time highs in ratings, while CNN (and the nets, for that matter) are experiencing all-time lows. CNN is laying off oodles of staff, and internal memoranda warn of more bad news likely to come."
Hey that Bill O'Reilley's SO much better than Walter Cronkite. Right Ace?
Those ratings only go to show that George W.Bush won the Presidency in the Greatest Landslide Victory This Country has Ever Known!
"If you look at the long term averages that's what's different."
I note something strange with the chart. From 1900 to 1940, when the world contained, what, only a billion or two persons at most, and only a small fraction of that population was industrialized, the world average temperature rose... the same amount as it rose from 1960 to 2000.
But from 1960 to the present, we've had three billion people becoming six billion people, and a much larger fraction of the world population has industrialized.
Nations that weren't far from the Iron Age (in terms of potential climactic impact) from 1900-1940 are now filled with factories and their streets are jammed with Hyundais.
This seems odd to me... we're going to claim that the spike from 1960-2000 was caused by human population growth, tree felling, and industrialization, but that the spike from 1900-1940 -- remember, a spike of the same magnitude -- was caused by similar forces?
A billion and a half persons (at most-- high end) from 1900-1940, with only a tiny fraction of that population burning coal and oil, produces the same magnitude of spike as 4-6 billion persons, one third to one half of which are pumping greenhouse gases into the air?
Were humans responsible for the climate change, we might expect *exponentially* or at least geometrically increasing temperatures as the number of persons, and the fraction of industrialized persons, grows ever bigger.
We should not expect an arithmetically/flat rate of increase.
And what accounts for the flat/declining temperatures between 1940 and 1960, when the world population was growing (as well as the fraction of industrialized persons) at equal/greater rates than the years before or after?
What accounts for the sharp decrease during the WWII & postwar years? Surely we can't claim that "bombs shut down all the factories."
So what we have is, yes, a rising line since about 1900, with a bit of flatness from 1940 to 1960, and then a rising line again.
And if you're going to say, "Well, natural/geoclimactic changes play a role, which might account for the inexplicably high 1900-1940 spike and the 1940-1960 flat patch," why can't you just then assume that these same inexplicable natural/geoclimactic forces are also responsible for the 1960-2000 spike?
Ace:
Just curious.
What percentage of the time do you think the most conservative position is the correct position?
"This seems odd to me... we're going to claim that the spike from 1960-2000 was caused by human population growth, tree felling, and industrialization, but that the spike from 1900-1940 -- remember, a spike of the same magnitude -- was caused by similar forces?"
You're attempting piece-wise connections. Like I said, you probably can't attribute it to one thing... it's probably a combination of natural and anthropogenic factors. I can't say what proportion.
Again, you're trying to piece-wise the effect. WW2 certainly isn't responsible for a slight decline. I don't think you can pick out a single event or single process and discern it's individual effect.
I don't think you can overlay population growth, or production, or industrialization, and warming and expect them to follow the same, or even similar shapes. I don't think you can 'expect' an geometric shape or an exponetial shape. To be in the position to 'expect' shapes would mean we know more about the system than we presently do.
There are a number of processes in nature that proceed very slowly until something changes (a trigger), and then there is a sudden shift in equilibrium. A change of a full degree in a century could certainly be argued to be on the 'sudden' side in geologic terms.
Other times we find that a system is highly buffered and quite resiliant to change. There are lots of theories out there that the deep oceans play a buffering role in sequestering carbon in the atmosphere and buffering the climate. However, even if the ocean does buffer CO2, we know that the rate at which CO2 is exchanged with more actively exchangeable pools is pretty slow. So maybe we're just exceeding our CO2 flux capacity.
It's all interesting stuff. I just don't know how anyone is going to be able to make policy decisions based on our current level of understanding of the processes.
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the
severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending.
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by
implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.
Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and
the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
"The insanity is over," Bush said. "After a long, dark night of peace and stability, the sun is finally rising again over America. We look forward to a bright new dawn not seen since the glory days of my dad."
The Onion
Cell one: AceofSpades sitting in front of his PC. Message pops up: "Submit new password."
Cell two: Ace types in "PENIS."
Cell three: Computer Message: "Your password isn't long enough!"
But much as Confederate sympathizers downplayed the role of racial strife in Southern history, it could not be kept off center stage. After all, if you believed the war was about a clash of cultures, or of economic systems, you still had to note the key difference between those systems—slavery. And if you argued that the war was about states' rights, you still had to identify those rights the Confederates were defending—the right to enslave African-Americans.
The notion that one could separate the goals of states' rights and of racial equality might make sense in the abstract (as Gale Norton apparently was trying to say), but in practice and in history it has had no real meaning. The position of blacks remained, as the political scientist V.O. Key noted, the South's overriding issue.
KEY, VALDIMER ORLANDO, JR. (1908-1963). V. O. Key, Jr., political scientist, was born on March 13, 1908, in Austin, Texas...He attended McMurry College for two years and then the University of Texas, where he received B.A. and M.A. degrees in 1929 and 1930; in 1934 he graduated from the University of Chicago with a Ph.D. in political science.... He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Key taught at the University of California, Los Angeles (1934-36), Johns Hopkins (1938-49), Yale (1949-51), and Harvard (after 1951); he served terms at the latter three schools as department chairman. In 1958 he was elected president of the American Political Science Association.....His Southern Politics in State and Nation (1949) won the Woodrow Wilson Award of the American Political Science Association.
Or you can listen to the Ace of Spades...UR choice
What global warming 'crisis'?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- I DON'T GET IT. I've been informed, repeatedly, that the scientific evidence of global warming is indisputable. And that no less indisputable is the evidence that this calamitous climate trend has been precipitated by human consumption of fossil fuels, which has increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.
Yet, hardly a fortnight passes, it seems, without some revelation that appears to this non-scientist to contradict the prevailing wisdom on global warming, that suggests to this skeptic that proposals to tax or regulate American families and business into lower energy use -- as some government scientists advocated back in November -- are unjustified.
Consider the recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climate Data Center. It notes that in 2000 the United States experienced its coldest November and December on record, with an average national temperature of 33.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
...
In November, scientists at Armagh Observatory in Ireland said that an analysis of climate records, culled from weather observations made almost daily since 1795, indicates that the sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries (NOT human consumption of fossil fuels). In December, a top Canadian scientist who has tracked global temperatures and greenhouse gases as far back as 500 million years, arrived at the same conclusion as the scientists at Armagh.
Carbon dioxide has been oversold as the chief cause of climate change, said Jan Veizer, selected by Canadian government science officials to study global warming. He attributes warming to fluctuations in the sun's intensity and other natural, rather than man-made, factors.
Like I say... no one knows for sure, and as a result there's still a lot of debate on what's really going on and why. A lousy time to make policy prescriptions. But, re:
"Yet, hardly a fortnight passes, it seems, without some revelation that appears to this non-scientist to contradict the prevailing wisdom on global warming, that suggests to this skeptic that proposals to tax or regulate American families and business into lower energy use -- "
I'd hardly use global warming as a principle argument for trying to get people to lower their energy consumption.
These are two points on a graph without any meaning in terms of global warming or cooling. Climate change is hardly linear, and requires even more data than that going back to 1795. I don't buy all the climate catastrophes predicted by the global warming advocates, and sun activity was one of the leading theories years ago when the issues of climate change were not politicized. That being said, the souther ozone hole is worrisome. Clearly there are significant anthropogenic events taking place in the atmosphere. What we don't know is where this all fits in the cycle and how it will effect it.
Ace:
4359. JudithAtHome - 1/23/01 5:15:54 PM
This is the last time I posted anything about global warming or your response to my posts about it.
Since that time, I have been out to eat at a great restaurant; we had a lovely salmon dinner with 4 of our friends; we had great wine and great conversation and fantastic food....I see you've manged to convince no one that global warming isn't taking place in that same amount of time.
Who do you think had a better evening?
PS: I also managed to stop off and buy an alarm clock at a trendy store...frivolous, I know, but utile all the same.
How you like me now, Bitches?
Not much more than a week ago, dweeb. 
It's just like your frat initiation, just raise your right hand and say "I do" whenever the other guy stops talking. Smile and wave when everybody claps. Got it?
Too cool...you must've been the one in the fur collar, jones! 
Probably you. Then again, you post here on weekends. I generally don't.
So who wins that?
The Clinton staffers took all the Ws off of keyboards on computers. Every single one--hid them all over the place. Right now it is impossible to type Dubya's middle initial.
Ari Fleischer said that his initial response was "Wow", but he had to shorten it to "o".
Lawyerin' Cuz: True, slavery was the South's catalyst, but one could as easily say the American colonies were just worried about taxes. At the heart of the matter for each was the belief that a distant government was exerting extra-legal and tyrannical power to bring about economic deprivation.
Here are the various declarations of succession. That of South Carolina and Georgia are the most erudite on these points, with Georgia's detailing the economic screwing the North had been giving the South for years, including re the territory acquired via the Mexican War. South Carolina's statement includes: We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the
two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and
we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third
fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in
every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual;
that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a
material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of
the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is
remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with
all its consequences.
Moreover, the CSA deliberately modeled its constitution on the U.S. because they saw theirs as being the true interpretation of the original and that the Northern states had trampled all over that. So naturally the two were similar, though the CSA re-emphasized the sovereign nature of the states. From Jefferson Davis's first inaugural speech:
With a Constitution differing only from that of our fathers in so far
as it is explanatory of their well-known intent, freed from sectional
conflicts, which have interfered with the pursuit of the general
welfare....We have changed the constituent parts, but not the system
of government. The Constitution framed by our fathers is that of
these Confederate States. In their exposition of it, and in the
judicial construction it has received, we have a light which reveals
its true meaning.
The Civil War was a fight over whether the central federal government or the individual state governments were going to have ultimate say-so. It just so happened the issue they wanted say-so over in this case was slavery, but states' right had been a struggle from the beginning (Articles of Confederation vs. Constitution, and the 10th amendment--which reserves powers to the states firstly and only secondly to the persons of the states) and had also almost led to succession on other occasions (including SC's doctrine of nullification).
Of course slavery had been the biggest divisor because of its regional nature. World history, however, shows that even without slavery the resolution of conflict between centralizing and decentralizing forces in a large nation often is a bloody one. We just dodged the most common cause of such conflagrations: religion.
No it wasn't. There were issues, such as labor regulation, where, even prior to the civil war, Northern states wanted states to have control, rather than the federal government. The Civil War was fought over whether slavery would be controlled by state or federal action.
There were issues, such as labor regulation, where, even prior to the civil war, Northern states wanted states to have control, rather than the federal government.
Yes, I seem to recall that there was even a minor secession movement among a few Northern states at one point, though I can't recall the specifics. But I hope you can see that there is no logical correlation between the statement above and the point you are trying to prove.
Moreover, if you had not snipped my next sentence, there would be little substantive difference from what I said, and what you said:
Me: "The Civil War was a fight over whether the central federal government or the individual state governments were going to have ultimate say-so. It just so happened the issue they wanted say-so over in this case was slavery."
You: "No it wasn't....The Civil War was fought over whether slavery would be controlled by state or federal action."
If you want to debate a significant difference between the two, enjoy yourself. However, if you see the causes of the war as strictly limited to slavery, you should read a little bit of what Lincoln had to say about it and which I alluded to in 4419. And I think you have more of an argument with JonesAtLaw, since he was the one who said:
While abolition was a factor in the northern equation, it was not the central issue for the north. It was whether the US Constition created a new nation or whether it was an extension of the Articles of Confederation between separate and sovereign States.
Either you misunderstood me or you have no idea what you are talking about. The South was not necessarily more "pro-states rights" than the North. The procedural notion of where power should be located in the federal system varied from issue to issue, from region to region - there are legal and political situations in which the North favored states rights rather than the South - labor regulation being the most obvious. The North wanted states to have the ability to regulate industrial activity, while the south wanted it to remain a federal issue.
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
The latter is most amusing: grumbling about the encroachment of the federal sector into such things as lighthouse construction and maintenance, and protecting nascent industry through tariffs, followed by scathing criticism of the federal sector for not being more intrusive and invasive in states' affairs when it came to pursuing fugitive slaves.
Not to perceive the centrality of slavery in the formation of the secessionist movement, and in the foundation of the Confederate States of America, borders on what the New Republic calls willful naivete.
I think it rather presumptive of you to 140 years later to ignore primary sources and say, "I know what you were really fighting about. You didn't." Read what the people at the time said and comment on it, rather than continuing to waste my time dealing with your assertions.
I would have thought the obvious logical fallacy in your 4420 didn't need spelling out, but that a hint was sufficent. The fact that northern states also had issues on which they were "pro states right" is immaterial.
You say the war was about slavery, correct? Well, if the implication (Union states would not have fought over states' rights) followed from your premise (because some had states' rights issues as well--then and in the past), obviously the war could not be over slavery either. Several Union states (as well as the District of Columbia) still had slavery when the war began and many others had slavery in their past.
Ergo, your logic is faulty.
In general, people don't go to wars of this magnitude over an abstract principle alone, but specific manifestations of it. Read the Declaration of Independence and see the laundry list of specific grievances the American colonies gave as well. When people protest nowadays they aren't motivated to defend the "right to privacy" but specifically the "right" to an abortion. Yet at the same time many people who defend abortion certainly never plan to have one and think it is a terrible thing.
What motivates these people often is the belief that a principle is at stake of whether the federal government can control an individual's body and "right to privacy." Similarly, although there had been many states' rights issues previously, slavery was the one which was polarizing enough to cause a war. That does not change the fact, however, that many who fought and who favored secession did so not out of love for slavery but because of a sense that the federal government was encroaching on the prerogatives of the states.
I'm content to stand by what I said earlier:
The Civil War was a fight over whether the central federal government or the individual state governments were going to have ultimate say-so. It just so happened the issue they wanted say-so over in this case was slavery, but states' right had been a struggle from the beginning (Articles of Confederation vs. Constitution, and the 10th amendment--which reserves powers to the states firstly and only secondly to the persons of the states) and had also almost led to succession on other occasions (including SC's doctrine of nullification).
um, folks, we have a War thread to talk about WWI & the Civil War and such ...
let's try and talk about current Politics here - even if there isn't a whole lot right now to discuss
Can you believe those staffers took the letters off all the keyboards?
Buncha petty criminals.
Heh.
well, whatta ya expect? they learned from the best
Nah! At least, not yet.
May not be as easy as it looks:
Dems Force Delay On Ashcroft Vote
WASHINGTON –– Democrats want written answers to at least 126 questions from attorney general nominee John Ashcroft before the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on recommending him to join President Bush's Cabinet.
The panel's top Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, notified Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, that he will make use of a rule enabling any senator to postpone voting for one week, Leahy's spokesman, David Carle, said Tuesday.
I don't know what happened to my italics....if you see them out there, let me know.
Oh, THERE they are!!
It's the curse of getting snippy with Pelle yesterday.
Sounds like a plan to me:
LINDA TRIPP MAY LEAVE AMERICA
Linda Tripp could land a senior-level government job in Germany, the EUROPEAN STARS AND STRIPES reported on Tuesday.
Tripp, who was fired Friday from her Pentagon job, is one of four candidates applying for the conference center deputy director post at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch, Germany, said center officials.
"She's being considered along with fellow candidates for the job," center Director Robert Kennedy told the publication. "I got a call from Ms. Tripp that she was applying, and she wanted to make sure the application was received and to find out where we were in the process."
The Marshall Center is a multinational institution which explores higher security and defense issues with officials from more than 44 countries.
This is also one of the most beautiful areas in Germany....
In other words, to put him on record re a number of issues.
First, the premise.
George W. Bush campaigned as a centrist. He said he was "a uniter, not a divider". He said that he was an expert at creating an environment of bipartisanship. He said that he would work closely with both parties. He said that he would bring all Americans together.
Now lets ignore, for a second, the question of whether people should believe campaign promises.
Since being elected, Bush has not been a centrist. He has chosen a polarizing cabinet. He has chosen conservative zealots for several key cabinet positions, including Attorney General. He has argued that the Federal budget should be used to hedge against a recession. He has formed a panel to review Clinton's executive orders to see which ones can be reversed.
Did George W. Bush lie when characterizing himself as a centrist?
Now the ethics question.
Assuming that you believe that Bush was dishonest during his capaign, is this lie worse than Clinton's lie, under oath, about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky?
janjon:
Oh, I know...I actually read the article before posting it. :-)
Fielding:
It's the Rosetta principle....it's okay to lie as long as you can blame it on a liberal. Al Gore made Budh do it...
jeez....BuSh.
Politicians lie? I am shocked, shocked. I would call President* Bush's cabinet choices fairly centrist, with the two--formerly three--exceptions that we all know.
Fielding:
All of Bush's cabinet picks thus far have breezed through the confirmation process, and Ashcroft's gauntlet is just that, as the final vote will show - or are you suggesting that Bush's picks must meet your definition of "centrist"?
joezan:
They've all breezed through because the Dems are trying to be Uniters.
Wait and see what happens on the judicial appointments, however.
Assuming that you believe that Bush was dishonest during his campaign, is this lie worse than Clinton's lie, under oath, about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky?
of course he was dishonest. no one really believed that gibberish - certainly not the 500,000 more people who voted Gore. those in the GOP knew the code words - witness the extremists who suddenly dropped out of the political spotlight when it was clear who would win the nomination. certainly no (well, many) non-GOP voters believed it.
so, if you tell and lie in the woods and no one believes you, does an angel gets his wings?
anyway, to equate that with lying under oath is silly, imho.
