25038. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 12:45 PM PT
Boomer, boomer, boomer…
Your arguments all ignore the simple fact that it is your dear Republican party (and don't give me that 'I'm and Independent' crap)which controls both the House and the Senate.
25039. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
Ptboya
The purpose of impeachment is to rid the nation of an individual who has demonstrated himself to be unfit to serve as President. The Constitution calls for whatever evidence there is against the President to be presented in a trial-like process. The advantage of a trial is that it is not a shouting match, it is slow, deliberative, and disciplined.
A deliberative, disciplined, trial-like process would automatically include witnesses. Witness testimony in a trial is not an idea hatched by your "right wing conspiracy." It's the normal standard.
Spokesmen for the President and the Democrats announced over and over, since last summer that there would never be 12 Democrats in the Senate to join 54 Republicans in a conviction vote. I never heard a single Democrat contradict these announcements. Indeed , the main argument in the House Judiciary Committee against going forward was that the jury was fixed in advance and conviction was impossible.
I wasn't referring to any censure motion. I was talking about a letter, signed by 20some Democrats and read into the Congressional Record. Unfortunately I don't have the text available to me right now but it essentially said that the Prez lied under oath and did other things to hid evidence, prevent justice, and yada yada. As part of his closing argument, Henry Hyde read parts of a censure motion that some Democrats had proposed that asserted the president's guilt in the very matters that the Dems voted "innocent."
25040. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 15, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT
Boomer- you chide Jade for assuming that Senate Republicans were "morons" and yet essentially argue that they were duped by the WH in responding to me. Are they morons or not? Make up your mind, not just your conclusion.
25041. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 15, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
BoomBoom;
Not only did the House Taliban enjoy the luxury of a majority in both the House and the Senate which enabled them to dictate the process--but they also were able to draft charges that were so broad and general.
For example, if I were a prosecutor and I decided to charge you with perjury--your lawyer would rightfully demand that I provide the specifics concerning your alleged perjury: when did this alleged perjury take place, in what context, what specific statement(s) were perjurious?
The House Taliban never had to do this. They merely charged perjury and made and discarded elements as they wished.
25042. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 15, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
BTW Boomer- I don't think that the WH cared a whit for GOP damage control, I do think GOP senators were swayed into limiting witnesses for that reason. Follow the distinction? Are you arguing that somehow the WH overcame their free will?
25043. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
Jade
Your post acknowledges that which you seem to be arguing against, the notion that adultery is a dischargable offense under the UCMJ. It is to the credit of the military that it has developed informal remedies that "fix" problems before someone has to be discharged. But the military's success in this area doesn't support your position.
25044. jflanagan1 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:00 PM PT
ptboya--Assuming what "too pat" means, my point is not that the $40 million was well spent, but rather those geniuses, who post Watergate bragged of the "reforms" initiated and promulgated, which would thwart future abuse of power by the executive, are about to return us to the system Watergate ante, and will puff again how this time they got it right. Now, Eric Holder may be the Second Coming, but when it comes to Arkansas' most famous golfer, it is reasonable to assume that he has a blind spot. And this will be sold as improvement?
Too, think for a moment about an OIC with a finite budget. That begs for defense delays and obstruction to allow the clock to run out. Again I don't know if the OIC was cost effective, but those who are complaining about this government waste are not those who ferret government waste habitually. Who would determine the OIC budget? The spenders they doth protest too much, about 4 minutes per year.
Finally, to me "too pat" is your revisionism about sequence--"we have a suspect let's find a crime." I think more honestly it went--we have evidence of some potential crimes. Are they crimes? And the AG said they were at least credible enough to investigate further. But what the heck--we "reform" Social Security once a decade with permanent fixes that last a decade, I guess "reforming" the process of investigation of Executive abuse deserves the same permanence.
25045. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:00 PM PT
Jade- I would argue that the better response is that the President, as CinC has never been subject to the UCMJ. The fundamental principle of American military law is and always will be that our military members are subject to civilian control. Period.
25046. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
Jones
The idea of a trial without witnesses originated with the White House. They (WH) managed to get all the Senate Democrats plus a few Senate Republicans to support this idea so the trial was fixed. I assume those Senate Republicans thought it to be in their political interest to go along with the White House. But I don't know what sort of political advantage each felt he would gain.
In any event, the trial was fixed so the President could look better and the Dems could look better in voting "not guilty" against a case that consisted only of scores of hours of boring argument and summation by lawyers and no live testimony from anyone.
25047. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
BoomBoom;
I speak from knowledge of the subject.
The UCMJ is a guideline, much like the Rule of Law. It is incumbent upon the military officer to enforce the UCMJ as he or she sees fit and necessary. I'd ask you, BoomBoom, why do military units routinely provide condoms to its personnel? Even married personnel---isn't the military encouraging adultery? I've been aboard ships that post where the "best" brothels are located.
How many people drive 55MPH? Why don't troopers pull everyone over who is exceeding the speed limit?
25048. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
Boomer…
Sigh… you just don't get it. It may take a while I guess. You're hurt now, I understand that.
But, this… 'A deliberative, disciplined, trial-like process would
automatically include witnesses. Witness testimony in
a trial is not an idea hatched by your "right wing
conspiracy." It's the normal standard.'
is logically challenged.
A deliberative process would not have charged a crime in the first place. You continue to sidestep that issue. Nor would a putative Grand Jury, as was the House Judiciary Committee, hear only the evidence of the prosecutor and not the witnesses themselves before casting a vote to go to trial. The rush to judgment by the House GOP was expedient politically, since they would lose 5 crucial votes by prolonging the process. Left out in this urge to beat the clock was deliberation and discipline.
That's why I keep urging you to brush up on the differences between courtroom procedures and an impeachment trial.
25049. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:11 PM PT
Jones;
I'm aware that there is a very good reason why the Prez, as CinC, is not subject to the UCMJ.
I'm merely poking a large hole in this fallacy that military personnel are routinely discharged, or even disciplined, for adultery. It just ain't so.
25050. fred1717 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
Boomer - I thought you said you had to go. Even if the Rs were limited to 3 witnesses, they had the right to choose their 3 best ones. And these are the ones THEY chose. (I have a feeling that they chose Sid B, not because he helped their case, but because they hate him so and wanted to give him a bad time, and, perhaps, lure him into a perjury trap.) These were ostensibly their BEST witnesses; and those witnesses proved WJC's case, not the House's. Some of the Rs apparently realized that, which is why they misrepresented the evidence, drew unwarranted inferences from evidence which proved the inferences false, and the other blunders (and unethical conduct) criticized by several Senators, Sen. Levin in particular.
25051. birda1 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:18 PM PT
ptboya: Excellant posting. Whats a poor BOOMIE to do?? Like many on the RIGHT I hear crying out for justice. They've taken 3 steps backward for every 1 forward, sending their House and Senate Majority into self-anihilation. "The Trial was Fixed, I tell ya.." BOOM DA DA BOOM..Geez, I don't think the great majority of Americans bought that Mr. Boomer..What they did believe and repeatedly TOLD THE REPUBICS, over and over throughout the entire investigation, was that Star's Investigation itself was "fixed"...The GOP lynchmob ignored this, the Media ignored this, and finally in the end, your arrogance and hypocrisy on the Right cost you your GOP. I believe it waould be interesting to hear an explanation from the United amoung the GOP to actually define the GOP we see today, without an all out battle amoung yourselves..What actually does the GOP represent anymore??Depends on which faction of the Gay Old Party you ask...
And not Bush Jr., Lovely Liddy or Dan Kwayle are going to save the GOP from its own cannabalism. Star, Tripp, and Goldberg will forever be loathed and their legacy to the GOP will forever be that of corruption and humiliation....they have left the GOP hanging in tatters.
....and Bill Clinton still remains President, and still remains the most popular President. Rule of Law does work..
25052. arkymalarky - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:29 PM PT
"Clinton is nothing if he's not an incredibly devisive influence."
What was I thinking. Yes, his 70+% approval rating is quite an indicator of how he's split the nation.
As far as your big haha over my other remarks, I said Clinton disliked conflict; I didn't say his friends disliked it.
"This sorry episode adds substantially to the already dangerously high level of power residing in the Presidency."
It's had the opposite effect. Man, your post rises to new heights of melodrama. Go blow your nose and wipe the tears off your keyboard before it locks up on you.
"So history will record this tril as the moment the impeachment clause was nullfied by a fixed trial and a fixed jury."
You are losing it, BJ.
25053. rondiaherlihy - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:39 PM PT
Let the truth set you free!
Lets face it, Boomer, the Demos are the party of truth and knowledge!
The Repugs are the party of hateful idiots, too inept to govern!
25054. CharlieL - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:43 PM PT
UnaBoomer also rants, "The purpose of impeachment is to rid the nation of an individual who has demonstrated himself to be unfit to serve as President."
Actually, it isn't. If it were, that language would be in the Constitution where specifics for Impeachment are laid out.
Impeachment is for removing a President who is determined by two-thirds of the Senate to be guilty of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Clinton wasn't proven guilty of anything approaching this requirement.
The "trial" wasn't fixed, UnaB, but your prejudices are.
25055. jexster - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
Clinton's legacy
"By 52 percent to 35 percent, Americans say they trust Clinton more than congressional Republicans to deal with the country's biggest problems. Moreover, Clinton's advantage is larger today than it was before the scandal surfaced 13 months ago, when 48 percent expressed more confidence in Clinton and 40 percent said they trusted the Republicans."
Now if this is the case immediately following an impeachment trial....
25056. jexster - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:29 PM PT
A methaphor - Republican agendas, Republican accomplishment
"For some Republicans, naming an airport and an expensive new office building after former president Ronald Reagan isn't honor enough. Now, one lawmaker has started a campaign to put Reagan in the company of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson--on the face of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota's Black Hills."
Carrying the metaphor another step, the Park Service reports that to do so would cause the monument to crumble.
25057. thoughtful - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:31 PM PT
jexster, but I doubt that's because of so much support for Clinton as it is so much detest for the GOP.
25058. OhioSTOPAS - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:34 PM PT
The argument that the House Managers "were prevented from presenting their case" because of the limitations on live witnesses is rebutted by Henry Hyde's admission that he needed witnesses to contradict their previous testimony. (Hell, some of the Republicans' "obstruction of justice" theories required one to disbelieve the testimony of every single witness involved!)
The Managers' call for witnesses, if anything more than just an effort to embarrass President Clinton and portray him as a cad (what was Sid Blumenthal's testimony relevant to, anyway?), was a desparate "Hail Mary" pass by prosecutors who had a weak case and were hoping for something better. By denying them a free hand to call live witnesses, the Senate didn't deny the Managers the opportunity to present THEIR case . . . they denied them the dream of presenting the case they wished they had.
25059. thoughtful - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:34 PM PT
What's particularly interesting is, even with the number of people leaving the WH, no one has written a book slamming the admin. Unlike the Reagan admin where many books were written, even while he was in office.
25060. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:40 PM PT
That may be because they can't write.
Well seriously, the rise of multiple media outlets may have something to do with this. Stephanopoulas and Morris have not held their fire. Well Morris is perhaps incapable of doing so.
25061. Greystoke - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
Shocking news from drudge:
"Feminist attorney Gloria Allred shocked the Los Angeles radio airwaves on Sunday night when she announced that Ted Turner's CABLE NEWS NETWORK banned her from its scandal lineup during the last seven months of its Clinton/Lewinsky coverage!
On her weekly KABC talk show, Allred reluctantly admitted that she is now persona non grata at the Atlanta based all news network after calling for the President to resign last August for his legal and ethical misconduct in the Lewinsky affair.
At the time, Allred had also filed a "friend of the court" brief in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit against the President.
Allred, a former Clinton advocate, campaigner and friend, claimed that an inside source at CNN told her that network brass now considered her a "Clinton hater" and would no longer extend her face time. Allred expressed astonishment at the turn of events because she says she has appeared on CNN as a regular guest since its inception in 1980."
Of course we can discount the possiblility that CNN simply thinks that Gloria is a f*cking moron and a shameless self-promoter.
25062. jexster - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
Marching Orders from Commander Q -
"How I'd throttle the GOP
By James Carville
February 15, 1999
Web posted at: 11:55 a.m. EST (1655 GMT)
So now it's finally over. After five years and nigh on $50 million of phony, partisan investigations and more than a year of media hysteria and round-the-clock cable coverage, the scandal has finally come to a close. The Senate vote will mark an end to this ugly chapter, and
congressional Democrats and Republicans will make peace and begin solving the problems of the next millennium.
25063. robertjayb - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:46 PM PT
R.I.P., John.
ATLANTA (AP) -- John D. Ehrlichman, President Nixon's domestic affairs adviser who was imprisoned for 18 months for the Watergate conspiracy, has died. He was 73.
Ehrlichman died Sunday of natural causes at his home in Atlanta. He had suffered from diabetes, his son, Tom, said Monday.
Ehrlichman, who along with H.R. Haldeman was one of Nixon's two top advisers, resigned from his White House post in April 1973 and was convicted two years later for obstruction of justice, conspiracy and perjury in the attempted cover-up of the burglary of the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate complex in Washington.
25064. Mrtoner - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:48 PM PT
This discussion is so exhausting! ...And so hopeless. Nobody's being convinced of anything, either by the reasoned arguments or the insults. Let's face it. The sides were long-since taken. Everybody has a view on the impeachment, the trial, the result. I've seen no evidence that anyone who has participated in this discussion has altered his/her view in the slightest (despite some pretty good advocacy from both sides).
Everything that can be said about this has been said, and I think the stars are beginning to go out.
25065. jexster - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:50 PM PT
Yeah, right. Before everyone goes riding off into the sunset, I'm here to tell you that in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over. And in the not-so-immortal words of James Carville, it'll never be over. I want to see our elected representatives get back to the business of the American people as much as the next guy, but first there are a few scores to settle. Democrats don't just have a chance to win elections by reminding folks what the Republicans have been up to--we have an obligation to do it. Because if certain people aren't held accountable, I can guarantee you that this festering
culture of investigation will haunt us for years to come.
The politics of personal destruction that engulfed Washington wasn't an accident. Even before they won control of Congress, the Republicans
dreamed up a government by investigation designed to cripple the Clinton Administration and sweep their party back into the White House. In October1994, Newt Gingrich envisioned a Republican Congress that would have at least 20 task forces and subcommittees investigating the White House. (Hey, give him credit for keeping his word--the G.O.P. Congress eventually featured 31 separate inquiries into the Clinton White House.)
Within two years, the G.O.P. had its investigative machine up and running, and Congressmen like Bob Barr were clamoring for impeachment. Speaker Gingrich told members of his party in June 1996 that the upcoming presidential election would be "all about" the three Cs: "corruption, cronies and cover-up."
Unfortunately for Newt, the President was overwhelmingly re-elected.
Undeterred, the Republicans continued their cockamamie inquiries. From
Filegate to Travelgate to Chinagate, they spent more time concocting
investigations than they did creating policy, a fact that wasn't lost on the American people come election time. And when the President's indefensible liaison with Monica Lewinsky bec
25066. jexster - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
[Ride to the Sound of the Gunfire!]
The Republicans have exposed their contempt for the American people. This nasty scandal won't really come to a close until each and every Republican who mounted this six-year war on Bill Clinton has been removed from office--not by sham investigations and phony inquiries but by the ballot box.
That's why some friends and I are forming a political action committee to target the right-wingers who didn't listen to the people of their districts during impeachment. We're going to mount a vigorous attack. We'll give money andsupport to candidates who oppose these smear operators. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. If the people don't rise up one more time and rid Congress of these characters, the next millennium will see no end to the politics of attack and investigation.
25067. Judithathome - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:57 PM PT
On the front page of todays paper, there is a photo of Hillary Clinton and her husband passing out chocolates from a huge Valentine heart to members of the press on the plane ride to Mexico. Hillary looks fantastic...they both do. I know FTC or Boomer or someone once chided me for mentioning how someone looked but hey....facts are facts. These two have walked thru fire and they've survived.
25068. jexster - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:07 PM PT
Incredible courage, Judith
"I'm Sorry Tinky Winky!" Reporter Who Outed Tinky Apologizes
25069. Judithathome - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:19 PM PT
jex:
I think Drudge has a new challenge! Wonder what his goddess Lucianne thinks of Tinky....maybe she could convince one of the others to wear a wire...as Drudge would say, "developing......"
25070. thomasd - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:00 PM PT
Beyond the 'no gloat' zone; a letter to the JWR from a liberal:
"Jewish World Review
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
Letter to the Editor
Feb. 12, 1999
Dear JWR
Pathetic losers!
IT IS NOT OFTEN that I can actually claim to have met a dumb Jew. But
you, Mr. Jolkovsky, and your readers -- incl. your gentile ones -- are
just that: Not only dumb, but a bunch of pathetic losers. For a year
now, you have been beating bongo drums like some tree-dwelling Africans
trying to appease some figmant of their (your) imagination. Some "Higher
Authority" you can't see or hear. Your "tune" has been that America
should return to a "moral" lifestyle; that religion should be taken
seriously; that it should actually be respected; that the institution of
the family is "sacred." It's about time you people grow up. Change your
tune. You backwards tree-dwellers should move instead into caves.
Obviously you just don't get it, do you? America has passed you by. This
is no longer the country of Freedom of Religion, but Freedom from
Religion. That's my take on the impeachment trial. We won. You lost. I
truly hope your site shuts down. Nobody needs your f**king webzine,
least of all your readers. JWR is doing the moral equivalent of giving
cigarettes to masses of people with cancer. May god, jesus, allah, buda,
and the rev. moon help you. I sure as hell won't.
I dare you to print this letter.