Ducks:
There are people out there who belived every thing GW promised in his campaign. They scare me but they're out there...
non-GOPers believed him (when they could understand him)? i find that hard to believe, outside of TX, of course heh.
joezan:
All of Bush's cabinet picks thus far have breezed through the confirmation process,
This is false. Some have. Ashcroft and Norton haven't. And then there is Chavez.
and Ashcroft's gauntlet is just that, as the final vote will show - or are you suggesting that Bush's picks must meet your definition of "centrist"?
Rather than attempt to discuss the question, you are attacking the questioner. My definition is irrelevent. Whether Ashcroft is confirmed or not, anyone but the most tendentious hack can see that he has extreme views for an AG, and views (on abortion, for example) that are sharply at odds with a large percentage of Americans. I'm not arguing whether he should be confirmed, I'm arguing that his nomination is at odds with the spirit of Bush's campaign statements.
The purpose of my post is to explore the general question of presidential honesty.
Ducks:
anyway, to equate that with lying under oath is silly, imho.
I didn't equate anything. I'm asking a question.
Looking at it another way (once again, subject to certain premises which people may not agree with):
Which is worse, a President lying under oath about sex, or a President lying about important policy issues, but not under oath.
We don't have to use Bush. Lets say it is Johnson lying about Vietnam casualties. Is this worse than lying under oath about sex?
Suits me, Ducky.
Can you believe those staffers took the letters off all the keyboards?
Buncha petty criminals.
Heh.
4433. rubberducky -1/24/01 2:31:38 PM
IJ:
well, whatta ya expect? they learned from the best
Actually, the worst. The WH Rapist.
LOL! That's a good one.
I didn't equate anything. I'm asking a question.
i, personally, think it is equating the 2 when you ask such a question, but i digress.
Which is worse, a President lying under oath about sex, or a President lying about important policy issues, but not under oath.
the leader of the country should always tell the truth under oath. breaking any law, for whatever reason, is a much more serious thing to do than merely lying in a campaign.
JJ:
I know you realize I was in sarcasm mode, right?
Whether Ashcroft is confirmed or not, anyone but the most tendentious hack can see that he has extreme views for an AG
Ashcroft's view can only be seen as extreme if you consider a very narrow spectrum of political thought. He is not nearly as far to the right as Maxine Waters is to the left.
and views (on abortion, for example) that are sharply at odds with a large percentage of Americans.
Most people in America agree with Ashcroft that abortion is wrong. They only differ in what the see the role of government is in protecting the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the mother.
This brings us to your question. Appointing Ashcroft does not violate his promise. He has appointed several centrists and I believe at least one liberal to cabinet. To live up to his promise he would have to include conservatives as well.
JJ:
Most people in America agree with Ashcroft that abortion is wrong. They only differ in what the see the role of government is in protecting the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the mother.
Talk about a narrow spectrum of thought...I think you might mean "some" rather than "most".
I was appalled.
I know that we can do better so I spent some time with one of the greatest polemic pissers of all times The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, VI Lenin
Let's try. Let's lift ourselves from the prissy pit of giggles. Let's reach for the heights.
We must do better! A sample from The Master:
So Ashcroft and Norton deserve to have their records lied about. Is that how you see it? Ashcroft deserves to be called a racist despite nominating 10 blacks to judicial posts in Missouri and for his support of 26 of 28 black nominate to Federal posts. I guess anyone who won't toe the Democratic line deserves to have their reputation destroyed through lies and distortion. Right?
Fielding:
With this:
This is false. Some have. Ashcroft and Norton haven't. And then there is Chavez...
...you are being at least as dishonest as you accuse Bush of being. I mentioned Ashcroft's gauntlet, which, though you acknowledged it in your next paragraph, you conveniently edited out of your first. Norton got the customary hard time, but was hardly Borked. Chavez never even made it to the confirmation process, and her views had absolutely nothing to do with the reason she withdrew.
Rather than attempt to discuss the question, you are attacking the questioner. My definition is irrelevent.
...????
Mighty thin skin there, Fielding.
And you do it so well.
I think you might mean "some" rather than "most".
No, I mean most. I surveys around 70% of the people say they believe that abortion is wrong and they would not condone it under most circumstances. A similar number of people however say that they believe it is a personal decision and do not believe the government should interfere. So what I said is true. The majority of people agree with Ashcroft that abortion is wrong. They just disagree on government's role.
His irrelevant twaddle is but another example of his penchant for sophistry, an example of either crass stupidity or very clumsy trickery
Still sounds like he were chewing rags in his sleep
narrow spectrum of political thought."
The beginnings of a new ad campaign?
"Ashcroft: He is no Hitler!"
"Ashcroft: Further to the center than Lavrenti Beria!"
Might work.
jex:
Put the thesaurus back on the shelf before someone gets hurt.
I dunno what Biener thinks extreme is ... the pissant has a higher John Birch Society rating that Jesse Helms for Chrissakes.
Anyway, I'm pleased...another week before the Judiciary Committee vote and the whole point of the exercise is to pin his ass to the wall and then call him back again and again and again
I am sick and tired of giggle ad nauseum
I will readily agree that whoever posted #4464 suffers from a mental disease. If you check, though, you will find that you posted #4464, not me.
I can't help it if your opinion is unsupported, ill-considered, ill-conceived and completely misguided. All I can do is provided you with the facts. What you choose to do with them is up to you.
Try ""Ashcroft: Further to the center than half the Democratic Congressional delegation!" and you would be closer to the truth.
...now, I know Fielding will want to come back with some nonsense about how, "well, the demos were sharpening their knives" for Chavez, and how she "would've gotten the same treatment as Ashcroft", for her views on immigration, minimum wage, etc.
But I hereby assert that the Demos, now and forever beholden to the new Ashcroft Rule - whereby one may not vote against confirmation of a minority, no matter how many they have voted to confirm in the past - would, in the end, have answered with a resounding, near-unanimous "Si", to Ms. Chavez's nomination.
You deserve the Order of the Fried Wingnut!
Is Ashcroft the acting AG before confimation?
JJ:
"Ashcroft's view can only be seen as extreme if you consider a very narrow spectrum of political thought. He is not nearly as far to the right as Maxine Waters is to the left."
On the issue of abortion, more Americans agree with Waters than Ashcroft.
"Most people in America agree with Ashcroft that abortion is wrong. They only differ in what the see the role of government is in protecting the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the mother."
Most people think bad breath is wrong. They are not looking to criminalize it.
Ashcroft believes that abortion is murder. Most Americans disagree. Accordingly, Bush has nominated a person who, on this important issue, has a "dividing", rather than "uniting" effect.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gale Norton, whose nomination by President Bush as interior secretary prompted sharp protest from environmentalists, received bipartisan endorsement today from a Senate committee. Barring any new, serious revelations, Norton's confirmation by the full Senate is all but assured. Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's ranking Democrat, acknowledged that ''many still harbor doubts'' about Norton's past criticism of the Endangered Species Act as well as her views on land stewardship.
Joe:
"...you are being at least as dishonest as you accuse Bush of being. I mentioned Ashcroft's gauntlet, which, though you acknowledged it in your next paragraph, you conveniently edited out of your first. Norton got the customary hard time, but was hardly Borked. Chavez never even made it to the confirmation process, and her views had absolutely nothing to do with the reason she withdrew."
You said all. I said not all. You were overstating, as you usually do, and I called you on it.
Eric Holder
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Senate has approved Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, giving him authority over issues from abortion to welfare. Republican and Democratic senators alike praised Thompson before voting 100-0 to confirm his nomination. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, complimented Thompson for reforms he initiated in Wisconsin to serve the disabled and elderly. He also singled out Thompson's Wisconsin Works initiative, the state's welfare reform program.
joe:
"...now, I know Fielding will want to come back with some nonsense about how, "well, the demos were sharpening their knives" for Chavez, and how she "would've gotten the same treatment as Ashcroft", for her views on immigration, minimum wage, etc."
Your hackdom is showing. I stated in this thread that I didn't think the allegations against Chavez were a big deal. Your inability to distinguish between someone like me (who agrees with you about 40% of the time) and someone like Jexster (who I also agree with about 40% of the time) demonstrates your lack of intellectual rigor.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sitting down for the first time at the White House with Democratic leaders, President Bush said today it's time ''to come together and get things done'' despite expectations of gridlock and acrimony in the nation's capital. The president also raised concerns about the economy in pushing for his $1.6 billion tax-cut plan. ''I look forward to explaining to any member that's concerned about tax relief and why ... I proposed it.''
Fielding:
I mentioned Ashcroft as the exception. And, as far as Norton is concerned, placed in the context of confirmation hearings of the last four or five administrations, she has indeed "breezed" through, as the WP article above affirms.
joe:
"But I hereby assert that the Demos, now and forever beholden to the new Ashcroft Rule - whereby one may not vote against confirmation of a minority, no matter how many they have voted to confirm in the past . . ."
The problem with Ashcroft is that he smeared White, not that he voted against him.
Joe:
"I mentioned Ashcroft as the exception. And, as far as Norton is concerned, placed in the context of confirmation hearings of the last four or five administrations, she has indeed "breezed" through, as the WP article above affirms."
You said "all". I corrected you. If you didn't mean all, you shouldn't have said it.
The New Republic
Ashcroft is truly a little man....
Fielding:
Speaking of hackdom....
Speaking out against a man's public record - in this case a judge who was well-known for his lenient views and treatment of cases - is not "smearing".
Demos do it all the time.
Funny, how only Demos see Ashcroft's actions as "misrepresenting".
Joe:
"Speaking out against a man's public record - in this case a judge who was well-known for his lenient views and treatment of cases -is not "smearing"."
White was not known foe his lenient views. From Anthony Lewis:
Senator Ashcroft said that Justice White had shown "a tremendous bent toward criminal activity," that he was "pro-criminal" and that he had a "poor record on the death penalty." Those statements were lies.
On the Missouri court, Justice White had voted to uphold the death penalty in 41 appeals. In 10 other cases he joined a majority of the court in reversing because of legal error. Judges who had been appointed by Mr. Ashcroft when he was governor of Missouri voted as often or more often to reverse death penalty judgments.
White's positions were typical of those appointed by Ashcroft. That is why calling him "pro-criminal" is a smear.
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Troubled telecommunications giant Lucent Technologies plans to cut about 10,000 jobs as part of an effort to reduce its annual costs by more than $2 billion after more than a year of increasingly severe financial and management problems. The job cuts, which represent nearly 8 percent of its worldwide work force of 125,000, were announced today as the company reported a $1.02 billion loss from continuing operations for its first fiscal quarter. Lucent was once part of AT&T Corp.
NEW YORK (AP) -- Less than a week after a major revamp at CNN, newly formed media giant AOL Time Warner Inc. is making sweeping job cuts that will result in an additional 2,000 positions being lost. The cuts, announced to employees yesterday, are affecting the company's music business, its America Online division, the Time Inc. magazine company and its movie studios. The cuts are part of an overall belt-tightening drive to make good on a promise to investors that the merger would deliver a major boost to earnings. Combined with the 400 positions eliminated last week at CNN, the total of 2,400 job reductions would represent about 3 percent of the company's work force of 85,000, company spokesman Ed Adler confirmed today.
Nasdaq Up 47; Dow Gains 16
NEW YORK (AP) -- Investors refrained from making any big commitments in the stock market today while they tried to discern a trend in earnings reports and the economy. Just before noon EST, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 15.86 at 10,665.67. Advancers led decliners on the New York Stock Exchange 1,407-1,182. The Nasdaq composite index was up 46.66 at 2,887.05.
There was a font error in my post.
The following paragraph was my words, not Lewis's.
"White's positions were typical of those appointed by Ashcroft. That is why calling him "pro-criminal" is a smear."
Colin Powell, Norman Mineta et al. 'polarizing'? Now, I've heard everything.
But here's the rub, Fielding. Underlying all the recent accusations of "smearing", is the fact that, when the White story first broke, what was asserted was that Ashcroft's refusal to confirm was based on race - this was put forth hand-in-hand with the BJU honorary degree story as back-up.
It was only after it was reported that he had actually voted over 95% for confirmation of Black appointees, that this new tack - that he was out to smear White - was taken.
But, you see, if one is to believe this, one must have a reason for this smear campaign to hang one's hat on.
What might that reason be, Fielding?
Why, in the liberal circular logic game, that reason is, of course, that White is Black. To wit:
But what about all the other Black nominees he voted for?
Well, Ashcroft's stated reasons for opposition to White run contrary to the facts (as we see them)...
...and, besides - there's the BJU thing.
Does anyone else get a distinct sense of deja vu in here?
by ANNIE HUANG
Associated Press Writer
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) -- President Bush should be glad to hear this bit of ancient Chinese wisdom: In the Year of the Snake, which begins Wednesday, it's good to be a dog.
The Year of the Snake, under the Chinese lunar calendar, is a time some soothsayers say brings upheaval, disasters and revolution.
But Bush, born in 1946 -- the Year of the Dog, according to the 12-symbol Chinese horoscope -- doesn't have to worry as much as others. The dog gets along with the snake.
Examining a picture of the president, Taipei astrologer Ni Su-chuan noted the firm and curved contour of the president's upper lip.
''At 54, his luck is determined by his lips, and his fortune thrives at this point,'' Ni said.
''His lips have nice contours, but not wide enough,'' she added, explaining that Bush may be good at continuing the policies of his predecessor but not broad-minded or bold enough in ushering in a new era.
The degree of faith in astrology and fortunetelling varies among Chinese communities in Asia. In China, the communist government banned astrology for years and belief in the ancient systems has greatly faded. However, the customs continue in Taiwan and Hong Kong, where people frequently consult fortunetellers before making important decisions.
The start of the lunar new year is the biggest holiday for Chinese -- about one-fifth of the world's population -- and most spent Wednesday feasting, showing off new clothes, praying in temples, playing mahjong and visiting friends and relatives.
Taiwanese astrologer Shao Chung-ling predicted this Year of the Snake, or ''little dragon,'' would be calm.
''You won't see major successes or failures in world events,'' Shao said. ''The year can't be too good or too bad.''
Those born under the symbol are supposed to be diplomatic, charming, deep-thinking and romantic, but they can also be stingy with money, vain and unfaithful in marriage.
Famous snakes include President Kennedy and Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Tse-tung -- both charismatic philanderers.
The two leaders of the world's largest Chinese states, Taiwan and China, should be worried about the upcoming year, according to Chinese astrology. Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian and Chinese President Jiang Zemin are both tigers -- bitter enemies of the snake.
China's anticipated entry into the World Trade Organization this year could shake up the giant communist nation's economy and bring instability. The country's secretive leadership is also gearing up for a transfer of power -- traditionally a time of infighting and maneuvering.
Put simply, and in terms that hopefully even the muddled author of the above can understand - BULLSHIT.
Check the surveys on abortion. The majority of Americans either believe abortion is murder or they are not sure. Only a minority believe that abortion is not murder.
Accordingly, Bush has nominated a person who, on this important issue, has a "dividing", rather than "uniting" effect.
Ashcroft has a no more "dividing" effect than Reno who believed abortion was not murder. No matter who Bush nominated, their view on abortion would only be supported by a minority of Americans. The idea that merely having differing opinions is somehow divisive seems to be a uniquely Democratic point of view.
We've just had 8 years of the snake. It is time we had a break.
4472. Raskolnikov - 1/24/01 5:34:55 PM
"Ashcroft's view can only be seen as extreme if you consider a very
narrow spectrum of political thought."
The beginnings of a new ad campaign?
"Ashcroft: He is no Hitler!"
"Ashcroft: Further to the center than Lavrenti Beria!"
Might work.
Hee, hee. This from the "man" who's always whining about me setting up straw-men and dismissing easy targets with glib attacks.
Do as we say, not as we do, Rask?
and the PigShit's just started! 
On the Indy/Dave M dispute:
Well, the Civil War was fought over two things, one abstract, one concrete.
The abstract issue: Northern "tyranny" and an overreaching federal government trampling on states' rights.
The concrete issue: Slavery.
Now, I have to say, I agree with Dave M here. Because no one fights wars over abstract issues. They fight over concrete issues.
Was states' rights an issue? Yes it was, but chiefly to the effect states' rights were a firewall against abolition.
Would someone fight a war over "states' rights" in the abstract? No. I'm sort of a fan of states' rights, but I must tell you, I am not ready to pick up a rifle over the matter.
This is sort of a case of speaking past each other, and both sides being "right" to some extent.
But not entirely. The Civil War *was* fought over slavery.
wiped out hundreds of vital overseas health programs, and made it very clear he fully intends to decimate as much of your right to choose as possible without being thrown too painfully into the fiery pits of sanctimonious political hell by intelligent and appalled women everywhere over his vapid gall and aww-shucks misogyny.
"I was mocking JJ's logic. I see no straw man."
Hee, hee, hee. And of course I'm never "mocking your logic" when I set up the "straw men" you whine about.
jexster:
Complete sentences: subject, predicate, theme, punctuation, rational thought...
set up the "straw men" you whine about."
Exactly. You instead mock logic that isn't being used by anyone.
And I would hardly call it whining when I point out that you are making shitty arguments.