Chad McFeatter"
25071. thomasd - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:22 PM PT
CNN, NBC obviously have trouble handling straight reporting of Democrats who have major problems with the administration:
"FEMINIST CHARGES: I WAS BANNED BY CNN AFTER CRITICAL CLINTON COMMENTS
Drudge
Feb 15 1999
Feminist attorney Gloria Allred shocked the Los Angeles radio airwaves on Sunday night when she announced that Ted Turner's CABLE NEWS NETWORK banned her from its scandal lineup during the last seven months of its Clinton/Lewinsky coverage!
On her weekly KABC talk show, Allred reluctantly admitted that she is now persona non grata at the Atlanta based all news network after calling for the President to resign last August for his legal and ethical misconduct in the Lewinsky affair.
At the time, Allred had also filed a "friend of the court" brief in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit against the President.
Allred, a former Clinton advocate, campaigner and friend, claimed that an inside source at CNN told her that network brass now considered her a "Clinton hater" and would no longer extend her face time. Allred expressed astonishment at the turn of events because she says she has appeared on CNN as a regular guest since its inception in 1980.
CNN head Rick Kaplan could not be reached for immediate comment. "
25072. thomasd - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:32 PM PT
Robert Novak reveals the true reason that the Senate Democrats lined up behind Clinton en masse (perceived expediency over all else):
"Why Dems blindly backed Clinton
Chicago Sun-Times
February 15, 1999 Robert Novak
As the Monica Lewinsky scandal unfolded 13 months ago, a senior White House staffer asked me rhetorically: ``Where is our Charles Sandman?'' Last Friday, he
was answered, definitively and defiantly: everywhere and in great abundance.
The late Rep. Charles W. Sandman Jr. (R-N.J.), as a House Judiciary Committee member in 1974, defended President Richard M. Nixon against impeachment so
blindly that it cost him his seat in that year's election. While aides of President Clinton in January, 1998, bemoaned the absence of such unquestioning loyalty, at noon
on Friday, 45 Senate facsimiles of Charles Sandman said, ``Not guilty.''
Therein lies a political mystery. The sordid allegations Clinton denied turned out to be all too true. Clinton handled this greatest crisis of his career badly, his anger
overwhelming his good sense, and he has not been beloved by Democrats in Congress. What, then, explains their total support against his removal? In the end, he
was seen in the party as the indispensable source of its past success and future hope, whatever his shortcomings.
When the Monica story broke, few Democrats returned my calls. They preferred silence because most felt Clinton would and should be forced to resign. Those who
did talk to me, asking not to be quoted, were livid.
One senator, a longtime friend of Clinton who ended up as one of his staunchest defenders, said a year ago: ``I cannot tell you how upset I am about the president's
irresponsibility--how betrayed I feel.'' Indeed, he said, Clinton had betrayed a whole class of loyal friends."
25073. thomasd - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:33 PM PT
25072 continued -
"The aide who raised the Sandman analogy mourned that Clinton's ``triangulation'' (seeking a middle way between right and left) had lost him the Democratic faithful.
A well-known party organization stalwart in Chicago, calling the president ``disgusting,'' worried about a Republican sweep in Illinois.
All of the above became unbending Clinton loyalists, even though his behavior turned out to be worse than early reports suggested. After once threatening to
abandon the president for reprehensible personal conduct, they militantly defended him after learning of substantial evidence that he had engaged in a cover-up.
The proliferation of so many Sandman look-alikes is explained by them as reaction to the tactics of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and the House Republican
managers. But the real source of their support was suggested by the much-criticized remarks of Sen. Robert Byrd, the Senate's senior Democrat. He said what many
colleagues feel: Clinton is surely guilty of impeachable offenses but is too valuable to remove from office.
No narrow partisan, Byrd is talking about Clinton's value to the nation. But during last year's campaign, I encountered many Democrats who saw the president as
their political savior.
Typical was Todd Schmitz, who was then Democratic chairman of Macomb County, Mich. Burdened with a ludicrous candidate for governor, Schmitz made clear
that he felt only Clinton had saved the party from destruction in his state. Such disparate Democrats as Byrd and Schmitz have made what consultant Jude Wanniski
and the Wall Street Journal editorial page call a Faustian bargain."
25074. thomasd - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
25073 concluded -
"Except for a few Democrats such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the bargain is so firm that enthusiasm for censure has flagged now that impeachment has
failed. Clinton advisers who once talked of ``censure-plus'' (condemnation plus a monetary fine) now say the process is over.
Instead of censure, Clinton returned to contrition Friday afternoon after his acquittal. But the president's mood for the last three months has been angry.
At a Jan. 28 memorial service, Clinton said of the late Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles that ``he didn't go around telling you how much better he was than everybody else
because he only took $100''--an obvious deriding of Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, the only Democrat who broke party ranks on two impeachment procedural
votes. In talks with Democratic congressmen and personal friends over the last two weeks, Clinton vented his rage against House Republican managers.
Such presidential nastiness is deplored by some Democratic supporters, but only in private. Like Sandman, they are true to their president. Unlike Sandman, they are not on a suicidal course."
25075. Greystoke - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:41 PM PT
thomasD Message #25070
If you rearrange the letters "Chad McFeatter loser" it spells:
"thomasD reefer clac" ........
Coincidence? I think not.
25076. jexster - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:49 PM PT
ThomasD -
Since you were posting about R. Novak, a quote:
"Republicans are the last persons I would trust when the going got tough."
I note that Asa H, Henry Hyde & Lindsey G spent the last weekend telling Ken Starr to get a life.
25077. thomasd - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:20 PM PT
Irony city:
Democrats are going to exert every resource that they have to effect the same transfer of presidential power in 2000 that they were condemning the HJC for attempting in 1999.
25078. Greystoke - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:42 PM PT
"Democrats are going to exert every resource that they have to effect the same transfer of presidential power in 2000 that they were condemning the HJC for attempting in 1999."
What do you mean by that? The Democrats are going to try to win the election?
25079. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT
What are you saying TD? That impeachment is just elections by other means?
25080. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:45 PM PT
I don't think it'll wash TD but, hey, you guys need to try something. Let's see who salutes.
25081. thomasd - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:45 PM PT
Greystoke -
You appear to be irony deficient. Try taking some intellectual vitamins:)
25082. Greystoke - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:59 PM PT
thomasd
Well I do see a big distinction between Al Gore assuming the Presidency in 1999 due to the removal of Clinton and Al Gore being elected at the top of the ticket in 2000. So I don't find it all that ironic that Democrats "condemned" efforts to achieve the former and will "exert every resource that they have to effect" the latter.
As you know, I don't think that the perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Clinton are impeachable offenses, nor do I think that Clinton is even guilty of either offense. Most Americans agree with me on the former, and many agree with me on the latter. Unless Americans change their views significantly between now and 2000, the Republicans will be punished at the polls for their single minded pursuit of Clinton.
So take solace in whatever irony you can find, Thomas. It will help tide you over during the next 23 months of Clinton's Presidency.
25083. Greystoke - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:02 PM PT
thomasd
This from the Washington Post:
"A total of 1,010 randomly selected adults were interviewed Friday night through yesterday. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
According to the poll, 64 percent of those interviewed approved of the "not guilty" verdict by the Senate on the two articles of impeachment while 35 percent disapproved. Nearly three in four said the Republicans had a fair chance to present their case against Clinton in the Senate."
25084. Greystoke - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:12 PM PT
thomasD
Unfortunately, the Washington Post poll does not support my view that "the Republicans will be punished at the polls for their single minded pursuit of Clinton." According to the poll, most Americans don't know or care how their Senators or Representatives voted on impeachment and removal.
25085. cllrdr - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:25 PM PT
Judge d . -- As I'm sure you're well aware my name isn't Chad McFeater
He does, however, have a point. Clinto won. You lost. And your party is a party of
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
LOSERS!
25086. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:37 PM PT
Cellar…
You really need to open up and let your true feelings out, man. Stop stifling yourself.
25087. elliot803 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:47 PM PT
Greystoke:
"Unfortunately, the Washington Post poll does not support my view that "the Republicans will be punished at the polls for their single minded pursuit of Clinton." According to the poll, most Americans don't know or care how their Senators or Representatives voted on impeachment and removal."
I don't think that's very significant. As election time nears, I'm sure Democratic candidates in Senate and House races all over the country will take every opportunity to remind voters that their Republican opponents tried to remove President Clinton from office. Perhaps many voters won't care by then, but I suspect that enough of them will to make the issue very damaging to the Republicans.
25088. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:06 PM PT
To Fred and others who claim the House Mangers got to use their three "best" witnesses...
Suppose you had a defendant on trial for bank robbery. Suppose the prosecution identified the following witnesses:
Witness A heard the defendant say he wanted to rob a bank
Witness B sold the defendant a blue Ford
Witness C was hired by the defendant to paint the Ford green
Witness D saw the robber wearing a purple Barney stocking cap as a mask mask flea in a green Ford
Witness E sold the defendant a purple Barney stocking cap
Witness F sold the defendant the scissors to cut eye holes in the stocking cap
Witness G was the cleaning maid in the Defendants hotel room who cleaned up the purple scraps of stocking cap.
Witness H was the bank teller who remembers that the robbers hand was bandaged
Witness I is the doctor who bandaged the defendant.
Witness J saw the defendant near the bank a few minutes before the robbery, refuting the defendants claim to have been traveling out of twon.
Now, which of these ten are the three "best?" Which three could prove the case making the other four unnecessary? Obviously all ten would be needed. You can't take a case that is proven on the testimony of 10, or 15, and just make do with 3.
The House Managers wanted to call 15 witnesses. According to them, it would take the testimony of 15 witnesses to completely present the case. For arm-chair lawyers here in the fray to assert that a 15 witness case could be presented just as well by the three "best" witnesses is just absurd.
I don't know if the case would have been stronger with all 15 witnesses. But the point is that the Senators and you guys here in the fray don't know either. And since the three deposition/no live witnesses rule was arbitrarily imposed nobody will ever know if the case would have been stronger with all 15. That's the problem. The decision to arbitrarily limit the witnesses to b
25089. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:09 PM PT
The decision to arbitrarily limit the witnesses to be deposed and to permit no witnesses to testify live is a cloud over the whole process. It is proof that the trial was fixed for the benefit of the President.
25090. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:13 PM PT
15 was as arbitrary to the impeachment process as was 3.
You're still talking like this was a trial and a sham one at that. I guess this is gonna take some time to sink in uh?
*This was not a trial* Go ahead… say it.
There, feel better?
25091. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:19 PM PT
If not a trial what?
According to the Constitution a trial-like process was to take place so the Senators could determine if the charges were valid.
What is your position? that no trial-like process was necessary? That none is possible? That politics made this one a sham? What?
25092. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:28 PM PT
The House Managers said a full presentation of their case required 15 witnesses. The Senate saw fit to do as the White House wanted and hear no witnesses and permit video tapped depositionns of only three.
Everyone here is sure the witnesses would have added nothing to a zero case. Yet nobody here has heard the witnesses testify or answer the specific questions the House Managers wanted to ask.
So, everyone here, like half the Senators is simply willing to belive in Bill Clinton and disregard any potential testimony against him. thus, the Constitutional impeachment clause was nullified.
25093. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:31 PM PT
You've answered your own question. Trial-like is not trial. The analogy to a courtroom trial fails at all stages… the OIC is not a prosecutor in the normal sense…the HJC was not a grand jury as normally defined. Need I continue? We've been over this ground before and the view still looks the same from where we're standing. This was not a trial. It was an impeachment process.
25094. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:39 PM PT
It is very similar to a courtroom trial. The Constitution describes the process as very much like a trial. A President is removed if he is "convicted."
I don't know what your objection is about.
25095. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:42 PM PT
What the House managers said doesn't impress me much. They botched things at such an elemental level that their word doesn't carry any particular weight. They allowed their emotions to carry them away which is no crime but hurt them. They were shifty in their presentation. Why? Because they knew this was a political process. And compared to the spin machine they were up against they were rank amateurs. Their performance was to the entire Clinton team's what the GOP reply was to his state of the union message. it was the regional thespian club against Broadway pros. The GOP did not *perform* well.
Now you may not like this because you're still deluded into thinking this was about rightiousness against evil.
25096. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:53 PM PT
Forgive me… that's righteousness.
25097. LadyChaos - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:26 PM PT
Boomer,
You're a real sorry loser.
25098. LadyChaos - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:28 PM PT
LOSER!
LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!LOSER!
25099. LadyChaos - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:29 PM PT
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
25100. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:39 PM PT
It's pretty hard to take you guys seriously.
Ptboya can't get past thinking of it all as a "performance" and LadyChaos' thinking is too shallow for any meaningful interaction.
But as far as your repetitive "LOSER!" goes it's not at all clear what faction or who will be the ultimate loser here. Just tonight I saw on TV the Fox News Opinion Dynamics polling data. The respondents prefered continuing a GOP congress by 44% to 41%. Not a GOP landslide but certainly not the GOP durge being sung by the elite media.
25101. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:40 PM PT
The best thing about the impeachment being over is I can admit I find Clinton a very mediocre president at best and have never liked him much as a person. Hehehe. But that's all irrelevant to whether or not he should have been impeached.
25102. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:41 PM PT
Nobody here has come even close to offering an acceptable excuse for arbitrary limits on the number of witnesses and on the amount of time for the impeachment trial. If no explaination is forthcoming it will become more and more obvious to the general public that the trial was fixed in order to favor Clinton.
25103. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:44 PM PT
Clinton's support is a mile wide and an inch deep. If there are more scandals the public will begin to turn on Senate Democrats for not throwing his sorry butt out.
That's why it's important for the Senate GOP not to do their usual cave-in to the will of the liberal faction. they should stand firm against any sort of extra-Constitutional contrivance that purports to "punish" Clinton so these Democrats are let off the hook.
25104. rondiaherlihy - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:49 PM PT
How long before some Repugs try to blame Pres.Clinton for John D. Ehrlichman death?
It is nice to see Larry Flynt back and smiling about all those Repugs he is going to expose!Praise LF!
25105. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:55 PM PT
What a miserable try that was Boomer. It's the liberals that fixed this now is it? All 25 of them. They wrastled the Senate into this betrayal of our fair-haired boys, the House managers. It was the liberals folks… they made us do it. They got us in a headlock and made us cry uncle.
25106. rondiaherlihy - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:56 PM PT
Boomer, the House Managers don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and that is why the House will be Demo after 2000!
This, the Senate Repugs understood and shortened the trial for their own preservation!
25107. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:58 PM PT
ptboya
I didn't say that "liberals" fixed the trial. Obviously the trial was fixed with the cooperation of several Republicans and All The Democrats from liberal to moderate.
25108. BoomerJeff - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:01 PM PT
rondiaherlihy
Today's poll shows the voters favor Republicans for the House in 2000. But don't let facts get in the way of your hysterical blathering.
Any damage that the Republicans might suffer as a result of the impeachment process was already felt months ago. The Republican party had nothing to gain by truncating the trial or by limiting witness testimony in order to weaken the case agaisnt Clinton.
25109. viewpoint - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:01 PM PT
The Senators are a panel of judges. Judges can throw a case out whenever the evidence warrants, in their judgement. The Senate based its LENGTHILY considered judgements to scope and end the trial on a MOUNTAIN of evidence.
One of my favorite details from the whole saga: the nervousness in the House manager's voice as he asks Monica his next question. He sees she's blowing him away, but he doesn't know what's coming next.
25110. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:03 PM PT
Yes performance counts Boomer. Even in a real trial. Your boys were sliced and diced by some lawyerin' fools. The time line error still makes me chuckle. Remember the bard's words "All the world's a stage. "
But now his ending line must be altered to fit your theses…(Like the managers you've come up with several, shifting to new ones as the old are demolished)… "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury… signifying
whatever the hell Boomer wishes to think it does."
25111. marjoribanks - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:09 PM PT
Boya,
Get thee to International with an adequate review of Shaheen' shammi kebabs.
25112. robertjayb - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:22 PM PT
DeLay has risen in the exterminator ranks.
In 1988, a little-known Texas congressman gathered a crowd of reporters in the lobby of a downtown New Orleans hotel housing several state delegates to the Republican National Convention. Clutching a pole topped by a drooping American flag, 22nd District two-termer Tom DeLay launched into a rather implausible defense of Dan Quayle, an Indiana senator freshly picked by George Bush as his presidential ticket partner.
Bill Clinton's draft-dodging efforts would become an issue in his successful campaign against Bush four years later, but now Quayle's own past manipulation of family ties to get into a national guard unit was touching off a classic feeding frenzy among the convention press corps.
DeLay seemed to feel the issue applied personally to him, and perhaps it did. He had graduated from the University of Houston at the height of the Vietnam conflict in 1970, but chose to enlist in the war on cockroaches, fleas and termites as the owner of an exterminator business, rather than going off to battle against the Vietcong.
He and Quayle, DeLay explained to the assembled media in New Orleans, were victims of an unusual phenomenon back in the days of the undeclared Southeast Asian war. So many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself. Satisfied with the pronouncement, which dumbfounded more than a few of his listeners who had lived the sixties, DeLay marched off to the convention.
"Who was that idiot?" asked a TV reporter who arrived at the end of the media show. When he was told the name, it drew a blank. DeLay at that time was a national nobody, and his claim that blacks and browns crowded him and other good conservatives out of Vietnam seemed so outlandish and self-serving that no one bothered to file a news report on the congres
25113. robertjayb - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:25 PM PT
further adventures of Tom DeLay
25114. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:26 PM PT
"Yes performance counts Boomer. "
Well, if Monica is any indication, the big guy flunks out big time, then.
25115. ptboya - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:26 PM PT
LOL…
A born politician? Or, maybe the pesticides caused some brain damage.
25116. Trialshark - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:47 PM PT
Boomer continues to whine about the "fixed" trial in the Senate: "The House Managers wanted to call 15 witnesses. According to them, it would take the testimony of 15 witnesses to completely present the case."
If that's what they believed then they have *no excuse* for failing to push for all fifteen. If they knuckled under in the face of pressure from the Senate, they're gutless wimps who never should have been permitted to try the case.