Rask:
Clinton's first act in office: Allowing federal funds for international family planning which included abortion/abortion counselling
Bush's first act in office: Reversing Clinton's order allowing federal funds for international family planning which included abortion/abortion counselling
Now, please explain who's "extreme," and explain why Bush is "in an extremist hurry to act on abortion, despite not having a mandate" whereas Clinton wasn't in an "extremist hurry to act on abortion, despite ALSO not having a mandate."
This is what is called "a narrow band political thought." It's the thought of the feminized, soft, Northern liberal elite, knee-jerkedly calling any mild anti-abortion initiative "extreme."
Yea, jex.
While the majority of Americans do not agree with taxpayer-financed abortion in our own country, we should all just sit by while our money is spent aborting foreign babies.
"we should all just sit by while our money is spent aborting foreign babies."
Actually, I can sort of get behind such a distinction.
Is there any chance we can get a 100% abortion rate in France?
If you believe that killing babies is progress.
Go ahead - convince yourselves that there is a mandate to protect all those....babies.
2002 can't come fast enough.
(psst. - they aren't babies. They are fetuses.)
As far as Dave M., I invited him to actually make a distinction between what he was saying and what I was saying in post 4421, because I truly didn't see that much of a difference.
If anything, he seems more concerned with the idea that northern states were also motivated by states rights. I think it's because he likes to show he knows something about what's being discussed, whether it's a point of dispute or not, and the only way he knows how to do it is by emphasizing disagreement--even if it barely exists. But he ought to speak for himself.
To relate it to modern politics, of course who is in favor of states' rights depends on whose ax is being gored. Just look at what happened in Florida. Be that as it may, the Civil War was technically the federal government versus the seceded states--not the North versus the South. It's just on this occasion the northern states agreed with the exercise of federal power and the southern states did not.
HAHAHA!!!
"Moral Imperative"...hoo, boy!
Not only are we the world's police, according to jexster it is our "moral duty" to be the world's abortion broker.
I've heard it said that all Catholic men are anti-abortion - till they get their girlfriend pregnant.
What's jex's excuse?
I know. I saw where you said that.
I think you ARE saying what I said. But...
But you also kept seeming (to me, at least) to say the 100% accurate thing, but then sort of saying "But... but... but..." in order to disagree with DaveM.
Perhaps DaveM was saying something incorrect. I dunno; I don't read his posts. I gleaned his arguments from your responses thereto.
If abortion is poplular, you'll have no problem whatsoever getting pro-abortion laws passed by state legislatures, if/when Roe v. Wade is successfully challenged/repealed by Amendment.
And yet your ferocity over Roe -- not abortion rights, mind you; but ROE in particular -- suggests to me that you are fearful you wouldn't win in too many states.
If abortion is so damn "popular with the people," why are you so deathly afraid of letting the people vote on it?
It is a matter of choice and being for choice, regardless of one's own predilictions.
That I'll take to a vote. In most of the places I care about (I don't particularly like large expanses of grass or cows), I win.
jex:
Message # 4548 Thanks for that link...excellent.
janjon:
"It is a matter of choice and being for choice, regardless of one's own predilictions."
"Choice" is for wimps who need wiggle room and moral cover. I'm pro-abortion. And proud.
You are correct. Indeed, most mothers are pro-abortion.
As I stated in the comparison to abortion, I think a lot of the South's motivation was against being told what to do, regardless of slavery. Especially at a personal level. It's the natural orientation of the South and what creates the "redneck" stereotype.
For proof, look at the origins of SC's doctrine of nullification, which had nothing to do with slavery:
When Congress passed another, higher tariff in 1830, the South Carolina legislature declared it to be "null, void, and no law," and promised to secede from the Union if the federal government attempted to use force to collect the money. President Jackson declared that the Union could not be dissolved and threatened to use federal force. South Carolina raised a voluntary military force but backed off when Congress reduced the levy.
This paper talks a bit more about the struggle between the federal government and states over time and demonstrates this issue had on more than one occasion threatened the union with dissolution.
Civil War addressed two central issues: 1) the role of the federal government and 2) the nature of the union. Slavery accelerated tensions between nation centered and state-centered concept of the federal system. On the one hand, there were those who argued that the union was but a league of sovereign states and that each state had the power to nullify federal laws within its boundaries or ultimately secede from the union. On the other side were those who believed that the union was indestructible, created not by the states but by the people delegating to the states and the national government certain limited authority enunciated in the Constitution.
Natural gas prices that rise in a cold winter are acceptable; $10 a gallon for bottled water after a hurricane is not.
And one can sympathize with the many people in California who feel that what is happening to them falls on the wrong side of that line — that the Houston-based companies that helped sell naïve officials on the glories of a deregulated market are now saying: "Sorry, it hasn't worked out the way we promised, but tough luck — you'll pay the cost for our mistake, and we'll profit. And don't even think about alternatives — our friend the president won't let you try them."....
Houston, you have a problem.
Enron & Moron -Siamese Twins {Krugman}
Moral conundrum: Do we separate them knowing that one will live, the other die?
"And I think if you read Lincoln--who made it clear for the longest time that he wasn't fighting to end slavery--it's hard to draw that conclusion."
Yeah, but Lincoln didn't want to tell white Union soldiers that they were losing life & limbs for (sorry to put this indelicately) Nigger slaves.
And FDR never said we were fighting the Nazis to save the Jews, either. In fact, he indicated that was the furthest thing from his mind.
No one wants to fight for someone else. The cause must always be personal.
And no one especially wishes to fight for another race.
Ace:
"And FDR never said we were fighting the Nazis to save the Jews, either."
This is pretty stupid, even for you.
Fielding,
How is it "stupid"? Explain. FDR never made an issue of the Jews. Why not? Because far from being something which would excite the troops, he feared that the troops & public would be less than sanguine about fighting to save a group of people that many of them were prejudiced against.
bush, Smirk, George of the Bungle, Dubious, The Lyin' King, Boy George, Junior, Commander-in-Thief, Spurious George, George
W. Butcher, LoserBush, Dumbya, DUHbya, George Putsch, Scurrilous George, Bushwacker, Bush II, King George II, His Fraudulency, Bush Baby, Oaf of Office, Mini-Bush, "*", *, Mona Loser, Giggles the Clown, President Reject, UnPresident, Drinky McDumbass, Whoosh Bush, Prince Snippy, President Select, Duh?bya,Ersatz DumbShrub, Resident Putsch, President* Bush, Twiggy Bush, Resident Bush, StumbleYa, King George the Turd, Shrubus Illegitimus, Dubfus, Sniffy,?President?, Bushware 2.0, Bushbrat, "President", Beelzebush, The Son King, His Royal Fraudulency, Embarrassment-in-Chief, The Perp, Flubya, Our Beerless
Leader, Our Foundling Father, Quayle II, Duh President, [sic] Bush, DWIbya, Bushit, Bushwacker, Ambush, Bogus W. Potus, Rotus, George the Lesser, Hisillegitimacy, Humpty Dumbty, DoubleDay, Bush League, Great Pretender, Supreme Choice, G. Whizz George, Dead Brain Talking, D. Dubya I., The English Mauler, The English Patient, Our Encephalic Emperor, Pediatric President, Lyin' Scion, Pre$ident, Presidunce, Presidence, DoubleScrewed, Gridlock George, Your Accidency, George W. Gump, The Rain Man, Dubious Dubya, Smirky the Chimp, :Pretender-in-Thief, Poppy's Puppet ..
Ace:
"How is it "stupid"? Explain."
The US did not go to war to save the Jews. The US went to war because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
FDR had plenty of opportunities to help the Jews: by bombing Auschwitz, by accepting refugees, by choosing a different path into Europe, etc. He did none of these things, because saving the Jews was not the main reason he was fighting the war.
Didn't you go to high school?
Fielding,
I don't doubt that FDR mentioned the plight of European Jewry at several points during the war. But he didn't really make it center-stage, and I believe he specifically disavowed that he was "fighting the war to save the Jews."
WE DIDN'T FIGHT WORLD WAR II TO SAVE THE JEWS!!
Ask the next pregnant woman you see if she is carrying a baby or a fetus.
"The US went to war because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor."
And I guess we were trying to capture Tokyo by first taking the important Pacific Island called "Berlin."
Yes yes yes. We went to war because of Pearl Harbor. But in 1941-1942, the public was ferociously eager to kick Japanese ass, and not terribly interested in fighting the Nazis. FDR struggled to keep the focus of the war on Europe, rather than Japan.
And one card he didn't play to rally the troops: He didn't mention the Final Solution, which of course he knew about.
Why not tell the public about that, and get them riled up against the Nazis? Because he feared it wouldn't rile up the public.
Look, the point here is simply that you can't read much into Lincoln claiming the Civil War wasn't about Negroes. Fighting for someone else is a noble cause, and no one is interested in a noble cause. People will fight to protect themselves, so you tell them that the nation will crumble if they don't fight.
fetus."
This is why I am not as adamantly pro-choice as I was several years ago. Having gone through 1.8 pregnancies with my wife, the baby is most assuredly not an "it", as far as I am concerned.
It was certainly a consideration. Hitler was a threat because he had captured Europe. But he was a monster because of what he did to the Jews.
Kaiser Wilhelm invaded France, too. But that didn't make him a monster.
Rask:
Did you feel that way 6 months ago?
Ace:
The US didn't enter the war when Hitler invaded France.
If black turnout in the last election was motivated by fear of Dubya's policies, regardless of whether that fear was well-founded or the result of Democratic race-baiting, fear of Dubya's policies was still part of the reason for black turnout. Similarly with whatever Lincoln or FDR or Bush I says in spurring a nation to war.
(I think this is clear without elaborating, but if necessary, I can.)
No, but shortly after 1st trimester.
captured Europe. But he was a monster because of what he did to
the Jews. "
I am not aware that it was consideration at all. If you have actual evidence, please cite it. US apathy toward Jews is a very common criticism of US policy in WWII. Europe was a priority for strategic reasons. We were already helping Britain long before the final solution became evident.
Fielding,
Why did we fight in Europe at all, then? Hitler declared war on us, but he didn't attack us.
Why did most men & material go to fight the war in Europe, rather than the war in the Pacific?
Why did we fight in Europe at all, then? Hitler declared war on us, but he didn't attack us.
Maybe we got a small hint of what he could do from the other countries he'd invaded and taken over....ya' think?
Judith, Rask:
Japan committed worse travesties upon the populations it conquered. Except for Hitler's extermination of the Jews, many slavs, gypsies, etc.
But Hitler didn't treat most of the conquered poplulations too badly. Just those he considered subhuman.
Japan had a lot more widespread nastiness. They thought everyone around them was subhuman. Hitler (& the germans) also treated our POW's relatively well, with very few examples of abuse. Not so for Japan.
The point is, if you're saying Hitler was a threat because he conquered Europe, well Japan was a threat because it conquered Asia & the archipelagic Pacific.
If you're saying Hitler treated the poplulations he conquered poorly, well Japan treated its conquered poplulations worse. *Except*, of course, for the Final Solution.
So, you know, when you balance everything, it's the Final Solution which made Hitler a worse monster than Imperial Japan.
And you are basing this on which movies?
JAH:
Bataan Death March, Rape of Nanking, and Victory (the WWII POW soccer movie with Michael Caine and Sylvester Stallone).
Ahhhhh....well, just so long as they are accurate!
Have a nice evening, Ace....
People in the US weren't really made aware of the concentration and death camps until after Germany surrendered.
concerned:
I know. The question is, "Why didn't FDR make an issue of it, and shout it from the rooftops?" I mean, generally, if your opponents are committing heinous acts, you tell people about it. Sometimes you even invent heinous acts to get the public riled up.
Why so quiet on the Final Solution?
My argument -- or rather the argument of a well-respected WWII historian and professor I had in college -- was that FDR & his staff kept quiet about it because they didn't want to make the Jews the issue. They feared it would undermine the war effort rather than help it.
Remember, the nation wasn't eager to get into WWII. The last thing FDR needed was to have a populist demogogue claiming that FDR had gotten us into the war not to save America, but to save the Jews, who of course had all the money and ran the banks.
Benjamin Cheever writes in Salon about The Perils Of Prudery...
We've developed a system guaranteed to keep the most brilliant people out of public life. And now we're perfecting it, tightening the net.
.....................................
I find it hard to imagine the American public tolerating any of the great men of the past should they reappear, or should others like them surface. There's a lot of moaning about the good old days and how we don't have any heroes anymore. What we mean to say is that we don't have any Disney heroes anymore.
"Ashcroft foes are making an issue of Hormel's
nomination, which stalled amid opposition from
conservative Senate Republicans for nearly two years.
Ashcroft, a former Missouri governor, testified last
week that he had known Hormel for some time and
opposed him ``based on the totality of the record.''
That assertion is disputed by critics including Sen.
Dianne Feinstein (news - bio - voting record),
D-Calif., who dusted off 1998 news accounts that
quoted Ashcroft, then a Foreign Relations Committee
member, as objecting to Hormel's ``gay lifestyle.''
Feinstein declared Wednesday she will vote against
Ashcroft. She made the announcement during a Senate
Judiciary Committee meeting called with the intention
of voting on Ashcroft's nomination. The action was
delayed by the panel's top Democrat, Patrick Leahy of
Vermont, who used a committee rule to postpone the
vote until next week." 
If the Senator’s own standard is applied to this nomination, he would not be confirmed.
The man is a cowardly duplicitous SOB...a very very little man, a man with no balls, in a word - a wignut
Go here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment012401e.shtml
It's either a) pure nonsense, b) a reasonable speculation but wholly unsupported by the data or c) probably occurring but on such a slow pace that the earth will warm by only a single degree C by the year 2100.
Porn bombs, destruction of office equipment, lewd messages. Guess that's what happens when you have a treasonous rapist crook for president with druggie help.
ALEXANDRIA, Jan. 24 /U.S. Newswire/ The following was released today by the National Taxpayers Union:
While critics continue to describe George W. Bush's tax relief plan as "too radical" or "too big," a historical comparison of economic data released today by the 300,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU) draws the opposite conclusion. By virtually any fiscal measure, the Bush package is more moderate than the sweeping tax reductions proposed by either Democrat President John F. Kennedy or Republican Ronald Reagan.
"The real 'moderates' in this year's debate over how deeply to cut taxes are George W. Bush and his tax cut plan, not his shrill critics who fail to appreciate fiscal history," said NTU Director of Congressional Relations and study author Eric V. Schlecht. "The facts show that John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both cut taxes deeper than Bush now proposes to do."
Among the findings:
-- As a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP-the nation's economic output), Bush's plan would reduce taxes by an annual average of 1.2 percent over the next decade. In contrast, John F. Kennedy proposed to slash taxes by 2.0 percent of GDP, and Ronald Reagan by 3.3 percent.
-- In 1981, liberal Democrat House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill offered what he called a "fiscally responsible" alternative to Ronald Reagan's plan that reduced taxes by $237.4 billion per year (on an inflation-adjusted basis). George W. Bush proposes an annual tax reduction of just $160.0 billion.
"Promoting a plan that would give families relief from postwar record tax burdens and help boost an ailing economy hardly seems irresponsible," Schlecht concluded. "If anything, George W. Bush's detractors -- through the use of uninformed and wildly-inflated rhetoric -- are the ones behaving like extremists."
Note well, Lefties: On an adjusted basis, George W. Bush's tax cut is much smaller than Kennedy's.
So, one of you going to be the first to step up and call JFK a tax axing madman?
Didn't think so.
And you are basing this on which movies?
Very nice, J.
If Milton Friedman weren't still alive, he'd be
spinning in his grave. His legacy has been
betrayed — not by big-government liberals,
but by the conservatives about to take power.
It seems that the incoming administration
regards it as perfectly acceptable to say
things that are demonstrably untrue,
and even to abandon conservative
economic principles, if by so doing
it can sell its preferred policy.
Getting Fiscal
a remarkable display of bogus economic analysis
I wanna get fiscal, fiscal...
lemme hear your body talk....
Jexster (Moron),
How many times will you quote & link to that same old Paul "Liberal" Krugman article?
This is what, the fifth or sixth time, right?
You really ought to be banned. You are nothing more than an obnoxious pest, spamming the threads with the same crap and same one-sentence insults.
PS:
I didn't even have to click your link to realize that was the Krugman article you're so fond of. You've posted it so many times I have it memorized, and I instantly recognize the key tropes of "Milton Friedman spinning in grave" and "saying things that are untrue."
Lunatic jackass spam artist.
Enriched by a market in which crude oil is selling for $30 a barrel, compared to the $11 doldrums of 1998, Chevron Corp. reported today that fourth-quarter earnings increased 88 percent...
Reasonable to infer you have nothing to say....
Yo Ace let's go to the Man thread...
Lemme hear yo bod-ay talk, yo bod-ay talk....
1) Europe was of much more critical interest to the US than Asia was (not because of what they were doing to their conquered subjects, but for security and economic reasons), and Germany was a more significant threat. You seem to mistake WWII for Kosovo.
2) Leave it to you to go to National Review for your global warming information.
Calling Krugman a liberal is a sure sign of hackdom.
"obviously you do not wish to join in a substantive debate no matter how many times I try to rattle your cage..."
Jexster, your are not engaging, and have never engaged, in substantive debate.
Simply posting another person's opinion is not arguing. Or rather, it's fallacious arguing, arguing by authority.