25117. conniemack - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:24 PM PT
Viewpoint:
You say,
"One of my favorite details from the whole saga: the nervousness in the House manager's voice as he asks Monica his next question. He sees she's blowing him away, but he doesn't know what's coming next."
Yes, delicious, wasn't it? What happened to that old lawyering adage: Don't ask a question to which you do not know the answer?
A wee bit o' discovery might have helped, ay?
(chuckle, chuckle)
25118. BobaFett - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:25 PM PT
Oh, go buy a dress, trialshark. You're such a silly little bitch.
Boomer:
Enough already about the trial-- let's move on. The Constitution says you need 2/3 to covict. The Managers got guilty votes from 1/2 the Senate. They presented evidence to persuade all of those who were persuadable. More evidence wouldn't have helped-- the Dems announced in their votes to dismiss that their minds were made up, live tesimony or not, fifteen witnesses or none.
Boomer, ya know damn well Clinton is going to get caught again in another scandal. He always has before. Just wait patiently. We won't be able to impeach him again (unless it's something fucking unbelievable), but, unlike Dick Nixon, we *will* still have Orenthal Jefferson Clinton to kick around anymore. It'll be a fun two years.
Flow with it, baby.
25119. conniemack - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:26 PM PT
gutless wimps....
and these are CONGRESSMEN you're speaking of?
Oh, okay, then.
I thought you might have meant a body politic. A people significant. A voice that cried to be heard.
My mistake.
25120. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:29 PM PT
Boba!
Where've you been?
25121. conniemack - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:29 PM PT
I guess the Rules that could apply -- within Congress, a Civil or a Criminal trial (2/3; based upon a preponderence of evidence; beyond a reasonable doubt) -- Don't apply in Boba's World, ay?
25122. BobaFett - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:29 PM PT
Cal:
Workin', baby.
25123. conniemack - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:30 PM PT
. . .and I happen to think if TrialShark Wished to wear a dress, he'd look damn good in one.
Gratuitous insults carry little weight.
25124. BobaFett - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:31 PM PT
ConnieMack:
Go twit on someone else. I don't have time for you.
25125. BobaFett - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:32 PM PT
"I guess the Rules that could apply -- within Congress, a Civil or a Criminal trial (2/3; based upon a preponderence of evidence; beyond a reasonable doubt) -- Don't apply in Boba's World, ay?"
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, or what on earth it could be in response to. Further, I hardly care. So don't bother telling me.
Cal:
So how ya been?
25126. conniemack - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:33 PM PT
If only I had the time, Boba; if only I had the time.
25127. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:33 PM PT
And Connie, too. Cool!
You know, I think that the Clinton scandal has totally destroyed political discussion here in the Fray.
What are we going to talk about next? Can't it be something other than perjury, 2/3, calling witnesses, or what the cigar was used for?
25128. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:35 PM PT
Boba,
Not too good. Hangin in there, though. I didn't think you actually worked. How odd. (g)
25129. conniemack - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:36 PM PT
Message #25118
"The Constitution says you need 2/3 to covict. The Managers got guilty
votes from 1/2 the Senate. They presented evidence to persuade all of
those who were persuadable. More evidence wouldn't have helped-- the
Dems announced in their votes to dismiss that their minds were made up, live tesimony or not, fifteen witnesses or none."
I remain unsuad.
25130. conniemack - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:39 PM PT
It's an arbitrary whorled, Boba, Cal.
Gotta nap now.
Goot luck in life.
Gott! Bring us something to discourse upon, ay?
25131. Trialshark - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:46 PM PT
Boba --
But I *have* bought a dress. Many, in fact. For Mrs Shark.
As for the "silly little bitch" part -- my, but you sound depressed. Losing a perjury vote in the Senate can do that to you, I suppose.
Pleasant dreams.
25132. BobaFett - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:55 PM PT
I love how Trial always feels the need to respond --weakly-- to all of my attacks.
Why do you write like a eighteenth century woman, Trial? Why the queenish "my, but you" type constructions?
25133. Trialshark - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:31 PM PT
Boba --
Don't flatter yourself overmuch; I respond to pretty much *all* of the posts directed toward me. Even the childish ones like yours.
25134. Trialshark - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:34 PM PT
Actually, on second thought, Boba, go ahead and flatter yourself all you want. Someone has to.
25135. birda1 - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:50 PM PT
robertjayb: your post is hilarious..
hahaha, guess what, he's STILL A NOBODY!!!
And *HE* is a representative of the Republican Party that sat in judgement of our President???!!!!!!! Is there any Repubican out there who can restore some sensibility and dignity to the GOP?? The lunatics who claim leadership have got to be the most bumbling fools since the "Three Stooges". How embarassing it must be for a Blue Blood Repubican to have to admit his GOP affiliation, after the year we have just witnessed. One big Repubic Cluster Fuck. What the hell were they thinking?? A blow job is a high crime..HAhahahhahahaa..hahah
hahahhhhhaa.. How damn stupid do they think the World is, for cryin out loud...!!! I really just laugh at the whole ordeal anymore.. Thank the Lord above for having the Majority of Americans prefer Clinton and the Democratic Party as Caretakers of our Government. How in the world could these GOP loonies manage an entire Nation?? Kind of a frightening thought isn't it..Can someone tell me just where *is* the strength of the GOP???? Does it even exist anymore??
25136. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:38 AM PT
"Boomer, ya know damn well Clinton is going to get caught again in another scandal. He always has before. Just wait patiently. We won't be able to impeach him again (unless it's something fucking unbelievable), but, unlike Dick Nixon, we *will* still have Orenthal Jefferson Clinton to kick around anymore. It'll be a fun two years."
You bet it'll be fun Bobo. Why? Cause you're such a Big Fat
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
25137. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:42 AM PT
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
LOSER!
1. IrvingSnodgrass - March 16, 1999 - 6:43 AM PT
A new dialogue in Slate addresses this question. I kind of get the feeling that some of you might just have an opinion on the issues presented.
Read the dialogue. Then share *your* view.
2. granted - March 16, 1999 - 6:47 AM PT
Protect the rich, protect the interests of the rich, and finally, make the rich richer. It's good for America, as far as the rich can see.
3. IrvingSnodgrass - March 16, 1999 - 6:51 AM PT
[moved from the Test Thread]
3690. Garrison - March 16, 1999 - 6:38 AM PT
Pardon me, but who is Terry Jeffrey? He initiated the dialogue on "What Should the Republican Party Stand For?" yesterday. I was impressed by the shallowness of his assertion that one of the three fundamental Republican principles should be that all laws should comport with Judaeo-Christian morality--as if that were some monolithic, easily definable set of values. I wonder, for example, which of the many condemnations in Leviticus he would like to see embodied in U.S. law; perhaps the dietary restrictions? Oh, for heaven's sake, Slate, please get a serious thinker to speak for the Republican right wing.
4. Philistine - March 16, 1999 - 6:58 AM PT
Republican Party Statesman
5. PsychProf - March 16, 1999 - 7:04 AM PT
Ha...Jesus only, stay-at-home moms, xenophobia, abortion wrongs, and general dislike of human differences...
6. cllrdr - March 16, 1999 - 7:04 AM PT
Dream on, Irv.
7. Adrianne - March 16, 1999 - 7:05 AM PT
Garrison
Actually, I thought Jeffrey was pretty honest. It's nice to see a far-right winger tell the truth about the "agenda", instead of trying to hide it or make it more palatable by pretending to actually believe in freedom of worship, or civil rights, or basic fairness and decency.
Good on you, Jeffrey.
8. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 7:12 AM PT
I agree with Ad.
Who wants to live in a US as envisioned Terry Jeffrey?
9. DaveCook - March 16, 1999 - 7:13 AM PT
Republican Agenda
. Cut government spending during boom times; cut taxes during recessions.
[Unfortunately, Dixie is the land of pork. The economy of the South was built on government spending projects. This makes the tax cutting projects of fuck-bags like Tom Delay particularly laughable]
10. bubbaette - March 16, 1999 - 7:19 AM PT
I used to think that the Republican party stood for the principal that the government that governs least governs best -- that they were for minimal intrustion into the publics' bidness.
Being as they used to be the part of Abraham Lincoln, I used to think that they promoted fairness and equal opportunity.
What a goof I was. Now it seems that the Republican party wants to delve into our personal lives to ensure that we're worshipping, raising children, and having sex according to their principles. Rather than promoting fairness and equal opportunity, they seem to be championing "them what's got gets".
11. DaveCook - March 16, 1999 - 7:21 AM PT
Clinton's latest middle class entitlement plan is in no way "double-accounting".What it is, is a promise to raise tazes on future income earners in order to pay the pension payments of baby boomers. Its of the utmost importance that the GOP oppose this plan. To the extent that the GOP has some coherence it extends to the idea that most income earners pay for their own retirement. What Clinton proposes is that people who are earning incomes in 2020 "gift" payments to SS recipients. One solution, to the pension payment problem has always been to raise taxes on future workers to an exorbitent rate. That is exactly Clinton's solution.
To the extent that the GOP can oppose this, and don't, they should be abandoned.