You can post Krugman. I can post Friedman. We can keep going back and forth, posting a quote from Krugman in response to a quote from Friedman. We can keep posting the exact SAME quotes, over and over again, if you like.
But that's not "argument." That's merely spamming.
You do not post your ideas or your arguments. You have none. Rather, you simply spam the threads with pieces of op-ed columns you like.
THis is not "substance." This is merely repetition and tedium. You are truly a moron, which is why no one pays attention to you.
"Leave it to you to go to National Review for your global warming information."
Hilarious, Rask. Simply hilarious.
You and Jade have in common that you only accept as "legitimate" those organs/propaganda outfits which repeat to you that which you already believe is true.
When someone NOT associated with the Sierra Club disputes your propaganda, you simply dismiss it: "Well, you can't take their word for it. After all, they disagree with me."
Another frigging idiot.
1) Europe was of much more critical interest to the US than Asia was (not because of what they were doing to their conquered subjects, but for security and economic reasons), and Germany was a more significant threat. You seem to mistake WWII for Kosovo.
2) Leave it to you to go to National Review for your global warming information.
I was tempted, of course, to dismiss your "facts" as being the opinions of global warming activists. After all, they DISAGREE with me; ergo, they're wrong.
To my credit, I checked this knee-jerk impulse. I did not simply dismiss your "facts" as untrue simply because they come from an interested advocacy party.
But you, on the other hand, apparently have never been told about the twin fallacies of "arguing by authority" and "ad hominem attacks."
You are in a great position... your opinions will never change, because you discount all contrary opinions as being invalid, simply BECAUSE they're contrary opinions.
You're all set. Since only opinions which are harmonious with your own can ever be valid, or even worth considering, I'd say that your stunted little intellectual world shall survive undented by a single instance of self-questioning until the day you die.
Congrats. Nice talking to you.
You lie. Name once that I have used a link to a liberal propaganda organization in a supporting argument.
Instead, I find it amusing that instead of looking for scientific source of information, you go straight to a conservative mouthpiece.
Rask: "Look at all these 'experts' who agree with me."
Ace: "They're interested advocates, and they've gotten into this field *BECAUSE* they were, ab initio, interested in global warming and believed a priori in its existance."
Rask: "No. THey're 'experts.' They are therefore right.'
Ace: "Okay, here are some climatology experts cited in the National Review who dispute you."
Rask: "You can't trust them. They don't believe in global warming."
Ace: "That's the point."
Rask: "But consider the source. They don't believe in global warming, so of course they don't believe it's happening. You can't trust such people. In order to determine if global warming exists, you can only ask people who believe in global warming."
Ace: "That's ludicrous."
Rask: "They're experts. Did I mention that?"
"Instead, I find it amusing that instead of looking for scientific source of information, you go straight to a conservative mouthpiece."
Perhaps you didn't read the quotations from climatologists in the article.
You are perhaps claiming that you yourself read original scientific studies on global warming -- peer-reviewed source articles -- rather than less scholarly works which merely digest the real science for a lay audience.
If so, you're lying, pure and simple.
The trash you read consists of very little other than the digested, conclusory opinions of scientists, without the actual foundational data which is really relevant.
You, in other words, read the OPINIONS of scientists. Their conclusions. Not their data, nor their methodology, and surely not their actual scientific-journal articles.
Yet, you claim the scientists quoted in Nation Review are "from a conservative mouthpiece." Oh? You know the politics of the scientists quoted therein?
Opinion of a scientist quoted by Rask: a "fact" by an "expert"
Opinion of a scientist quoted by National Review: the hackwork of a "conservative mouthpiece
The scientists quoted in the NR piece MUST be wrong, right Rask ? After all, they disagree with the liberal tree0-huggers you favor?
That proves the NR scientists are wrong. And that they're conservative mouthpieces. If they weren't conservative mouthpieces, they wouldn't be attacking the global warming theory.
Rask,
I don't claim anything, except that you're an ignorant, self-satisfied little intellectual poseur who's fond of pointing out "logical fallacies" in others that you happily engage in yourself.
And then you spin the "distinctions" like there's no tomorrow.
Quote me these scientific sources you're so conversant in. I'm sure you have an entire bookshelf full of original monographs on the subject.
Just start rattling off the titles of these "scientific sources" you're so familiar with. The way you speak, I'm sure you have the significant data all memorized.
I have read many such articles, in addition to articles written for lay audiences by non-partisan scientific organizations.
"If so, you're lying, pure and simple."
Why on earth would assume that? I took several environmental policy courses in grad school, where peer reviewed scientific papers on global warming were required reading. You make it sound like this is unusual.
"Yet, you claim the scientists quoted in Nation Review are "from a conservative mouthpiece." Oh? You know the politics of the scientists quoted therein?"
No, I said the National Review was a conservative mouthpiece, not the scientists. I question why you would go there to look for objective information on global warming, unless you weren't at all interested in objective information.
Who is going to pay for these pranks?
As I said, these were back in Grad School, 6 years ago. I only kept the textbooks, one of which was from Scientific American.
Rask:
I'm waiting. Please dig into your library of scientific monographs and let me know which ones constitute your current bedtime reading.
By the way-- You can also forward me the results from your basement climatology laboratories.
Me? I don't have a climatology lab in my basement, so I have to rely on the conclusions of experts in the field, which I confess I am not particularly capable of evaluating.
But you, of course, are running all sorts of nifty experiments regarding increasing CO2 in your thirty-foot diameter MicroCosm Sphere. Please tell me all the cool data you've pumped out so far.
You have only proven that you can't tell a difference between a logical fallacy and your ass, which is why you are constantly embracing every fallacious argument that occurs to you.
"I took several environmental policy courses in grad school, where peer reviewed scientific papers on global warming were required reading."
And I took economics in law school. I do not have the pretense, however, of being an economist.
Rask,
You're a fucking moron. The only "climate science" you are at all conversant with consists entirely of recent articles from the New York Times.
As for why I "went to the NR for my information" --
I didn't, dope. I was reading the NR because I read the NR every other day or so. They JUST HAPPENED to have an article on global warming, in which the "experts" claim that you are full of fucking shit.
Since we were just discussing this yesterday, I posted it.
If this was more than about five years ago, I would respectfully suggest that much of the data available then has been superceded by more complete and accurate information and the computer modeling has become more sophisticated with the result that many of the canards that the Kyoto crowd is shopping around have been completely debunked.
"If you really want to get involved in a scientific global warming discussion"
I don't, really, but feel free to post all the "scientific" information and formulae you know. If I'm interested, I'll jump right in.
Somehow I have the feeling you'll merely quote the conclusory opinions of scientists, without actually explicating the real science which undergirds those opinions.
Just like the NR did. Only when they do it, it's the blather of a "conservative mouthpiece." When you do it, it's just "the truth."
And I claim to be neither an economist nor a climatologist, but I have read peer reviewed scientific articles in both disciplines. I am not the one who seems to think this is unusual.
"You're a fucking moron. The only "climate science" you are at all conversant with consists entirely of recent articles from the New York Times."
and you are dead wrong. But that goes almost without saying.
If you want to continue this, let's take it to the Slow Thread.
I'm still waiting to hear about your extensive reading list of "scientific sources."
Hah, hah, hah. Little Reader's Digest articles in a gut-course textbook.
My recent favorite is when some LW loony was hyperventilating about open sea being visible near the north pole. When it was pointed out that this was a not-unusual situation which had been observed for more than a century, the NYT buried a curt retraction, probably in its ideological obit section.
"and you are dead wrong."
Quote from these articles.
Jackass, I have indeed read peer-reviewed articles in several fields, including organic chemistry. I cannot remember a damn thing from them, and I do not have the pretense that my college-years familiarity with chemistry extends to the present.
You read something six years ago.
What the fuck have you read LATELY, dipshit? Other than a few silly web-sites and a few NYT articles?
"Scientific sources!" Indeed!
Quote them. Or just paraphrase. I'm sure you're so fluent in science you can paraphrase at will.
Incidentally, you have no scientific background.
Is your claim that a public-policy jackoff course on the environment has somehow "filled in" for your complete lack of scientific training?
It's an astonishment to me that you can know so much about atmospheric chemistry without ever having taken a college-level chemistry class.
I took a patent course... the course dealt, obliquely, with quite a few heady scientific issues which were involved in various patent disputes.
I don't claim that that limited experience has given me expertise in the underlying sciences.
You, however, do.
A public policy major... who, by dint of a public policy course on the environment, has mastered physics, chemistry, and climatology.
Quite an accomplishment, guy.
Your problem is that you read these articles... but you are incapable of understanding them.
You understand the conclusions, of course. Conclusions are easy to understand.
But you don't understand the underlying science. Thus, you have no way to independently analyze whether the conclusions (which you understand) are actually supportable by the science (which you don't).
Given that, I can't say I see the difference between the NR quoting the conclusions of scientitists -- whose reasoning and data they must take as true, for they have no capacity for evaluating it themselves -- and your doing the same thing, since you, also, cannot evaluate the underlying science of the scientific opinions you claim such fluency in.
Eh, well, I know lots of guys like you. Guys who read a couple of Steven Jay Gould pop science articles and then start spouting off about science.
"Hey," these guys say, "I've read STEVEN JAY GOULD!"
Well, yeah. Terrific. I've read Carl Sagan, but I'm not sending my resume to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
I don't feel much obligation to waste time chasing down your red herrings and attempts to shift the burden of proof, and I see no value in citing reading lists - I never claimed to be global warming expert and a bibliography won't prove that I am. The fact is, the one link you post on global warming comes from a political rather than a scientific source. Full stop. I'll stake my reputation in this forum for factual accuracy and intellectual honesty up against yours any day of the week if that is what it comes down to.
I'll post some information later in the slow thread, and it won't be from magazines of political opinion.
Except that I do have a scientific background. Policy Analysis is applied social science.
"The fact is, the one link you post on global warming comes from a political rather than a scientific source."
And? The UN clusterfuck that advanced the ten-degrees-in-a-hundred years was disseminated, chiefly (to the broad audience, and to you) by a political source-- the New York Times.
That doesn't make their science untrue.
Nor does the fact that a scientist's opinion is quoted in the NR make it untrue.
You have no goddamn idea what you're talking about, Rask. You simply don't even understand the most basic shit about science. If I posted a "real scientific source," you wouldn't bloody understand it.
Oh, you'd read the first and last paragraph, of course (the conclusion). But everything in between would be a No Man's Land for you.
Because a public policy course which deals with a scientific debate isn't actually science, Rask.
Their are publc policy courses on the law and the economy... and yet people who take them do not magically become lawyers and economists.
"Please state where I claimed expertise in any of the subjects you claim that I did?"
You did so implicitly, by denigrating a scientist's opinion merely because I found it in a political venue, rather than in an original "scientific source." Your implication seems clear as day-- "Hey, if you're not paging through Science and Nature like *I* am, you can't quote scientists. *I* can quote scientists, because I read the 'scientific sources.'"
Well, Rask, that's only material if you're actually capable of scientifically analyzing the source material, which you are NOT. Since you're not so qualified, you can only quote CONCLUSIONS and take the underlying science on faith. Just like NR.
Otherwise, why make the complaint at all?
"Except that I do have a scientific background. Policy Analysis is applied social science."
Giggle. Okay, Rask.
This is where you completely misunderstand me. I am not saying that the scientists quoted in the NR are wrong. I am saying that the NR is not going to objectively decide which scientists to interview. And I am saying that the fact that you go to the National Review for (even lay) scientific information is typical of you.
This is where you are going haywire. See my last post. And I haven't insisted that only primary sources are acceptable - that is another straw man of yours.
"And that I do understand the science behind global warming, and have taken a college level atmospheric physics class."
No, you don't. If you do "understand it," explain it. And I don't mean "greenhouse gases make the earth grow warmer by trapping heat" eighth-grade book-report version.
Please tell me why, chemically and physically, greenhouse gases trap heat. And tell me all about carbon transfer and such.
PS:
I took a college course on thermodynamics, so do not dare quote me a statement about thermodynamics unless it comes DIRECTLY from scientific sources (e.g., a monograph or such).
I have my standards to maintain, you know.
What. A. Fucking. Buffoon.
Please demonstrate that you know anything about the discipline of policy analysis, and have the faintest basis for stating any opinions on the subject.
But for what its worth, it is certainly a softer science than most physical sciences, but it is quite quantitative.
"I am saying that the NR is not going to objectively decide which scientists to interview."
Neither is the UN's panel on Global Warming, dipshit.
"And I am saying that the fact that you go to the National Review for (even lay) scientific information is typical of you."
Third base!
here we go again. Rask *again* suggests that he is pouring over source material and scientific journals for his information, rather than culling it from magazines which digest it for the lay audience.
Which he doesn't. He gets it from the same place any non-expert does.
I'm sure that you're on the circulation list for a dozen or so scientists, Rask. I'm sure they're all just lining up to get your take on their work.
"And I haven't insisted that only primary sources are acceptable"
You claimed that only "scientific sources" were acceptable.
If you're reading a digest, Rask, then that's no better than culling a quote from NR. Both are adapted for a lay audience, and neither contains the supporting evidence.
I think this is just Rask's way of claiming that his Sierra Club newsletter is a "scientific source" but that the NR isn't.
Well, actually, neither is, Rask. Which is why I'm dumbfounded you've gone down this road.
What evidence do you have that the UN's panel is biased in this way?
"here we go again. Rask *again* suggests that he is pouring over source material and scientific journals for his information, rather than culling it from magazines which digest it for the lay audience."
Look, nimrod. I am suggesting no such thing. I don't have a problem with more objective secondary sources, such as The Economist, the NYT, or the Wall Street Journal. I am criticizing *political opinion magazines* as sources.
Raskol. My educational grounding is much more technically
applicable to the science behind global warming than policy analysis
could ever be, regardless.
"educational grounding"?????
STOP THE PRESSES!
The UN should be deeply distrusted as a source for climatic opinion, since it cannot keep its political agenda from distorting and misrepresenting what few facts it presents in its propaganda.
That is your third lie of the evening. You just struck out.
Connie:"My educational grounding is much more technically applicable to the science behind global warming than policy analysis could ever be, regardless. "
Since neither of us is claiming expertise in global warming, that is hardly relevant. I was merely questioning whether you knew a damned thing about policy analysis, that you could even claim an opinion about it.
"I am criticizing *political opinion magazines* as sources."
What does it matter, dope? A quote from a respected scientist is a quote from a respected scientist, whether I quote it, Jex quotes it, Madonna quotes it, or Julius Fucking Erving quotes it.
It's still his opinion, and you are incapable of scientifically analyzing his data, methodology, and conclusions. What the fuck does it matter if it comes from a "scientific source"?
Do you really think that the scientists quoted there have NEVER published before? If not, then what is the fucking difference if I quote from their articles or if I quote from them making the same conclusions in National Review!
Jesus, you are an idiot.
Yeah, jexster. That's what you get when you go to school. You ought to consider doing that someday, if you can get anything other than a mail-order diploma mill to accept you. Then your posting might, just might command a little respect.
This falls back to selectivity bias. Let me ask you Ace, on what basis should we choose to make policy decisions regarding global warming - what a few scientists selected by the National Review think, what a panel of scientists selected by the UN thinks, or a third option? What degree of unanimity do you require from climatologists before you are convinced that global warming is a problem requiring action?
And I am now really done for the evening.
And concerned is getting hard in the Man Thread
182. concerned - 1/25/01 3:29:02 AM
Re. 181:
Sure did for me
Me in high dudgeon.
Doofus. "Selectivity bias?" This is the position you now retreat to?
The only important "bias" is bias on the part of the scientist, not the magazine who quotes him. OF COURSE NR seeks out a contrarian voice in response to the UN's silly Scare-Report.
But that bias isn't important. OF COURSE the Sierra Club seeks out scientists who agree that the sky is falling.
The only important bias is on the part of the scientist himself. All the scientists quoted in NR don't have "selectivity bias" -- they have only one opinion to "select," which is their own.
You blithely ignore their opinions, because you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and childishly sing "Nah nah nah, I'm not list-en-ing!" You do precisely what I accuse you of: Dismissing any contrary opinion on the grounds that it is, in fact, contrary to your own.
The scientists in the NR article disagree with your ignorant, uneducated premises. That alone is enough in Rask's world to dismiss them.
Perhaps if you'd read the article more carefully you would have noted criticism of the scientists you favor. Perhaps you might have noticed that their models fail every time their tested -- that is, their predictions are never accurate -- and that they keep shifting the playing field; e.g., when they can't find examples of atmospheric warming, which they predicted, they shift the playing field to surface warming, which their models originally did not speak of. In other words, finding the data contradict them, they just look for new data which can be said to support them, conveniently forgetting about previous erroneous predictions and models.
But all that is inconvenient. Better to just snap, "Well, they're quoted in NR, so of course they must be wrong," and grin in Jade-Gold-esque sophomoric poseur intellectualism.
PS: You seem to place a lot of faith in bean-counting. You keep telling me that "more" scientists agree with you. That's a patently unscientific argument, of course.
And you ignore "selectivity bias" on a convenient case-by-case basis, dude. Just who, precisely, do you think decides to go into the specialty field of global warming?
Here's an analogy:
What sorts of people decide to go into environmental law, especially on the prosecution/"get the polluters" side? Do you think a profession can be self-selecting, Rask?
PPS: I remember lots and lots of respected scientists telling us all about "Nuclear Winter." There was a "scientific consensus" about it.
Turns out that the theory was bogus, and that well-meaning scientists, who didn't like nuclear war (who does?), had put together some junk science to scare the public into disarmament.
You don't think there's any chance that well-meaning, environmentally conscious scientific hucksters could ever be tempted to scare us into cleaning up the air by making ludicrously dire predictions, do you?
Nah.
PPS: What percentage of MBA students do you suppose are politically conservative?
What percentage of grad-school policy analysis "scientists" do you suspect are liberals?
What percentage of journalism and social work majors do you think are liberal?
What percentage of finance majors do you think are conservative?
What percentage of lawyers who go into securities are conserviative?
What percentage of lawyers who specialize in labor law or civil rights law are liberals?
You get the pattern? Good. On to the Big Question:
What percentage, then, of all soft-science majors who decide to go into the environmental-chic subspecialty of "global warming" do you suspect -- suspect, Rask -- might sort of had a certain bias or prejudice in favor of the theory before they learned a bloody thing about it?
Related question:
In the eighties, and even until today, there are a lot of scientists who are specializing in the discredited field of "cold fusion."
What do you think the pre-existing bias is on the part of such scientists? To debunk cold fusion, or prove it true? How many self-styled "cold fusion experts" do you suppose there are who jumped into the field in order to disprove that such a chemical mechanism exists?
Now, given a "cold fusion expert," who claims that there probably is such a thing as cold fusion, and a "non-expert," let's say just a run of the mill high-energy physcist, who claims that there almost certainly isn't, who do you believe?
What if 95% of all "experts" in the field of cold fusion have reached a "consensus" that it most likely exists?
http://www.skepticism.net/global_warming/
a good article by E.J. Barron 1995, published by the American Geophysical Union which tends to support global warming.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/barron.html
A good article by R.S. Lindzen which tends to dispute global warming.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Even the one that acknowledges global warming and it's ties to anthropogenic sources, shys away from the doomsday predictions.
If you want a real issue to chew on... how about our depleating fossil fuels. I read an article today on agricultural sustainablility which stated that our domestic oil supply will be used up in 25 years. We currently expend 10 kcal of energy for every 1 kcal extracted from our current agricultural systems.
PPPPS: And note that in the same posts you scold me for not quoting from "scientific sources," you make a fundamentally non-scientific argument. You yourself don't quote from "scientific sources" to prove that the quoted scientists are wrong; you simply take the forum in which their words are printed to be "evidence" that they're wrong.
Then you go on to say that because "more" global warming experts believe in global warming, that is strong evidence that they are right. Hey, everyone agrees with me; I must be right.
"Scientific sources," indeed!
Quote from scientific journals? Why should I, when my opponent, who piously wants to quote only from "scientific sources," makes such patently unscientific arguments?
PPPPPS: Can you even become a "global warming expert" if you think the theory is hogwash? Would you put on your CV that you're a "global warming expert" if you've done lots of research in the field but consider it balderdash?
In all likelihood, no. In all likelihood, you would not make a career decision to go into a field you considered pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Which means that 99% of all "global warming experts" will of course be global warming BELIEVERS. Not because "everyone who's looked at the facts believes in global warming." But simply because no one who's looked at the facts and disbelieves in global warming would then change careers to become a "global warming expert."
It's a self selecting group. We should be no more surprised that the majority of global warming experts are global warming disciples than we'd be surprised that those who join the Marine Corps have a great respect for the Marine Corps.
The NOAA site on Greenhouse Warming
http://www.websites.noaa.gov/guide/sciences/atmo/greenhouse.html
And their site on Paleoclimatology.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html
http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/g/globalchange/www/rpt46.html
a small quote:
"Global warming is an issue of potentially enormous environmental, political and economic consequences that was introduced to the national and international agenda by science and scientists. It has moved rapidly to the development of an international process that has engaged nations, publics and the UN in substantial institution building, interaction and negotiation. Yet, today it has become entwined in the U.S. in internal political and economic debates that are not independent of the science, but are made possible by the level of uncertainty of the science. As long as that uncertainty persists, these other factors will flourish and bedevil the ability to determine a consistent agreed policy direction."
http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/g/globalchange/www/rpt46.html
a small quote:
"Global warming is an issue of potentially enormous environmental, political and economic consequences that was introduced to the national and international agenda by science and scientists. It has moved rapidly to the development of an international process that has engaged nations, publics and the UN in substantial institution building, interaction and negotiation. Yet, today it has become entwined in the U.S. in internal political and economic debates that are not independent of the science, but are made possible by the level of uncertainty of the science. As long as that uncertainty persists, these other factors will flourish and bedevil the ability to determine a consistent agreed policy direction."
Hey - I'm freezing my butt off.
And ask the folks in Arkansas what they think of global warming.
"Many studies from the nineteenth century on suggested that industrial and other contributions to increasing carbon dioxide might lead to global warming. Problems with such predictions were also long noted, and the general failure of such predictions to explain the observed record caused the field of climatology as a whole to regard the suggested mechanisms as suspect. Indeed, the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s. "
Global warming, global cooling, what's the difference between friends? Either we're cooling the earth or we're warming it; we're definitely changing the environment, so why worry about niggling details?
Either way, we have to pass the Kyoto Accords most rikki-tik.
Turns out that the theory was bogus
and the evidence that the theory was "bogus"?
Such pap. Obviously nuclear winter is a theory against which there might be other theories but no empirical evidence against which the theory could be proved or disproved.
Hardly analogous to the global warming debate...not even worth a leeetle giggle
mmmmmm.....
Full Metal Jacket perhaps?
What we do know is that we are adding new inputs to the system, and that we do not know the system has been relatively stable for human history. We also know that there is a finite limit to the capacity of the planet to absorb these inputs without changing the equilibrium. It seems sensible therefore to reasonably attempt to limit those inputs until we know the full extent of their effect.
(I think this is a temp link.)
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is expected to endorse tax cuts at a Senate hearing today, modifying his long-held stance that the single best use for burgeoning federal surpluses is paying down the national debt. Sources familiar with Greenspan's views say the Fed chairman believes huge new forecasts of the surplus are legitimate and big enough to accommodate both substantial debt reduction and tax cuts.
Bush Tax Cut Faces Spending Pressures
Where is the outrage over the Marc Rich pardon?
Rich funnelled millions of dollars to the Democrats through his ex-wife, and Clinton rewarded him with a pardon. Remember, this is a guy who fled prosecution and never faced justice for his heinous actions, which not only included tax fraud and securities and commodities fraud, but also selling arms to Iran and South Africa during the 1970s when a US embargo was in place.
I think this is the single most dispicable act by an American President since Iran-Contra. I also think that this should prevent people from voting for Hillary Clinton in any future election, unless she pledges not to take a dime from the Rich family, and returns all the money Denise Rich has already raised for her.
I'm gonna be sick. :-(~~~
Surely THAT'S never happened before.
Fielding: Welcome aboard the "What's wrong with these people?" train.
But my Clinton fatigue prevents me from feeling much outrage over anything he (or she) does anymore.
Even better, when questioned, ex-President man-boy also laid it squarely at Quinn's feet ("Quinn made a very convincing case on the merits").
Ohio has just proven that there is someone lower on the supplicant line than Paul Begala.
That has to be a record.
(Fielding - "where's the outrage?" was fashionable maybe 3 years ago, just prior to betty Currie sticking gifts under her bed).
Fleischer said no presidential nominee has been
delayed this way "in modern times," and said
confirmation should move forward "so that we can
have an attorney general who can wage a war on
crime and enforce laws."
Or does this belong in the Man Thread...RD please move..tnx
I won't litter the thread in a manner that might stymie yet another of your gaseous renditions of conventional wisdom.
Old boy.
Ohio:
You don't have a problem with a fugitive buying a pardon with campaign contributions?
It works like the bat signal.
Ohio doesn't have a problem if Clinton shoots his hunting dog.
You are correct. Jexster clearly has his keyboard and monitor in the john so he misses nothing and spews consistently.
Surely you recognize that you can find an employed university scientist to agree with almost any position? I have no idea if the scientist is biased or not. He might just be wrong. Or he might be a lone genius that only the National Review is competent to recognize.
"But that bias isn't important. OF COURSE the Sierra Club seeks out
scientists who agree that the sky is falling. "
I wouldn't trust their ability to present a mainstream scientific opinion either. You keep bringing up the Sierra Club like it is at all relevent.
"PS: You seem to place a lot of faith in bean-counting. You keep telling me that "more" scientists agree with you. That's a patently unscientific argument, of course."
I brought up the majority of scientific opinion as a political argument, not a scientific one. At what level of scientific consensus should government choose to act?
"And you ignore "selectivity bias" on a convenient case-by-case basis,
dude. Just who, precisely, do you think decides to go into the specialty field of global warming?"
Climatologists. Of course, we all know what hotbeds of eco-freak pinko activism University meterology departments are...
from "scientific sources," you make a fundamentally non-scientific
argument. You yourself don't quote from "scientific sources" to prove that the quoted scientists are wrong; you simply take the forum in which their words are printed to be "evidence" that they're wrong. "
I am beginning to think that you can't read. For the 20th time, I have never said that the scientist quoted in the National Review was wrong. I chided *you* for giving undue weight to scientists that are pre-selected by a magazine of conservative opinion. Following your logic, if I bothered to post a general pro-Global Warming piece culled from an Earth First society web page, your reaction should be "damn, he sure countered that National Review argument effectively".
But I won't bother, because I don't take their journalism seriously either. This is where you keep missing my point. I have not made serious scientific arguments here as this is a lousy forum for doing so. Instead, I am just criticizing *you* for believing that the NR piece, with largely unsubstantiated arguments, should be taken any more seriously than a pro-Global Warming piece I could find from Greenpeace.
Ohio:
No pardons were bought, Fielding.
You've got to be kidding. Rich has raised millions of dollars for the Democrats.
Many Honest and Reasonable People Indeed!!!!
Evan wears many hats, but the one he has on in this instance is President of the New York City Bar Association.
A little introspection for a little man would be in order.
Rich has raised millions of dollars for the Democrats.
Maybe that's because he's a Democrat...
Here in Texas, we don't lift an eyebrow when someone who donates money gets a break...it's just politics as usual.
... as in D.C. Especially if the donor is a Chinese national.
Perhaps his outrage has returned now that its getting more media coverage.
JAH:
Maybe that's because he's a Democrat...
Here in Texas, we don't lift an eyebrow when someone who donates money gets a break...it's just politics as usual.
That's criminal behavior you are talking about.
Rich is a tax felon, a comodities felon, a violator of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a violator of American Foreign Policy, an arms dealer and a scumbag to boot. With the Feds closing in, he fled to Switzerland and lived openly with a woman less than half his age. He never faced American Justice and repeatedly thumbed his nose at American Justice.
You can't pardon guys like this without making a mockery of Presidential pardon power.
GJ:
"I saw Orrin Hatch on Chris Matthews "Hard Ball." He thought Mike Milliken should have been pardoned. He also said that Rich had done some good things."
Milken did deserve a pardon. He has done many, many good things in his life, has given a fortune to charity, testified for the feds in other trials, and most of all, SERVED his time. Milken revolutionized modern finance.
Rich deserved a hit squad.
...and lived openly with a woman less than half his age.
perhaps you just hit upon the reason for the pardon?
I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton had a private meeting with Denise Rich last week to seal the deal. You know, to get a little, you've got to give a little.
Big business bows to global warming
Dec 2nd 2000
From The Economist print edition
WHO could deny that the spectacular collapse last weekend of negotiations in The Hague on the Kyoto treaty on climate change was
a setback to those hoping to see concerted action on global warming? And yet, though ministers may have bungled, there is some
reason for hope. That is because a more tenacious, better-funded lot is now beginning to take the problem seriously: big business.
That may seem surprising, for heavy industry was the loudest critic of the Kyoto deal struck three years ago. In the past year,
however, there has been a shift, with the big chemicals and petroleum giants taking the lead. DuPont, an American firm, has
promised to slash its emissions of greenhouse gases by nearly two-thirds compared with their level in 1990 within a decade, while
holding total energy use flat and using renewable resources for one-tenth of its energy worldwide.
Britain’s BP has also accepted voluntary targets for reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions. It is using an innovative emissions-trading
scheme among its dozens of divisions worldwide to achieve the cuts efficiently—and at a price far lower than originally expected.
That, explains Dan Dudek of Environmental Defence, a green group that is helping BP to design and run its trading scheme, is
because trading unleashes a surprising amount of ingenuity and can actually invigorate corporate growth. Firms may not need to be
afraid of a carbon-constrained world.
(maybe the problem is that my print subscription doesn't carry over to the online version.)
I've never been able to understand the ostrich in the sand mentality of conservatives about global warming. Even taking into account their abhorrance at the prospect of issues that will require intensive governmental involvement cutting across national boundaries, you would think that the implications of not acting prudently and in a timely way would sink in.
The most dramatic example of action is Royal Dutch/Shell, an Anglo-Dutch energy giant. Its board of directors recently decided that
all big projects must take into account the likely future cost of carbon emissions, as well as meeting the company’s required internal
rates of return. Project number-crunchers must assume a cost of $5 per tonne of carbon dioxide in 2005-09, rising to $20 per tonne
from 2010. Shell’s Aidan Murphy explains: “We know that $5 and $20 are surely the wrong price, but everyone else who assumes a
carbon price of zero in future will be more wrong. This is not altruism. We see it as giving us a competitive edge.”
Of course, not all oil companies are so eager to tackle global warming. Exxon Mobil, the biggest, is also the world’s most powerful
climate-change sceptic. Lee Raymond, its boss, is ferocious in his criticism of those, including this newspaper, that think global
warming is real and warrants global action.
Despite this public stance, however, Mr Raymond’s own firm has been quietly investing large sums of money in technologies that will
do much to address climate change: cleaner fuels, energy efficiency, fuel cells and the like. In more conciliatory moments, Mr
Raymond even hints he has an open mind about global warming. If the world’s biggest purveyor of fossil fuels ever accepts openly that
global warming is real, that may turn out to be more important to the planet than any Kyoto deal.
It does carry over, but you have to let them know your registration information at their web site. I had some problems with this for awhile. I also think that they have opened their site up wider, with a smaller number of articles being reserved for subscribers only.
"I've never been able to understand the ostrich in the sand mentality of conservatives about global warming. Even taking into account their
abhorrance at the prospect of issues that will require intensive
governmental involvement cutting across national boundaries, you
would think that the implications of not acting prudently and in a timely way would sink in."
It does irk me when empirical questions become political ones. Both parties are guilty of this, of course, but Democratic weaknesses tend to exist on social policy, whereas Republican weaknesses tend to be on anything that will imply government regulation.
I also think that people frequently approach problems like this the wrong way. Even if you are global warming skeptic, you can still assign a probability to the possibility that global warming is real, and I don't think even Ace would put that probability at zero. While I may think that the probability is 90%, and Ace may think it's 20%, we both *should* be able to agree that there is a non-zero probability of future significant economic costs caused by global warming. If nothing else, the wisdom of hedging our bets with preventive measures, even if minimal, should be obvious.
But you rarely see this. I would love to see a skeptic say: "Sure, I think it is unlikely that global warming is real, but if I am wrong, there could be hell to pay. Just as I have smoke detectors in the unlikely event there is a fire, I think it would be wise to subsidize research in alternative fuel technologies."
Ducks:
Could you delete any posts by anybody that are mere identical repeats of things that have already been posted?
jexster's post #4723 would be an example.
Clinton now gets china from money(Marc Rich etal).
-MSNBC
i wasn't sure if it was a repeat or not.
Jex: future reposts of these pics will be deleted.
"I truly believe that a president is entitled to his or her cabinet," she said. "However, the background record of this nominee is not mainstream on the key issues. I know he is strong on law and order issues. However, his views on certain issues — civil rights, desegregation, a woman's right to choose, guns — make him an enormously divisive and polarizing figure."
She said his record was "ultra right wing and that's not where most of the people in this nation are."
Ms. Feinstein also suggested that she found implausible Mr. Ashcroft's
statements in last week's hearings that he would enforce the laws, even those with which he disagreed.
She also cited Mr. Ashcroft's opposition to President Bill Clinton's
nomination of James Hormel, an openly gay California businessman, to
be ambassador to Luxembourg.
"The old John Ashcroft, in stating his reasons for voting against James
Hormel, stated that Hormel had `actively supported he gay lifestyle,' " she
said. "Yet the new John Ashcroft promises never to discriminate against
gays or lesbians."
yawn
HaHaHa!
Thanx Ducks!
Democrat, of course.
Is Algore fixing the ozone holes now?
"we both *should* be able to agree that there is a non-zero probability of future significant economic costs caused by global warming."
Incorrect. "Global warming" consists, so far, to the extent it exists at all, as a raising of the nighttime minimum temperature with NO increase in the daily maximum temperature.
It is speculated (by global warming disciples) that this is due to clouds-- clouds reflect heat during the day, but trap it at night.
That, actually, would not create a "cost," but an actual benefit. That actually creates less temperature variability and "extremes" rather than more.
In addition, there's been ZERO atmospheric warming. None. None whatsoever. And all the global warming "models" predict such warming. But there hasn't been any.
So, ground temperatures are higher in this decade (or at least the overnight ground temperatures). So what? That seems like a good thing, to the extent it seems like a "thing" at all.