12. Judithathome - March 16, 1999 - 7:24 AM PT
The Republican party: government of the hypocrites, by the hypocrites, for the hypocrites.
13. IrvingSnodgrass - March 16, 1999 - 7:30 AM PT
Cellar:
"Dream on, Irv."
I assume you're referring to my comment that "some of you might just have an opinion on the issues presented."
Are you saying that you agree with Jeffrey??? You mean you don't think people will have an opinion on this stuff?
14. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 7:55 AM PT
The Republican party needs to get back to its roots. That is, it has to get back to the principles bubbaette so eloquently stated in Message #10. Unfortunately, many in the party are stooping to the level of the liberals. In that I mean they are attempting to use a monolithic federal government to enforce what it *feels* is the right thing for everyone.
The Republican party must make reducing the size of the federal government its top priority. They must "Civics" an important cirriculum again so that Americans can see the errors of the past century and once again live as the founding fathers intented.
They can begin by repealing the 17th amendment and enforcing the 10th. All other social issues must be left to state governments, local governments, or private institutions to decide. Too many people are expecting the federal government to solve every problem. They're not allowing the power of a union of state governments to discover what laws work best.
Gee, I feel a quote from Federalist 31 is appropriate here:
But it is evident that all conjectues of this kind must be extremely vauge and fallible; and that it is by far the safest course to lay them altogether aside, and to confine our attention wholly to the nature and extent of the powers as they are delinieated in the Constitution. Everything beyond this must be left to the prudence and firmness of the people; who, as they will hold the scales in their own hands, it is to be hoped, will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments.
I hope Alexander Hamilton wasn't showing too much faith in us.
15. Blaise - March 16, 1999 - 7:58 AM PT
This will give you an idea of what the Republican Party stands for:
This was reported in The Wall Street Journal (not exactly a liberal paper).
"The WSJ reports that the much-lambasted opinion expressed by Ronald Reagan that trees cause pollution is more or less true. An Oregon scientist has shown that trees pump out huge amounts of isoprene, a natural hydrocarbon that is a key ingredient in the chemical interactions that create smog. The Journal says the EPA now frequently looks at the role of trees in assessing a locale's air quality."
It makes perfect sense why The Wall Street Journal, a corporate-industrial newspaper, would publish such misleading information. I'd like to know if this Oregon scientist is being funded by the Lumber Industry? Now I suppose they can justify cutting down all the trees and claim that they're cleaning up pollution!!! Did the WSJ explain why there was never any smog, as we know it, before the industrial revolution? If what he said were true, there were vastly more forests back in the 1700s and going back in time -- that would mean the earth was far more polluted in the 1500s because of all those forests!! Smog is a contemporary problem. The trees actually clean up the air--they produce oxygen which in turn produces precipitation. It's been proven by the scientific community that the clear-cutting of forests is one of the major reasons why we're presently stuck with Global Warming.
Gee, who would ever believe that taking hikes into the mountains and forests would make you choke on smog!
My God -- they really think we're stupid.
16. wonkers2 - March 16, 1999 - 8:00 AM PT
For openers, the GOP, nationally and locally, should stand for the best from its own history: protection of individual rights to privacy, choice, speech; minority rights; more decentralized government; furtherance of private enterprise and avoidance of counter-productive non-cost effective regulations; free trade; strengthened U.S. participation in international institutions and the selective and judicious use of U.S. power for a safer and more productive world; sound environmental conservation and improvement--clean air and clean water; expenditures for a strong infrastructure--interstate highways, urban transit, strengthened Social Security and Medicare (with due concern for waste and fraud and efficient administration.)
Establish an overall Federal employment and budget maximum at current levels--no more money or people no matter how apparently urgent the need or worthy the cause without offsetting decreases in un-needed or less urgent expenditures. Instead of continually adding on to what we are doing, there should be a continual reassessment and redeployment process. The public tree needs pruning as well as fertilizer.
17. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 8:11 AM PT
wonkers2, Re Message #16:
You bring up an interesting point regarding free trade. I used to believe in free trade without question. However, at the risk of once again being unfairly labeled a religious nut, Pat Buchanan has made me reconsider (not necessarily change my mind).
Are we not doing ourselves a disservice by forcing our employers to comply with rigid "employee rights" programs such as healthcare, social security, and the like? We're all for free trade, but we're handicapping our own competitors! His proposal (at least as it stood 4 years ago) was to impose a tariff on all imports to offset the costs incurred by our own companies' compliance with our social welfare programs. Only then, he contended, would competition be truly fair.
18. wonkers2 - March 16, 1999 - 8:20 AM PT
The cost of social welfare programs in the U.S. is much lower than that of our major competitors in Europe and, I believe, Japan. Bangladesh, of course, is another matter. And, by the way, no American employer is required to provide health insurance to employees. They are required to pay their share of SS and Medicare taxes. Employers in the US are free to pay employees by the hour, month or year or to use "temps" from Kelley or Manpower or make virtually whatever arrangement suits them best. Buchanan is a politically opportunistic economic nitwit. He scares the hell out of the U.S. business community.
19. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 8:25 AM PT
Blaise, Re Message #15:
That's a typically liberal distortion of the facts. What I gathered from the story is that tree emissions are one ingredient in smog. That is, no trees, no smog. It does not claim that automobile emissions are not a factor, so stop implying otherwise. And while we're at it, I seem to recall that evidence for global warming beyond natural factors is inconclusive.
20. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 8:27 AM PT
wonkers2, Re Message #18:
To be fair to Pat, I think his big beef was with Mexico and other 3rd world countries. Also, he advocated a tariff only on imports that came from programs that had no offsetting social welfare programs.
21. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 8:44 AM PT
Another issue that is seemingly important to many Americans that the Republicans could handle better is abortion. Arguably, there is no easy answer. Therefore, the official party stance should be that we should once again allow the states to decide since I don't recall reading anything about abortion in the Constitution. In that light, Roe v. Wade is wrong, but not because abortion itself is wrong. Rather, it is wrong because the federal government has no business in the matter.
Some states can decide that an unviable fetus is not really a citizen and therefore has no rights to be protected at the expense of individual liberty. Other states can decide that permitting a woman to terminate a developing fetus is similar to terminating a child that has already been born and has become inconvenient. Some could take a middle ground and permit abortions, but tax them heavily. The important point is that people will be able to see the consequences of either decision and states can maintain their constitutional sovereignty.
22. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 9:03 AM PT
At the risk of hogging this thread, let me finish by saying that I whole-heartedly agree with most of the dialog. My only beef is with that from which it considers our laws derive. I would rather consider our laws derive from man himself, as he is the ultimate benefactor.
23. Raskolnikov - March 16, 1999 - 9:12 AM PT
A few points:
1) any slight contribution of trees to smog is overwhelmed by pollution from other sources, and more than made up for by their role as air filters. The WSJ comment is a jarringly late apologia for a Reagan gaff.
2) Buchanan scares the hell out of me. He represents everything that is bad in the Republican Party - religious zealotry, callousness, and boneheaded populism. Any GOP candidate which repudiates him and his followers is one I will respect. Their dilemma is that the RR is so damned powerful in the party, that anyone who rejects them has two strikes against winning the presidential nomination.
3) "Compassionate Conservatism" might work - emphasizing the more popular historical strengths of the Republican Party (pro-growth, restraint of government, fiscal conservatism, emphasis on bootstrapping), while rejecting some of the Buchananites' idiocies. I'll be very surprised, however, if The Shrub can get away with not making enough concessions to the religious right to prevent any claim of compassionate conservatism from smacking of hypocrisy.
24. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 9:15 AM PT
The primary problem with "Compassionate Conservatism" is that there ain't no such beast. It's an oxymoron like "Chaste Promiscuity."
It's "Kindler and Gentler" Redux.
25. elliot803 - March 16, 1999 - 9:33 AM PT
BTerry:
"Another issue that is seemingly important to many Americans that the Republicans could handle better is abortion. Arguably, there is no easy answer. Therefore, the official party stance should be that we should once again allow the states to decide since I don't recall reading anything about abortion in the Constitution."
But this policy (overturning Roe) is exactly what the Republicans' "official" position on abortion has been during the past 4 or 5 general elections, and most political analysts believe it has cost them considerably at the polls. But if you want to keep pushing a losing platform, have at it.
26. elliot803 - March 16, 1999 - 9:40 AM PT
wonkers:
"The cost of social welfare programs in the U.S. is much lower than that of our major competitors in Europe and, I believe, Japan."
No, Japan is the exception. It's about the only OECD country that spends a lower proportion of its GDP on social welfare than the U.S.
Japan is a special case because it is so socially and cultural different from the other western nations. The U.S. should raise its level of social welfare spending.
27. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 10:45 AM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #24:
That's either misguided or slanderous. "Compassionate Conservativism" means the government stays out of welfare programs, but encourages private institutions to help those who need it. It holds that if people choose how their charity is spent, it will be spent more wisely. The ultimate goal is to help America. What scares liberals is that it could work and rob them of all of the glory of being the creators of a big, benevolent government.
28. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 10:54 AM PT
elliot803, Re Message #25:
If you liberals passed a law stating that every person will receive $500/month from the federal government just for being a U.S. citizen, the movement to repeal it would be unpopular as well. Demagogues are hard to defeat.
But you're kind doesn't seem to want to educate the public on the real issues. You just want them to think that it *feels* right to have abortion legal. Well fine, let your state decide that. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to decide the issue.
But yeah, I guess it's too bad a party would stick to its principles. It could, after all, adopt its policies to the political winds - kind of a "win at all costs" mentality. You know, just like Bill Clinton.
29. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 10:58 AM PT
BT;
Your misguided and delusional response in Message #27 exemplifies the oxymoron that is "Compassionate Conservatism."
WRT turning over welfare to private concerns, cannot be done. Even a red meat conservative like Wm Bennett admits this to be the case. Ask a major charity like United Catholic Charities if they can take up the slack.
30. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 10:58 AM PT
elliot803, Re Message #26:
But why should the U.S. increase its federal social welfare funding (other than it's unconstitutional)? Hasn't Bill Clinton's administration closed the gap between the "have"s and "have not"s? Hasn't the trend of "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" been reversed? Aren't there no more homeless people? Doesn't everyone have a well-paying job whether they deserve it or not? Hasn't poverty been eradicated?
Or, is it just no longer reported?
31. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 11:00 AM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #29:
Well then why don't you and your ilk start your own welfare programs? Start by requiring contributions from every idiot who votes to support government mandated welfare.
32. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 11:10 AM PT
BT;
Because private charity, as Bennett acknowledges, can never meet the demands for those services. Bennet notes that you could take private charity, kick up contributions 25%, and liquidate all the Govt welfare physical assets and apply them---and you wouldn't meet the the demand for one year.
Ask any major private charity if they could meet demand without any Govt support. Just ask the question---they cannot.
33. Blaise - March 16, 1999 - 11:12 AM PT
BTerry #19
*I'm* not the one who is implying, WSJ and their Lumber-Jack scientist are the ones who are implying that trees produce smog. What's the logical conclusion to that false claim? If you're a Republican, you can figure out the implications immediately: "Cutting down trees won't hurt the environment, it may even help it!"
Even if you were to reduce it down to "an element" that contributes, it still leads to the above conclusion, which is precisely what the logging industry would love to promote in D.C.
As for Global Warming, you and the 15% Bible-stomping conservatives of the South are the only people who deny that man-made pollution is one of the major causes of Global Warming.
To deny what has been clearly documented and scientifically proven conveys your ignorance on the subject. The only scientists, and there are very few, who've taken your position--work for the corporate industries and are being funded by such companies to provide contrary conclusions.
34. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 11:29 AM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #32:
Do you know why people don't give more to charities? I bet it's because they already have a huge chunk of their income legislated from them. When I used to work at a grocery store, I gave $5 per week to the United Way directly out of my paycheck as I thought it was a worthy charity. I piss away more than that every DAY nowadays. Last year my additional contribution to charity was my old car I gave to my sister who didn't have a job at the time. I could have sold it for around $1,000, but she and my mother couldn't afford it.
35. bubbaette - March 16, 1999 - 11:29 AM PT
msg 31 gets the "first ilk of the day" award! Congrats, B.Terry!
36. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #32:
Oh yeah, so does this mean people shouldn't have to save for their retirment anymore? I mean hell, while you're young, spend whatever you have. The government will take care of you when you get old. Or, do you think maybe we've learned that saving money for retirement (or saving money in general) is a personal responsibility. Oh, that's right. Those poor souls who can't afford a loaf of bread need to be able to spend their savings on cell phones and cable TV. To deny them those luxuries would just be inhuman.
37. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT
BTerry does not mean for Message #34 to imply that he still gives to the United Way. BTerry gives to the "Take Care of #1" charity these days.
38. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 11:37 AM PT
BT;
The donations v. taxes has been thoroughly debated in this forum. Americans would have to make at least 10 times the donations they currently give to charity to fully replace government social spending. And there is no reason to believe that people who so bitterly hate paying taxes would gladly surrender an equal amount to charity. Arguments that charities can do the job better than government are naïve - most charities are small, highly localized and ill-suited to responding to national disasters or shifting economic trends. About 90 percent of charity funds are both collected and spent locally, which means that rich communities tend to have well-funded charities, and poor communities tend to have poorly funded ones. For this reason, only 10 percent of all charitable donations are directed to the poor.
39. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT
BT;
WRT SS, it is hardly a luxurious lifestyle. SS is a safety net, not a lifestyle. You choose not to save for retirement at your peril.
Look at the facts, 75% of senior citizens over the age of 65 have annual incomes (inc. SS) of under $21K. Can you imagine what the lifestyle of these seniors might be without SS?
40. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #38:
You refute your own point. That fact that most charities are small and highly localized is PRECISELY why they are better than the government.
As for responding to national disastors (or shall we say disastors that receive national attention?), I do truly feel sorry for the victims. However, putting aside national charities and private insurance, can't we follow this logic?: If it's raining, move out of the rain. If it's too hot, move into the shade. If trees keep falling on your house, move away from the forest. If you trailer keeps getting wiped out by floods or hurricanes, move out of the area!
41. bubbaette - March 16, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
Jade
Who the hell cares about those slackers. They can get a job! Krogers is hiring baggers, I've heard.
42. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #39:
Can you imagine what it would be if they had saved for retirement?
43. bubbaette - March 16, 1999 - 11:52 AM PT
Seriously B.Terry
You should get out more. Not everybody who works full-time has employer-provided retirement benefits. Guess what? The jobs that don't provide retirement benefits also tend to be low paying and more temporary in nature. Many people who work full time put every cent toward rent, food, transportation and other necessities.
So they should starve?
44. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
BT;
So, we should condemn senior citizens to a life of poverty because they did not do as you would have liked? So much for compassionate conservatism.
As for my points on charities, you completely miss the point. Most people will act out of self-interest---that means their charity is directed toward things like theater companies, libraries, and the like. The "unattractive" charities---border babies, strange diseases, etc.---wind up with the short end of the stick, although they are the ones that are most needy.
WRT to your idiotic---don't live where tornadoes are argument---nonsense. Find a place in the US that isn't subject to natural disaster.
45. jexster - March 16, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
Obviously the United States is a community.
BT is an egoist island unto himself.
His politics cannot be reconciled with even the most radical Republican.
He lives in a political fantasy world.
46. bubbaette - March 16, 1999 - 12:01 PM PT
Not only that, but what is so damned terrible about the notion of having some (ever so slight) responsibility for one's fellow man? I mean, I've been blessed with native intellegence, good health, a strong family structure and a good local economy. Why should I begrudge a pittance to those who are not so fortunate? Isn't there some kind of notion that in a nation as comparatively wealthy as the United States, senior citizens shouldn't have to eat dog food in order to survive?
47. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 12:03 PM PT
BT;
I suggest the GOFP tell senior citizens, 75% of whom have annual incomes less than $21K, that they are a bunch of parasites who failed to adequately prepare for retirement.
48. bubbaette - March 16, 1999 - 12:03 PM PT
Which just goes to illustrate one of what appears to be the bedrock principles of the Republican Part these days -- "I've got mine, screw you." That, and a complete inability to comprehend the meaning of "there, but for the grace of god, go I."
49. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 12:07 PM PT
bubbaette;
This a point that Repugs simply don't get.
As Americans, we're all in this together. Without a safety net, many of our lives---even the wealthiest among us---would be poorer, if not impossible. Our economic system depends on adequate supply of workers; this system would quickly crumble without mechanisms to support workers during times of hardship.
50. jexster - March 16, 1999 - 12:09 PM PT
Liberate BT from the yoke of his fellow man.
Kill him now! :)
51. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 12:15 PM PT
bubbaette, Re Message #43 and JaDeGoLd, Re Message #44:
No, but private charties would be more more capable of providing low-income housing than paying for seniors to live in the home of their choice. My real point is that people know better now. Phase out social security. Just as drug users are condemned for creating an additiction, so should the government.
52. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 12:16 PM PT
jexster, Re Message #45:
And I love the community spirit. But if I think my neighbor is a lazy, good-for-nothing asshole, I'm not going to help him fix up his house. Also, you say we are a community. What is the glue that holds us together? Is it philanthropy or fear [of imprisonment]?
53. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
BT;
Another GOFP platform item: Camps for senior citizens.
54. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 12:21 PM PT
bubbaette, Re Message #46:
There's nothing wrong with it. Do it all you want. What is wrong is being forced against your will to do it.
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #44:
You know, there are just some places I won't live: Cape Hatteras, Southwest Florida, Tornado Alley, the San Andreas Fault, etc. But I guess some people have a right to live there and be immune to the consequences.
55. jexster - March 16, 1999 - 12:21 PM PT
BT....That is a very real question, the glue. U got me there. I flat out dunno. [for once]
56. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 12:23 PM PT
BT: "What is the glue that holds us together? Is it philanthropy or fear [of imprisonment]?"
Neither. It is self-interest.