And once again, look at the Chicken Littles we're talking about:
1) The same guys who got hysterical about the "global cooling" in the 1970's (based on a fifteen year cooling trend) who predicted, yes, a coming Ice Age.
2) The same guys who claimed that Nuclear Winter would shroud the world and kill it, which turned out to be overstated, hysterical junk-science nonsense. Yes, the same guys-- The union of concerned scientists went directly from speaking on one issue they didn't know anything about (nuclear winter) to the next sexy, liberal-chic issue they didn't know anything about (global warming).
Bush's plan would cut $50 billion a year from the federal budget after about a decade. At the same time, it would knock out some $9 billion to the states, because their tax codes piggyback the federal government's.
Finally, it should be noted that the most important "greenhouse gas" is water vapor, NOT Carbon Dioxide.
So yes, we can talk about Carbon Dioxide levels rising by 30%... but water vapor is, and always has been, a more significant heat-trapper. And we're not creating water, last time I checked.
It is what Ashcroft will do (and, equally important, not do) in protecting women's right to choose, enforcing the gun control laws, etc etc that will be scrutinized. Very carefully.
...it would appear to contradict testimony Ashcroft offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week when he told senators that "sexual orientation has never been something that I've used in
hiring in any of the jobs, in any of the offices, I've held. It will not be a consideration in hiring at the Department of Justice."
Huh?
What nonsense. The fact that the federal government repeals a tax does not mean the states are obliged to. The states "piggyback" on the government's tax because that makes it computationally easier for the taxpayer -- just give the state x% of what you had to give the government.
If the federal estate tax no longer exists for "piggybacking" purposes, they can simply draft their own independently-standing estate tax rules & rates.
Typical bullshit manufactured by the dopes in the DNC basement, then reported without question by the media.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress today that rising estimates of budget surpluses make room for a tax cut and he said the U.S. economy has slowed dramatically, signaling that further Federal Reserve interest rate reductions are on the way. Greenspan's endorsement of tax cuts provided a significant boost for President Bush's effort to reduce taxes. However, Greenspan would not be drawn into a discussion of whether the 10-year, $1.6 trillion package being put forward by Bush is an appropriate size.
She ain't swallowin no BushShit!
+++++++++++++++++++
Shhhhh...
Don't give Algore the idea. He may want to claim his ability to take the initiatives to create H2O.
``That's not chump change,'' he said.
Good point!!!!
I felt the same way and it was my read as well.
-Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
-Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
-Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
-DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
-Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
-Contributes to soil erosion.
-Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
-Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
-Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
-Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
-Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
-Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
whatsoever. And all the global warming "models" predict such
warming. But there hasn't been any. "
Your National Review scientist disagrees with you. Are you just picking and choosing which claims of his to agree with?
"Finally, it should be noted that the most important "greenhouse gas" is water vapor, NOT Carbon Dioxide. So yes, we can talk about Carbon Dioxide levels rising by 30%... but water vapor is, and always has been, a more significant heat-trapper. And we're not creating water, last time I checked."
You really don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the science behind global warming. Yes, CO2 is a fairly minor Greenhouse gas. However:
1) CO2 levels have approximately *doubled* not "increased by 30%". At such levels, the heat trapping potential of CO2 alone is significant.
2) water vapor actually *is* where a large portion of the warming is supposedly coming from. The CO2 warming is predicted to have a positive feedback effect, where more water vapor will be held in the air (junior high physics there), leading to even *more* warming. While that is somewhat offset by negative feedback caused by increased cloud cover, warming caused by water vapor is still a factor.
Rask,
You don't know what you're talking about.
As well he should be.
Rask,
Read iiibbb's links.
There's no value in having a "scientific debate" with you because you don't have the capacity for scientific debate. Neither do I, actually.
You can only quote the conclusions of scientists whom you believe or correct. I am constrained to only do likewise.
So rather than rehash the conclusions of these scientists, and present their conclusions as if they were my own (as you do), I will simply direct you to read the global-warming skeptics iiibbb has linked to.
"The CO2 warming is predicted to have a positive feedback effect, where more water vapor will be held in the air (junior high physics there), leading to even *more* warming."
For example:
There is no evidence supporting this. The "models" predict this, but based upon the assumptions of the modeller; a computer model will of course tell you precisely what you told IT. If you program a model to show a runaway feedback effect at a certain level of CO2, do not be surprised when the model shows you a runaway feedback effect at that level.
That's what you PROGRAMMED to happen. It should not be particularly surprising, nor convincing, that the model faithfully replays the song you taught it.
The reliability of computer models is demonstrated chiefly by their success in agreeing with other computer models, not nature itself.
But all of this is discussed in iiibbb's links... these are not my conclusions, but those of a career climatologist.
Further:
All those "models" you place such reliance upon have already made wildly inaccurate predictions. For example, they predict that we should *already* be experiencing a 2 degree centigrade warming, when nature has in fact only shown a half-degree rise.
Such problems are simply fudged. The failure of the "models" to make accurate predictions -- the cornerstone of the scientific theory's hypothesis-testing model -- is dismissed as "no big deal." These same models, which have already failed greatly, are then used to show a five to ten degree warming by 2100, and Rask claps about "the facts."
Blithely oblivious, of course, to the "fact" that the models have already overstated current warming effects to the tune of 400%.
Did you read The Economist link?
The "models" predict atmospheric warming... but there is no atmospheric warming. None at all. (There is some surface warming, but no atmospheric warming, as the models, and the theory, all predict.)
Another predictive failure... time to consider the "models" a failure and inaccurate? Nah. Just keep relying on their other predictions, despite the fact that their current predictions are all wrong.
Garbage in, garbage out. Assumption: If CO2 rises to a certain level, there will be a positive feedback loop causing runaway CO2 production.
Problem: No evidence. Further, there are both positive (reinforcing) feedbacks and negative (inhibiting/reversing) feedbacks. No one knows which become more pronounced at higher levels. Current evidence suggests that it's the NEGATIVE feedback which is of a greater magnitude; more heat produces more cloud cover, which reflects more heat away from the earth, thus keeping daily maximum temperatures stable (while raising the minimum daily temperature a bit).
But we don't like those facts. Those facts actually suggest that more CO2 is a GOOD THING, which would encourage industrialization, and we don't want that. So we assume, without evidence, that at higher levels of CO2, the positive feedbacks will outstrip negative feedbacks.
Evidence for this? Well, look at the models! When I program in the positive feedback to outpace the negative feedback, that's precisely what the models show! Case closed.
"And why do you think the feedback mechanism will be "runaway"?"
I don't. An article I read claimed it would become "runaway," in the sense that positive feedback simply outstrips and then overwhelms the negative feedback's ability to contain it. It's another word for a concept you yourself use: "critical equilibrium."
The notion of "runaway positive feedback" is also central to proposals to thicken the atmosphere of Mars, through release of CO2 from the arctic soil, which of course is derived *exactly* from the earth greehouse warming theory.
"And why is it, again, that when you want to cite information on Global warming, you automatically glom on to sites and organization who explcitly are skeptical about it, rather than sites and organizations who are likely to be objective about it?"
Rask, you become stupider by the moment.
"And why is it, again, that when you want to cite information on Global warming, you automatically glom on to sites and organization who explcitly are skeptical about it, rather than sites and organizations who are likely to be objective about it? "
What an asshole. Can't you see that you equate "belief in global warming" with "objectivity," and disbelief in global warming with non-objectivity and bias?
Given those ridiculous assumptions, OF COURSE all "objective" sources confirm the existance of anthropogenic global warming -- because, by definition, "objectivity" equals "belief in global warming."
Read the links, dope.
You continue to make the same moronic statements you made yesterday.
Now, of course, I *am* citing scientific sources, straight from the scientists' mouths, so you can't claim that NR bribed them to lie about global warming.
But now you claim that someone who doesn't believe in global warming is of course not "objective." Only scientists who believe in it are "objective."
Rask, I wonder...
Are scientists who believe in Super-string theory the only "objective" ones, and all skeptics (who believe that a Grand Unified Theory must be sought elsewhere) non-objective?
What precisely is your criterion for labeling one scientist "objective" and another "non-objective," other than the rather irrelevant fact that you agree with one and not the other?
Ace's intellectual dishonesty and ability to create non-issue issues is astonishing. What has nighttime or daytime to do with it. Exactly?
It is legitimate to question the interpretation of facts, or even the facts themselves if the observation methods are in doubt. To create something out of nothing is not.
Nor is an inane statement like And we're not creating water, last time I checked.. The issue is not the total amount of water around but how much of it that is held in the atmosphere.
I'm posting from upthread. Sorry if someone has already addressed this.
"Ace's intellectual dishonesty and ability to create non-issue issues is astonishing. What has nighttime or daytime to do with it. Exactly?"
Because the raising of nighttime minimum temperatures, without an increase in daytime maximum temperatures, is actually a GOOD thing. It DECREASES temperature variability. It makes nighttime warmer (closer to the average temperature) without making the day warmer (and more unbearable, causing too much aridity, etc.)
It also extends the frost-free season (a good thing) without making the maximum temperature any hotter. Were the maximum temperature to get hotter, that could hurt plants and trees. But a more mild nighttime cannot hurt trees and plants; quite the opposite: it helps them.
Further, the point is-- the IMPLICATION is -- that the negative feedback of cloud cover actually balances any increase in temperature which may be attributable to increased greenhouse gases. The implication is that the hotter it gets, the more clouds form, which reduces sunlight getting to the earth's surface, which in turn lowers the temperature, which brings everything back to normal.
Global warming projections -- especially the silly "Antarctica will melt and we will all drown" projections -- rely on the assumption that there is almost nothing except positive (heat-enhancing) feedback and that the effect of negative (heat-reducing) feedback is trivial, or at least is outpaced by the positive feedback.
Other "facts":
80% of all CO2 increases occurred in the last thirty years. However,
most of this century's temperature gain occurred from 1900-1940, when only 20% of the carbon increase occurred. If CO2 is responsible for the temperature gains, this seems like a very strange relationship indeed.
20% carbon increase = greater temperature increase
80% carbon increase = lesser temperature increase
Carbon increased through the sixties and early seventies... yet global temperatures dropped for fifteen years. So much so that the same crowd who now cries "Global warming!" was actually crying "Global cooling!" in the seventies, and even predicted the onset of an actual Ice Age, glaciers and all.
Now, perhaps you've heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? When a group of Frightened Frans cries "Ice Age!" in the late seventies (when temperatures are dropping) but then reverses one-eighty and cries "Antarctica Melting!" fifteen years later (when temperatures rise) has very little credibility in my book.
It seems they will either claim dangerous cooling or warming, depending on the Almanac that year, and will use the same assumptions and predictions and "evil agents" (co2) to "prove" both.
Whether fire or ice, we're all gonna die. They're not sure if it's ice or fire, but dammit, they're sure that something bad is just around the corner.
Unless we revert to pastoralism and elect Ralph Nader.
No, this is a myth propagated by the global warming "skeptics". The prediction of "global cooling" was advanced by a couple of people, but nowhere near the worldwide consensus that supports the greenhouse gas/global warming theory. (And certainly not "the same crowd", whatever that means.)
"No, this is a myth propagated by the global warming "skeptics"."
Actually, it's not.
"The prediction of "global cooling" was advanced by a couple of people,"
Laugh. A "couple." Hokay.
"but nowhere near the worldwide consensus that supports the greenhouse gas/global warming theory."
1) Environmentalism has become more chic, and better funded, since then.
2) There is no "consensus." This is a fabrication.
"(And certainly not "the same crowd", whatever that means.)"
It means precisely what it seems to mean: the same people who once predicted global cooling now predict global warming, based on the exact same "science."
Name someone who supported "global cooling" who does NOT now support "global warming."
Yawn. The "fact challenge/burden of proof disparity" -- prove the very-difficult-to-prove using the limited resources of the internet or concede the point.
Whatever, Ohio. This trick is as old as the hills.
One of iiibbb's scientists (read his links) stated this as a fact. Now, perhaps he was lying. But given that he is a scientist with a reputation to protect, the onus is on you to prove he's lying.
A post-election poll of adult voters showed that more than ever, the Republican religious coalition consisted of solid majorities of weekly churchgoers among white Protestants, white Roman Catholics and Mormons.
The heaviest Democratic religious categories were, in order: black Protestants, Jews and other non-Christians, Hispanic Catholics, Hispanic Protestants, people who consider themselves completely secular, and Catholics who don't attend Mass each week.
Lead investigator John C. Green of the University of Akron said the most dramatic shift from a comparable 1996 poll occurred among regularly worshipping white Evangelicals. Excluding Ross Perot voters, they gave Bob Dole 70 percent support in 1996 but 84 percent to George W. Bush (news - web sites) in November.
I've never heard of any global cooling theory. Must be a local American thing. The leading spokesman (perhaps its inventor) for the "nuclear winter" was Carl Sagan. It came up after the Mount Pinebo (sp?) thing.
I think the "skeptics'" memories are playing tricks on them.
Must be the heat.
higher levels of CO2, the positive feedbacks will outstrip negative
feedbacks. "
No, this is a necessary result of the math. The negative feedback (cloud cover) requires more water vapor in the air, which is a function of higher temperatures. As the negative feedback doesn't exist with no temperature change, the positive feedback mathematically *has* to exceed the negative feedback.
"It is easier to prove (if true, of course) your statement that numerous people advanced a "global cooling" theory than it is for me to prove a negative."
Actually, it's very hard and time consuming to prove EITHER, given limited resources on the Internet.
But by making a big show of demanding "evidence," you adroitly place the burden on me for running Google searches, with me losing the point (of course) if I cannot find direct evidence on a rather tiny point.
Show me one adherent who supported global cooling who DOESN'T now support global warming. I'm not asking you to prove a universal negative -- I don't want you to prove that NO ONE who supported global cooling now supports global warming.
I just want ONE name. One name. If you can find one person who did support global cooling but does not support global warming, I will find you the opposite sort of person.
But the burden is on YOU, Ohio, since you're the one demanding Google searches, to first demonstrate that there is adequate information on the Internet to compare a scientist's 1970's position with his current position. If there is not adequate information -- and if you yourself cannot complete the challenge you've assigned to me -- then it's hardly worth my while to try.
And, like I said, I have some "evidence" of my claim. A bona-fide scientist, a career climatologist, made the statement. You can read his statement, if you'd bother to.
You are claiming that he is lying, and that he had no scientists in mind when he made the statement. I assume he would not knowingly make an easily-disputable claim and that, even if he had, he would have corrected it by now, so as not to further damage his credibility.
You make a more unlikely claim-- that he's lying. Well, prove it.
warming" with "objectivity," and disbelief in global warming with
non-objectivity and bias? "
Of course I don't. I just ridicule your research methods. You seem to start with the assumption that global warming is bunk, and look for cites that are *defined* by their skepticism of global warming. This is how a political hack like yourself operates - looking for information to support pre-determined opinions. Someone with intellectual honesty would look for such information in sources that are likely to have an objective take. Objective meaning, no particular axe to grind on the issue. The Economist would certainly qualify, as if anything, they lean libertarian.
If I am you, I crack open the National Review and see what the Republican Party Line is before making up my mind on the subject.
That is the crux of our disagreement. If I were trying to determine whether or not String Theory was valid, my first stop wouldn't be the "String Theory Sux" web site. I would look for some mainstream science articles, probably using Britannica as a starting point.
Do you mean those gun control laws that Reno refused to enforce? Are you going to whine and complain if Ashcroft continues Reno's policy of non-enforcement?
"and look for cites that are *defined* by their skepticism of global warming."
Wrong, asshole. iiibbb suggested several sites, some of which were pro-GW, some of which were skeptical, some of which were both. All contained numerous articles from different scientists.
Had you bothered to check his sites, you'd know that. But you didn't, because you know what you know and you know it because you know it and no one can tell you what you don't know.
I quoted to you the skeptical scientists. Which scientists was I supposed to quote, dipshit? The ones who agreed with you?
Of course I should have-- after all, they're "objective."
And Rask,
I do think it's funny that you consider reading articles on the web to be "research."
Surely I can't touch your "rigourous research methods." After all, I don't know how to plug words into the Google window.
"You seem to start with the assumption that global warming is bunk, and look for cites that are *defined* by their skepticism of global warming."
Galileo was *defined* by his belief in a heliocentric solar system.
Jesus Christ. What nonsense. Anyone who's a skeptic, according to you, must be discounted, because they are, quote, *defined* (asterisks included) by that skepticism.
Only people who aren't, quote, *defined* by skepticism -- i.e., true believers -- are "mainstream" and "objective" and "real scientists."
You're so ignorant. You're just running at the mouth, having no idea what you're saying. Cold fusion skeptics are, quote, *defined* by their skepticism of cold fusion. And yet, Rask, they're, quote, *right.*
Here is my global warming take in a nutshell: We *know* that certain gasses trap heat, and that the Earth is 30 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise because of the Greenhouse Effect. We know that CO2 is one of those gasses. We know that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have almost doubled since before the civilization of humans, to levels far higher than they have been at any time in at least the past several hundred thousand years. We know that all else being equal, these levels of CO2 would certainly cause measurable warming, as the Earth was already measurably warmed by CO2 already in the atmosphere. We also know that CO2 levels and global temperatures have moved almost in tandem, by looking at ice core samples.
The debates are around the "all else equal". Positive feedback from water vapor, negative feedback from cloud cover, positive feedback from reduced albedo, the impact on vegetation growth, feedback mechanisms in the oceans, etc. Are all wild cards that we are trying to get a better handle on. These all make precise predictions an inexact science.
But we are still putting more and more CO2 in the air all the time, and (again) we *know* CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are in essence having an uncontrolled climatological experiment while living in the test tube.
While we certainly need better models (and while models have been improving constantly, convincing more and more skeptics), I think we have enough information to justify some preventive action, such as modest carbon taxes and subsidies of alternative fuel research.
Time and time again, you resort to the same fallacious trope, though you refuse to acknowledge what you're doing.
Over and over, you say: "You can't take his word for it. He doesn't believe in GW. By definition, then, he's a skeptic, and ergo out of the "mainstream" and not "objective.""
You claim you're not doing this, of course. First, you claim that the fact that a scientist is quoted in NR makes him somehow "unobjective." Selectivity bias, you claim. On whose part? The scientist can only "select" his own goddamn opinion, rask. There is no "selectivity bias" when you can only select one option.
No, you misunderstand, you whine. I'm objecting that you quoted a political magazine.
Okay. So I go read web-sites created by peer-reviewed climatologists. Can I quote them?
NOW you claim: OH, you can't quote *them*. They're "*defined* by their skepticism. So they don't count, either."
Whatever. Rask, if anyone who opines that 2 plus 2 equals four is to be rejected simply because they are "defined by their constraint to traditional number theory," then we will very quickly establish a
"consensus opinion" that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4, because all contrary opinions are willed out of existance.
pro-GW, some of which were skeptical, some of which were both.
All contained numerous articles from different scientists. Had you bothered to check his sites, you'd know that. But you didn't,
because you know what you know and you know it because you
know it and no one can tell you what you don't know."
I did check his cites. I just noted that the only ones you thought worthy of mention were the skeptical sites. Did you look at the others? Did you read the Economist article I linked? Or did you deem The Economist a bunch of liberal catastrophists?
"Jesus Christ. What nonsense. Anyone who's a skeptic, according to
you, must be discounted, because they are, quote, *defined*
(asterisks included) by that skepticism. "
You are an idiot. I was referring to site that specifically labelled itself a global warming skeptics site. I similar would criticize people who only did their research at global warming advocacy sites. You keep confusing the issue. I am not criticizing the web sites you discuss, but your tendentious methods of getting your facts.
you refuse to acknowledge what you're doing."
That is because I am *not* doing it. I still maintain you wouldn't know a fallacy if it bit you in the ass, which explains your constant use of them.
"Over and over, you say: "You can't take his word for it. He doesn't
believe in GW. By definition, then, he's a skeptic, and ergo out of the "mainstream" and not "objective.""
This is a flat out lie. I never said anything remotely close to this. You would be a better debater if you actually addressed what people *said*.
"I just noted that the only ones you thought worthy of mention were the skeptical sites."
Idiot. Perhaps I should have quoted the ones which agreed with you...?
"Did you look at the others?"
Yes, I read quite a bit of the others. I found the skeptics to be far more convincing.
"Did you read the Economist article I linked? Or did you deem The Economist a bunch of liberal catastrophists?"
Appeal to authority. Whatever I consider the Economist's editors to be, one thing I do not consider them to be are scientists.
Further, the article you quoted spoke of reducing pollution-- which is a good thing in any event. They did not seem to weigh in very much on GW itself, except to note the Kyoto accords are founded upon the assumption of calamitous GW.
Even if they had weighed in, I would have given their non-expert, lay, politically-influenced opinion the same weight I give yours -- very little.
http://www.vehiclechoice.org/climate/cutler.html
iiibbb,
When you predict an "Ice Age" to the public at large, in an effor to scare them with thoughts of glaciers covering Washington, D.C., you are responsible for yor deliberate, misleading implication, even if you will admit privately that by "Ice Age" you mean only a period of abnormal cooling a twenty foot glacial surge.
So over and over we have the non-scientific (and non-logical) fallacies:
--Appeal to Authority. "Hey, this is the ECONOMIST talking, here!"
--Appeal to Authority (everybody's doing it version): "Hey, *most* scientists agree with me! Just count 'em up!"
-- Ad hominem dismissal of argument which cannot be dismissed on its own merits: "You can't trust him. I can't identify what error he's making, or prove him wrong, but he must be wrong, because he's a skeptic. And skeptics are, by definition, out of the 'mainstream' and non-'objective.'"
Over and over, round and round we go. Punctuated by whines of "But I'm not doing that at all!," and then doing it all again.
...lord knows studying the environment doens't pay much.
James Hormel, who served as ambassador to Luxembourg, said Ashcroft opposed his Senate confirmation ``solely because I am a gay man.'' Paul Offner, now at Georgetown University, said Ashcroft asked about his sexual orientation during a 1985 job interview.
President Bush (news - web sites)'s spokeswoman on the nomination said Ashcroft didn't recall any such interview.
And what are we to consider you to be?
But that can't be true because Ashcroft is a Republican and Republicans never lie.
Only Democrats lie.
Right J.J. ?
Alan Greenspan warns of dangers to US economy of warped CA electrical price structure and even The Economist - those Thatcherite True Believers - admit to a deregulation failure....
Georgie fiddle fucks....Ace is worried about money coming out of HIS pocket...well it surely will as the CA disaster ripples across the country
But the thief? Deep in the heart of Texas!
Price Gouging Anyone? 
Cellar,
I was tempted to post something about Ashcroft earlier.
Wanna know somethin'? I think there is evidence -- not conclusive, but probative -- that he did lie/may still be lying.
This would bother me, except for the fact that you all have instructed me that perjury is no big shakes.
You spent 8 years claiming that perjury wasn't any big deal. People could claim a lack of memory re: things they clearly remembered (Senator Clinton? President Clinton?) and that was pefectly legal, ethical, and legitimate.
You cannot turn on the proverbial dime now.
And as for me? Am I reversing my position?
Not quite. We had this argument before. YOU WON-- you established that perjury doesn't matter.
It's a "precedent."
I would have preferred a different precedent-- I would have preferred the precedent that perjury is a disqualifier from public service. But your position carried the day-- perjury doesn't matter.
Live with it.
but, Drudge is reporting that bubba's staff did $200,000 damage to White House computers last Friday.
Not to worry. It's only government property.
Save Your Lies For The Senate
"John Ashcroft lies about why he opposed the nomination of James Hormel, a homosexual, as ambassador"
Nonsense. This isn't what he lied about. Asked if he had blocked Hormel due to his homosexuality, Ashcroft responded: "I based my decision on the totality of his record."
You could drive a truck through that... besides, it's honest. It's not Ashcroft's fault if the obvious follow-up questions are never asked, such as: "Was Hormel's homosexuality the *chief reason* you blocked his confirmation?" Blame that on Teddy the K.
Of course Ashcroft's vote WAS based on "the totality of the record." All votes are. In Hormel's case, he was gay, he was nominated to be ambassador to a Catholic country, he was a liberal, and he exhibited bad, pornographic art in his family museum. "Totality of the record."
The bastard lied...
Even a nitwit like you could hardly believe that crap
If Ashcroft lied at all (which is certainly not proven; a charge made in the 11th hour by a Democratic hack isn't the most credible in our country's history), he lied about asking James Offner if he was a homosexual.
But remember, there's another RULE you all insisted on:
If the person making the charge/ruling against a person/giving evidence against a person is of the opposite party, then that charge/ruling/evidence must be dismissed as wholly without merit and entirely fraudulent.
Well I remember hearing that any Republican, or alleged Republican, who made a factual assertion against Clinton was "obviously lying, because he's a Republican."
Well, Offner is a Democratic hack. By operation of your rule, his charge is dismissed.
You can't proooooooooove anything.
And he certainly can't claim that it was based on "the totality of the record."
[Update, 1/25: It seems that Ashcroft also lied when he testified that he has never screened employees for sexual orientation. Paul Offner, a former aide to Sen. Pat Moynihan on health care policy, told David Vise and Dan Eggen of the Washington Post that when then-Missouri Gov. Ashcroft interviewed him in 1985 for a job running Missouri's department of social services, Ashcroft asked, "Mr. Offner, do you have the same sexual preference as most men?" (He does, but he still didn't get the job.)
story.]
Jexster:
You are claiming that it's obviously perjury when a man can't remember a single question he asked in 1985, and yet you simultaneously claim that Clinton was telling the truth when he said he couldn't remember being alone with Monica (who was, according to her testimony, performing ANALINGUS on him, sticking her tongue up his ass) one year before the testimony...
Funny. I would think that a person would be much more likely to remember someone's tongue up their ass than a single question in a 15-year-old interview.
But perhaps our sexual histories are different--I've had more interviews, you've had more tongues up your ass.
They need only rely on their integrity and common sense.
Which is why you Save Your Lies For the Senate
No, I have already made several scientific arguments that you have failed to refute, and only showed ignorance of the issues involved whenever you tried (such as when you argued that "we aren't making any more water", or when you claimed that Al Gore thought global warming was caused by CFCs).
"So over and over we have the non-scientific (and non-logical) fallacies: -- Appeal to Authority. "Hey, this is the ECONOMIST talking, here!"
You really don't understand fallacies, do you. I had always thought they must have taught these in law school. Anyway, I never once made an appeal to authority - I cited the Economist as a mainstream, objective source of information on the subject as a contrast for your use of the National Review. You dismiss the scientists quoted in The Economist, but accept wholeheartedly the views of the scientist in the NR. That is because you are a hack.
"Appeal to Authority (everybody's doing it version): "Hey, *most* scientists agree with me! Just count 'em up!"
That isn't an appeal to authority fallacy. An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the person cited is not an expert on the subject in question. Regardless, I didn't even make a non-fallacious appeal to authority, as I didn't claim that the majority of scientists were right. I instead claimed that it was a sufficient basis for political action.
"-- Ad hominem dismissal of argument which cannot be dismissed on its own merits: "You can't trust him. I can't identify what error he's making, or prove him wrong, but he must be wrong, because he's a skeptic. And skeptics are, by definition, out of the 'mainstream' and non-'objective.'"
And this is an outright fabrication. You have done this a lot lately Ace.
Hailing the Thief -Protesters flocked to the inauguration of George W. Bush, but the mainstream media looked the other way
Read What Really Occured on the Street of Ole DC!
Jexster,
What do you imagine you're accomplishing?
Do you really believe the American public is suddenly going to rally around the Gay Cause?
Puh-fucking-leeze.
Cellar & you toss out terms like homophobic like it's going out of style.
But you know-- or at least I *hope* you know -- you'll never find a community more united in gay-friendliness than you find on-line. "Homophobe," to you, means a someone who isn't a certifiably fag-hag.
But you know -- as unrefined as I may be -- I'm pretty gay-friendly. I'm left of this country's center in this regard. Fairly far to the left.
75% of the country really does hate you because you're gay, Jexster.
So I really don't understand your glee, here. Do you really think your Democratic buddies are *winning votes* by going to the mats over such a ticky-tack charge? Or do you think they're actually pissing off 75% of the country, who's a bit tired of the Gay Community's stridency and vitriol?
At any rate: Go for it, big guy. If you think you'll win votes that way (giggle), have at it.
But I notice it's only the extremely homophilic media who's carrying your water on this. I don't hear any big-time Democrats making much of the issue.
Not even Teddy the K.
Rask,
Fuck off, ignoramus. I'm sick to death of you.
I'm sick of being called a liar by a piece of shit lying bitch who has, six times by my count, offered increasingly bizarre spins as to why only GW believers are "objective."
Don't talk to me anymore-- period. You're cut off, I'm sick of you, I don't ever want to hear a fucking word out of your mouth again.
Are we clear?
Good-bye, and good-luck.
Do you mean those gun control laws that Reno refused to enforce? Are you going to whine and complain if Ashcroft continues Reno's policy of non-enforcement?
This is a flat out falsehood. Remember Waco? What were they trying to enforce there before the debacle? I would venture to say that every day of the year there is an assistant US attorney trying to convince a court to ratchet up our already draconian drug sentences on the basis of "use" of a weapon. Further, I know that the ATF and FBI are busy pursuing weapons charges in my district as well as those neighboring us, as I see the cases on the docket.
1) You have to believe that the nation's current 8-year prosperity was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but that yesterday's gas prices are all Clinton's fault.
2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.
3) You have to be against government programs, but expect Social Security checks on time.
4) You have to believe that government should stay out of people's lives, yet you want government to regulate permitting only opposite-gender marriages and defining what your official language should be.
5) You have to believe that pollution is ok, so long as it makes a profit.
6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.
7) You have to believe that only your own teenagers are still virgins.
8) You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body, but that large multi-national corporations should have no regulation or interference whatsoever.
9) You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way, Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and President Clinton.
10) You have to believe that society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you still won't vote for Alan Keyes.
11) You have to believe that it was wise to allow Ken Starr to spend $50 million dollars to attack Clinton because no other U.S. presidents have ever been unfaithful to their wives.
13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.
14) You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because they defend the
Constitution, while the NRA is good because they defend the Constitution.
15) You have to believe that socialism hasn't worked anywhere, and that Europe doesn't exist.
16) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not important enough to deserve federal funding proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the public doesn't need to be educated about it, because if we just ignore it, it will go away.
17) You have to believe that biology teachers are corrupting the morals of 6th graders if they teach them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible, which is full of sex and violence, is good reading.
18) You have to believe that Chinese communist missiles have killed more Americans than handguns, alcohol, and tobacco.
19) You have to believe that even though governments have supported the arts for 5000 years and that most of the great works of Renaissance art were paid for by governments, our government should shun any such support. After all, the rich can afford to buy their own and the poor don't need any.
20) You have to believe that the lumber from the last one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth the destruction of those forests and the extinction of the several species of plants and animals therein.
21) You have to believe that we should forgive and pray for Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston for their marital infidelities, but that that bastard Clinton should be impeached.
The cowardly little shit didn't have the balls to return or answer
Preening little poseur toad.
"Anyway, I never once made an appeal to authority - I cited the Economist as a mainstream, objective source of information on the subject as a contrast for your use of the National Review."
Douchebag. that's the definition of an appeal to authority-- believe them because of who they ARE, not because of what they SAY.
You're such a little ignorant bitch you don't know what "appeal to authority" means, but you scramble to deny you're doing it. "That's sounds bad," you simper to yourself. "I can't be guilty of that... even if I don't understand what it is."
"You dismiss the scientists quoted in The Economist,"
No scientists were quoted in the Economist. It was an op-ed piece endorsing common-sense pollution control. There were no "quotes" by "scientists."
"but accept wholeheartedly the views of the scientist in the NR."
Well, at least he actually was a scientist, rather than an op-ed columnist writing on a deadline.
He's talking about the fact that your list has been posted before.
Recently.
In the old days, the cops would have complied. But not today.
Rask, the idiot policy analyst who claims to be a "scientist":
Which of the following is an appeal to authority?
A) "I cited the Economist. That's a good, mainstream source of opinion, so you can trust their arguments more than many other sources of opinion."
B) "I quoted the Economist. You quoted National Review. That sohows how strong my argument is and how weak yours is."
(Answer: They're both appeals to authority. Both statements avoid actual debates on the merits of the issue in favor of claiming that one position is "stronger" based entirely on the extrinsic fact of who said it.)
At any rate, I've now violated my Kiss-off to you twice. That's enough.
And, BTW, I do mean it: Kiss off. Goodbye. Get your last licks in, and make 'em count, because I'm never corresponding with you again.
Toodles.
Dubbya: "I'm plenty smart."
Cellar,
Yes, I'm a liar. America loves you.
In fact, America is planning you a Surprise Party tomorrow, to tell you how much they love you.
Try to act surprised when they all jump out and yell "Hoooray!" And whatever you do, don't tell them I told you.
Please explain to me O Non-Homophobic One, how Clinton's blow-jobs affected my own.
Then explain to me why I have nothing to fear from JohnAshcroft, since today he spoke before that Fake Gay group the RNC has confected because the Log Cabinettes are too radical.
Your hero, Grover Norquist, is a member of this new group -- run by Mary "Are you sure I'm wearing enough mascara?" Matalin.
Are we spposed to pretend she's a dyke or a Fag hag?
Wish the cunt would make up her mind.
Along most of the parade route Bush was jeered with chants of "Not My President!" Protesters were so thick at one point that the presidential motorcade paused for five minutes before reaching it, then sped by, forcing the Secret Service escort to break into a sprint to keep up. Only at the very end of the route, where few demonstrators had gathered, did the President muster the courage to emerge from behind the tinted windows of his limo and walk through the street.
You're going to jump out of the cake and beg to suck my cock?
Well you ain't gettin' any!
"Please explain to me O Non-Homophobic One, how Clinton's blow-jobs affected my own."
If your criterion is the following:
It's okay to lie about something if it doesn't affect ME
which is the strong implication of your statement, then Ashcroft can lie about gays and abortion all he likes, Cellar. To each, his own.
I'm sure my own personal supply of blow jobs won't be affected by his Hormel vote.
Contact these Senators on the Judiciary Cmte.
Biden-DE
Kohl-WI
Feingold-WI
Torricelli-NJ
Schumer-NY
and make sure they are voting NO on a recommendation for Ashcroft.
Go to4 e-mail addresses
How To Be A Good Democrat
1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
2) You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
3) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists.
4) You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
6) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
7) You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.
8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who've never been outside of Seattle do.
10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.
12) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13) You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14) You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, or Thomas Edison.
15) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't, because the right people haven't been in charge.
16) You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.
17) You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.
18) You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.
19) You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20) You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States
The cable news producers were happy to see the gorons whereever they were and kept their cameras on them.
Poor losers, the Democrats. As we're finding out by how they trashed the White House before they left on Saturday.
Story last updated at 8:01 p.m. on Wednesday, January 24, 2001
ELECTIONS: Fraud indicated
The time has come, as Mayor John Delaney suggests, for a thorough investigation into Jacksonville's November election miscues.
Among the irregularities that have recently come to light: 499 votes were cast by people not legally registered, and 162 were illegally allowed to fill out registration cards immediately before voting. More ballots were cast than there were people on the voting logs in at least two precincts. At least 30 people voted more than once.
The outcome of the presidential election, which was decided by just 537 Florida votes, probably would not have been different if Jacksonville's election had been run better. Unofficial hand recounts of undervote ballots in Miami-Dade and Collier counties are showing the winner, George W. Bush, would have widened his lead over Al Gore if there had been a statewide recount using the standard of counting any discernible dimple or pinprick as a vote.
It's true, also, that the illegal voter problem was statewide.
The Miami Herald says some 2,000 Floridians voted illegally. It quoted one woman as saying she cast two separate ballots for Gore -- and would have liked to have voted even more often for him.
An Orange County man said he cast a ballot for Gore even though poll workers knew he wasn't eligible to vote.
"I told them I was not registered," he said. "They looked around at each other ... and they let me vote."
Still, that doesn't make what happened in Jacksonville right.
.... Election integrity is more important than convenience. The recent trend toward easier access also has had the tendency to increase the possibility of fraud.
Early numbers indicate quite a few more Democrats than Republicans voted illegally. That may be a coincidence. Still, an effort should be made to determine whether partisan politics was a factor.
By finding out exactly what went wrong, and why, mistakes can be avoided in the future.
22. You have to be dumb enough to give a cigar humidor to a man who does not use cigars for smoking.
23. You have to believe that if rich people did not exist there would be no poor people.
Rosie:
There weren't that many demonstrators there, jexster. They kept moving from one camera position to the next up Penn Ave to Freedom Plaza. At the most 5 to 10 thousand out of a quarter of a million.
CNN said "500...maybe a thousand".
What caught my media-savvy eye was how they kept moving up Penn Ave from Constitution and Penn to finally all gather at Freedom Plaza, which is where Penn turns up past the Treasury Building.
They knew where the TV cameras were. And pushed and shoved themselves into positions where they could be seen. They also wanted to be arrested and were disappointed when only nine were.
When we get congresses reactions this year, you can bet it will be a half baked deal that will not curtail the states from screwing everything up as usual, and that will be for only one amendment. Think of how much trouble over 80% of our amendments have caused. We don't have a working congresss but committeees that are ran by political contributions from the wealthy patron's donations to have a country to their likings. Right now we are producing sixty times as much with the same amount of effort as we did sixty years ago, with the same amount of labor aas we did when f.D.R. was elected. The laborer is only able to buy six or seven times as much as he did when I was young. A gallon of Gasoline was then an hour to an hour and a half in wagers,now an hour buys seven gallon. The rest of the money should go in to public enterprises,ecology and taking care of the needy people; instead of that it is going to the rich making one hundred millionaires where we used to have one. The poor! Poor! people do not realize that when all get rich then prices must go up and all are worth what they were before it happened.
Bank on it!
Select the "I'm feeling lucky" option.
lisajolie
The Bush administration said they didn't find the alleged vandalism funny and say it will cost taxpayer money to clean up and repair.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) --California's power supply fell to a dangerously low level again early today, just hours after the warning had been lifted for the first time in days. The Stage 3 alert, the most serious energy alert that means power reserves are so low that there is a good chance of blackouts, was lifted one minute before midnight last night. But the California Independent System Operator, which runs the state power grid, reinstated the Stage 3 alert at 4:32 a.m. PST, and said it would run through midnight tonight. The reinstatement of the alert comes as legislators and regulators grapple with solutions to the state's energy crisis.
Are you OK?
Are you?
lisajolie
Knives" be far behind?
For Ace, needless to say, this is goingtoo far. Imagine -- they're asking for a place under the table! This is an outrage!
There are, of course, no Conservative liars. ROTFALMAO!
A very obvious truth. What'syour problem with it?
Select Americans. love me.
The few. The proud. The Cellar Door Fuckbuddies!
(post to you in Inferno, btw)
Might President Bush defy his supporters by adopting policies that recognize the single largest social change to happen on his predecessor's watch?
um, no
Does this do anything to redeem Bawer in your eyes?
What if?
What if GWB ask Dick Cheney to resign the VP post first and appoint John Ashcroft as the VP........
then nominate Dick Cheney as the AG.
Remember: Elaine Chao for Linda Chavez is a better deal for GWB.
Well, that seems to be quieting the Lefty whiners.
Terrific first week for President Bush. Clearly the right man won the election.
+++++++++++++
OBVIOUSLY!
All that said, there is a final question worth considering: should Mr Ashcroft even have been nominated?
lisajolie
Nope.
The ability to state the obvious should scarcely be heralded as a breakthrough. What I'd like to see is for Bawer to acknowledge the fact that the gay liberation movement he so despises is crucially responsible for all of this.
But that will happen when Brian Boitano does a Triple-Lutz in the 9th Circle.
L.A. Times coverage of Ashcroft's lies.
No way! They will go back to whine about the butterfly ballots AGAIN.
The Virginia Senate moved one step closer yesterday to requiring every public school student in the state to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag each morning, sparking lively debate among students and educators in classrooms across the region.
Feels good, don't it boys?
Spin on.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California's power managers unexpectedly returned to a State 3 alert before dawn today to get needed Northwest electricity as lawmakers struggled to find a permanent solution to the state's energy crisis. One minute before midnight, the energy managers had lifted the Stage 3 alert for the first time since Jan. 9. That alert means power reserves are so low that there is a good chance of blackouts. Officials reinstated the Stage 3 alert at 4:32 a.m. PST, because that alert is necessary to obtain power from Northwest sources. The ISO said it would run through midnight tonight, the 11th straight day.
Go figure!
Here it comes....
Joe Barton: Darth Vader of Clean Air
Texas congressman Joe Barton's new role overseeing a key panel ]on air pollution is setting the stage for a nationwide fight over smog.
The federal Clean Air Act, which cleared the skylines of dozens of American cities and improved air quality across the nation, is threatened by a shift in Washington bureaucracy that has put Barton, R-Ennis, in charge of the very law he tried to gut four years ago, public health advocates say.
Clinton provides entertainment with his pardons,gifts,and pranks.
HaHaHa!
What a country!
Ever heard of cost-benefit-risk analysis?
At least, not according to the New York Times.
Greenspan did put an end to the fiction spread by W's spokespeople that tax cuts can stimulate a slowing economy.
lisajolie
Enjoy your breathing now, folks - things aren't shaping up too well for the air that your children will have to breathe...
President Clinton left office with a 68% approval rating leaving every other modern president including Ronald Reagan in the dust. While Smirk's tax cut is still too big, the fact that we can afford a significant cut at all is due to the prudent and responsible economic policies of President Clinton.
Newton once said, "If I have seen further than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants," referring to Gallileo, Kepler, etc.. If Smirk is able to get anything done at all, it is because he is standing on the shoulders of Clinton.
bbb:
Clinton provides entertainment with his pardons, gifts ,and pranks
Oh, I don't know...I guess it almost as entertaining as when Ron & Nancys pals bought them a HOUSE.
The Virginia Senate would pass the label from a can of soup if it were perceived to be a politically conservative. What a bunch of idiots.
The conservative pundits and Bush lackeys, meanwhile, including a few gay hacks, have been feeding us the line that a president should be afforded the right to choose the people he wants, and that a nominee's actual positions and ideologies should not be enough to blow him or her out of the water. By this logic, Democrats are supposed to find that he broke some selectively enforced law à la Linda Chavez's immigration indiscretion, rather than vote Ashcroft down based solely on his appalling record on human rights, his horrendous statements and his overall extremist political philosophy. The fact that Ashcroft promotes hate against certain groups, his supporters seem to be saying, is not enough to have reservations about how fairly he will apply the law.
lisajolie
Move on to Bush's signature campaign promise of a sweeping tax cut, introducing an administration version of a tax package next month. GOP congressional leaders say they want the tax cut passed before lawmakers leave on the August recess.
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The White House has devised a step-by-step strategy to score some early legislative victories, starting with education reform, to give the new administration momentum before moving on to more contentious issues such as tax cuts and Social Security.
Despite the close divisions in Congress and a wary Democratic leadership, President Bush is convinced his Texas-tested style of frequent meetings and friendly nicknames will help him prevail.
Consider this: After a session with new members of Congress Friday, he'll have met with some 80 senators and representatives during his opening week in office. He plans to invite the rest over soon.
"He's met with more members of Congress than any other modern president during his first week in office," says Nicholas Calio , Bush's top congressional liaison. "That says he plans to repeat his Texas style of reaching out. He knows Washington is a different place than Texas, but people are people. The outreach effort is a reflection of his personality and his style of doing business." Unless there's an unexpected economic or foreign crisis, these early battles on Capitol Hill loom as the first test of the new president's leadership, his command of Republican ranks and his ability to reach across party lines. For Democrats, too, they will help set the ground rules on how they'll behave toward Bush.
"I don't want to make a statement ignorant of the kinds of facts and considerations that ought to inform my judgment," he said.
But in a letter last August to a St. Louis anti-tobacco activist, Ashcroft wrote that he did "not believe that this lawsuit will help in the fight to curb teen smoking" and "could set an unwise precedent leading to the federal government filing lawsuits against countless other legal industries."
"What he wrote to his constituent and what he said at his hearing can't be reconciled," said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, whose state organizer, Steve Sorkin, received the letter. "The question is which John Ashcroft will become attorney general."
This is not Salon TT.
"It was vintage Bush: He gave nicknames to lawmakers he barely knows, listened intently to their pet concerns, asked their guidance on the ways of Washington. Partly, the sessions were icebreakers. But they also underscored Bush's recognition of two hard, cold realities. He's a newcomer to a town where the wheels of political compromise are often greased by personal relationships. And his party's hold on Congress is so tenuous that he is going to need every vote he can get-from Democrats as well as Republicans-to get his agenda enacted."
On the Clinton front, the press confirms a Drudge Report scoop
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is pulling a disappearing act today amid the furor, even dropping out of a long-planned event with the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Several other meetings scheduled today with elected city officials have also been abruptly canceled.
-George W. addressing educators
This is not Salon TT."
Sez You.
As I said earlier, I'm sure he has his core values, but mostly he is a politician first, and there are few politicians who are also not opportunists.
The question remains whether truthfulness is one of Ashcroft's core values.
But what the hell, he promised not to screen Justice Dept. applicants about their orientation and to permit the gay and lesbian group at Justice to keep their official status. He hedged on whether gays should get full security clearance at the FBI, but that probably shows his ignorance of the simple fact that you cannot be blackmailed if you are open about your orientation, which someone no doubt will eventually explain to him.
I'm delighted these issues are being aired.
"Steven Spielberg and his wife, Kate Capshaw, sent china worth $4,920. New York insurance magnate Walter Kaye provided the china cabinet. Denise Rich, whose fugitive ex-husband was given a presidential pardon, chipped in two coffee tables and two chairs.
"In the year before President Clinton left office and Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the Senate, the first couple received $190,027 worth of furniture and other gifts.
The NFL/GOP $100 million man Mark Chamura, Packers linebacker, is on trial for child enticement and rape of a 17-year-old. Chamura's trial is currently featured on Court TV. Chamura is accused of enticing teenage girls into his hot tub, getting them and himself drunk and sexually assaulting one of the girls. Chamura is a rising star in the Wisconsin GOP and reportedly was being groomed for a campaign for U.S. Congress. Chamura boycotted the Green Bay Packers visit to the White House after winning the Super Bowl to indicate his disapproval of Clinton's immorality.
Wonderful. Thanks.
(Not that hypocrisy is limited to the GOP, however, as numerous recent events on the Dem side indicate.)
Washington Democrat also may block Bush's state judicial appointments
Friday, January 26, 2001
By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT
Sen. Patty Murray yesterday became the third senator to announce that she will vote against confirming President Bush's nomination of John Ashcroft as U.S. attorney general.
Murray, D-Wash., also said she will block Senate confirmation of the Bush administration's nominees for federal judgeships in Washington state if she is unable to play a role in their selection.
Deploying the same tactic that GOP Sen. Slade Gorton used during the Clinton administration, Murray noted the Senate tradition under which a single member can block a judicial nominee from his or her home state.
"I will enforce my right as a senator to make sure any nomination sent up by the attorney general and White House has our support before I will let it move forward," Murray said in an interview
bbb:
All Presidents receive gifts upon leaving office. Wake up...
The Reagans received a house from their admiriong pals so let's not get too holier than thou.
admiring...
lisajolie
No, since the Clintons are returning nothing.
(I miss the tan M&M's, myself, which were retired to make way for the return of the red ones, or the new blue ones. Life is change.)
Ronski:
No, since the Clintons are returning nothing.
But why should they return anything? The gifts are on public record; if anyone fears Hillary will play favorites, there is the record...she'd be caught.
And it's a little hard imagining him having trouble acting women.
Or men.
folliculitis
I almost don't want to know but what is that?
I was referring to the AF 1 items. They have a right to accept gifts from admirers.
It has been reported, however, that they asked not for the gifts themselves but rather the money, so that they could shop for the best price and keep the excess. But that may be a lie from the vast right-wing conspiracy.
It's also called hot tub disease (that is, the folliculitis that comes from hot tub use.)
Folliculitis is a slight, sometimes itchy bacterial infection of the pores of the skin.
In hot tubs, it comes from letting the pH level get too high (not acidic enough). It goes away by itself.
I registered for a seminar this semester "SF Political Issues" taught by the looney left head of the SF State Pol Sci Dept., Rich DeLeon.
Knowing DeLeon's reputation as an SF Looney Leftist, I sent an e-mail to members of my Democratic Political Club - Alice B. Toklas LGBT asking for opinions on DeLeon.
The attached is from a well-respected local gay journalist and member of the club.
It offers, I think, some insight, and not especially flattering insight into the interest-driven politics of the looney left.
It probably will surprise no one but here in SF, I have my own leftie Aces of Waste that I enjoy fucking with....one of them will be my freakin professor!
Damn the GPA...full speed ahead!
Guess what one of the texts is....
Concerned...care to serve as my advisor?
WASHINGTON - January 23 - “Today I am announcing,
after reviewing his record as a Senator and as a
public official in Missouri, that I intend to oppose
former Senator Ashcroft for Attorney General
looks like you've hit that nail on the head....
lisajolie
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Bushie Nepotism
by PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The pardon application of fugitive financier Marc Rich details an intensive behind-the-scenes legal effort that began with futile meetings 14 years ago with federal prosecutors and ended with clemency from President Clinton in his final hours in office.
What the application doesn't mention are more than $1 million in donations from Rich's ex-wife to the Democratic Party that Congress now wants to look into.
A House committee chairman, Rep. Dan Burton, issued demands for documents on the Rich clemency matter Thursday as Congress officially began delving into whether the president, in the words of Burton, ''had an improper motive for the pardons'' of Rich and business partner Pincus Green.
''Former President Clinton has not given an adequate explanation as to why Mr. Rich deserved a pardon,'' said Burton, R-Ind., who is chairman of the House Government Reform Committee.
Rich's former wife, songwriter Denise Rich, donated more than $1.1 million to the Democratic Party from 1993 through last September. But she said this week there was no connection between the money and the recent pardon campaign.
The self-congratulation was grating. But it contained a grain of sociological truth. When George H.W. Bush, James Baker, and Nicholas Brady entered the Ivy League, admission still depended largely on pedigree. By the time Clinton, Robert Reich, and George Stephanopoulos got there, admission was based on grades and SAT scores. The Clinton administration symbolized the transfer of power from one elite to a different, more meritocratic one. "It's tempting," wrote Nicholas Lemann on the New York Times op-ed page two months before Clinton's inauguration, "to regard the ascendancy of the meritocracy as a sort of `end of history' of American elites."
Eight years later, the end of that end of history of American elites has arrived. Of George W. Bush's 14 Cabinet members, only two went to Ivy League colleges. His staff contains no Rhodes scholars. Where Clinton packed his administration with intellectuals, Bush's Cabinet boasts only one Ph.D., Secretary of Education Rod Paige--and his doctorate is in physical education...
Goodie! Dan Burton back in the news. My heart soars.
Pumpkins and watermelons, run for your lives!
visual condition which becomes apparent especially in middle age and in which loss of elasticity of the lens of the eye causes defective accommodation and inability to focus sharply for near vision
"NEWS FLASH...Congress has no business reviewing Presidential Pardons..its constitutional thang"
Bribery is a constitutional thing, too.
But why should they return anything? The gifts are on public record; if anyone fears Hillary will play favorites, there is the record...she'd be caught.
Would you be in favor of eliminating the Senate prohibition of receiving gifts, as long as the gifts are on record?
(This is not the typical rhetorical question, where the intended answer is "no". As with campaign finance, some argue for removal of limits, with strict rules for disclosure.)