Welfare is a form of social insurance. In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life and property insurance. Obviously, the same validity goes for social insurance like unemployment and welfare. The tax money that goes to social insurance buys each one of us a private good: namely, the comfort of being protected in times of adversity. And it buys us a public good as well. If workers were allowed to unnecessarily starve or die in otherwise temporary setbacks, then our economy would be frequently disrupted. Social insurance allows workers to tide over the rough times, and this establishes a smooth-running economy that benefits us all.
57. jexster - March 16, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
"Lee-Huang said she and her group purified HCG and found it had no effect on HIV. The researchers then spent two years isolating other proteins in urine and testing them against HIV. Eventually they found lysozyme and ribonucleases.
The researcher speculated that pregnancy prompts a woman's body to make more virus-killing proteins to protect the developing baby from viruses and bacteria. That suggests "Mother Nature knows best how to protect the earliest stages of life," Lee-Huang said. "
A few points....
- what Momma Nature knows how to protect, Elliott knows how to kill.
- I hope that Dr. Lee-Huang can finish her work before the GOP expels or incarcerates all Chinese in thin country or abolishes the NIH.
58. PsychProf - March 16, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
The glue is survival fueled by self-interest.
59. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #53:
In Russia people used to get free apartments. If you had no children, you got 1 bedroom. 1 child, 2 bedrooms. 2 children, 3 bedrooms, etc. If you did the work of 10 people and were 3 times as smart? The same rules apply. But wait, it was free! How can you complain? Well, sometimes people had to wait in line 20 years or more to get them.
60. jexster - March 16, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT
BTW, who "lost China" anyway?????
61. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT
BT;
Message #54 You don't address the point. Certain areas provide vital economic benefit---should we not live in coastal areas because they are subject to hurricanes? OK, write off fisheries and ports. Tornadoes? Write off farming.
62. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 12:29 PM PT
Message #59
BT, are you seriously comparing the US to the old USSR? I think there are quite a few differences that render your argument ludicrous.
63. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 12:32 PM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #56:
I agree, and my self-interest tells me that since there's no such thing as a free lunch, there are hidden costs to these social welfare programs. My self-interest also tells me that *I* know BEST how to take care of myself. It also tells me if I'm not friendly to my neighbors, I shouldn't expect kindness in return. More importantly, however, it tells me that if I apply my philanthropy to the wrong people, I'm wasting my efforts.
64. LiberalNut - March 16, 1999 - 12:35 PM PT
Liberalism Works
For all of you conservative folks in this country, I might remind you that, in all probablitilty, our country would not be where it is today without intervention on behalf of our government.
What really burns you up inside is you are on the losing side of the battle. As much as you hate to admit it, a majority of Americans do not share your slash and burn vision of responsibilty to community.
Why haven't all of these brilliant ideas ever made it? It simply won't pass muster with the American public, and even the Republicans, when in a postion to influence policy, wuss out on their own principles.
65. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 12:40 PM PT
BT;
Indeed, there is no free lunch. Nobody says there is.
You may, indeed, believe that you know best. You may also be very wrong. You may believe that giving money to Jim and Tammy Bakker is making a big difference when it is doing nothing more than buying an AC unit for the doghouse.
As I noted earlier, 90% of charity is collected and spent locally. The result of this is that noncritical charities tend to be well-supported and the others go begging. Additionally, in the eevent of a widespread catastrophe---these small charities are simply unable to cope.
66. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
jexster, Re Message #60:
I'll speak ill of a fellow Republican here. Bush was just as cowardly towards China as Clinton is now (maybe a little less). You can't really say the same for Reagan because China was a small player (figuratively speaking) back then. It would seem clear the the policy of engagement has lead to us financing the creation of our most lethal enemy.
Republicans should advocate a much harsher stance towards China.
67. JaDeGoLd - March 16, 1999 - 12:43 PM PT
Lib Nut is correct.
If the Repugs were honest, they'd come out and say that thhey would eliminate SS, Medicare, etc. They know they'd never win by being honest. So, instead, they couch their message in little innocuous sound bites like "smaller Govt."
68. elliot803 - March 16, 1999 - 12:46 PM PT
BTerry:
"elliot803, Re Message #25:
If you liberals passed a law stating that every person will receive $500/month from the federal government just for being a U.S. citizen, the movement to repeal it would be unpopular as well. Demagogues are hard to defeat."
When BTerry agrees with a democratically enacted law, it's a legitimate expression of the will of the people. When BTerry disagrees with a democratically enacted law, it's "demagoguery."
"But you're kind doesn't seem to want to educate the public on the real issues. You just want them to think that it *feels* right to have abortion legal. Well fine, let your state decide that. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to decide the issue."
So you oppose the attempts to pass a federal law against "partial birth abortion?" Great. But actually, as a matter of established law, it's unconstitutional for the feds or the states to criminalize most abortions in the first two trimesters of pregnancy.
69. jexster - March 16, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
BT...
The question was a jex er... a joke.
I guess you are too young. The allusion was to the Eisenhower/McCarthy/Madame Chaing/Committee of 1000 slam against the Communist inspired Democratic State Dept.
The correct answer is - Harry Truman and the Pinko State Dept.
Talk about reaching for a platform! The GOP is not only trying to resurrect the Gipper, its trying to save us from Mao.
70. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #67:
I agree. But look at what an honest Republican such as myself has to put up with. It used to sicken me when I heard Bush say he wouldn't touch social security? Why? Why can't old folks chip in too? What's going to happen when the projected 2 workers for ever 1 retiree comes to pass?
71. Wombat - March 16, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
BTerry:
I hope you never find yourself in a situation in which you cannot take care of yourself or your family. I hope your family's medical insurance is paid up. I hope you and your family use seat belts. I hope you have enough socked away to pay for long-term health care or disability. In your world, if you haven't done this, you will be dependent on the goodwill of others, or you will starve. It would be interesting to see you take your prescriptions from the intellectual to the actual.
I also have a constitutional question for you. Does the Constitution specifically call for a standing army? If not, why do we have one?
72. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 12:55 PM PT
elliot803, Re Message #68:
I don't want to get into the "majority makes right" debate again. Let's just leave it in its current "thoroughly defeated" state.
73. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 12:57 PM PT
elliot803, Re Message #68:
And I wouldn't try to pass a *federal* law against abortion (or for that matter, a state law). That's none of the federal government's business.
74. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT
Let me take a look:
The Congress shall have Power...
To raise and support Armies...;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States...
75. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
Wombat, Re Message #71:
Me neither. That's why I invest in my 401k and work for an employer that provides health insurance. Otherwise, I'd pay for it out of pocket.
As for the Constitutional question, check Message #74.
76. bubbaette - March 16, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
In my view the "private charity" rhetoric is a ruse for the comparatively well-off to skip out on their responsibilities to their fellow man.
Another way in which the safety net is in the public's interest is public safety. If you really want to live in a "law of tooth and nail" society, you'd better be prepared to pay big bucks for body guards and personal protection, because the "have nots" are not going to starve quietly.
77. bubbaette - March 16, 1999 - 1:09 PM PT
BTerry
Remember when LTV and the Coal Operators cancelled their retirees' health insurance? Ever heard of underfunded pension plans? Ever read about the banks crashing in the great depression?
It boils down to a Republican platform of greed and civic indifference.
78. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 1:39 PM PT
bubbaette, Re Message #77:
Spun like a true Democrat.
79. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
Here are the Amendments I'd like the Republicans to repeal:
16th - Income tax. Violates the "all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" clause.
17th - Senate elected by popular vote. Unconstitutional since amendments can only be made if "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." (Utah never ratified the amendment).
14th, Section 1 - Potential loophole for the liberals.
80. Wombat - March 16, 1999 - 2:13 PM PT
BTerry:
Thanks for the quote. Reading it literally, there appears to be a difference between the ability to "raise and support" armies and to "provide and maintain" a navy: namely, armies are raised as needed, but the Navy is maintained as a standing force. Of course there is no mention of an Air Force.
Since you describe yourself as a believer in the original intent of the Constitution, can you justify constitutionally the existence of a standing army as we have now (and have had in some form or another for almost all of our nation's history)? Or for that matter, is the existence of an independent Air Force constitutional?
81. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
Wombat, Re Message #80:
Nice try. I don't agree, though, with your "as needed" clause. As for the Air Force, besides the fact that making a distinction between them and the Army is absurd, there are plenty of clauses under which it is constitutional.
Now, to address your real issue. Yes, Congress is empowered to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare as well as the common defense. But it can [could] only do so by applying a uniform tax. You can argue that the general welfare means free healthcare and cable TV. You can also argue it doesn't. So, what do you do? You ram an amendment down our throats that tosses out the uniform tax clause, which transfers vastly un-uniform taxes to the government and allows you to say, "Look, we have all of this money. Why shouldn't we spend it on the needy?". You do this so that you can claim that those who liken an income tax to thievery are cruel. Demagogues are tough to beat.
82. Wombat - March 16, 1999 - 2:52 PM PT
BTerry:
Why did the writers of the Constitution differentiate between raising and supporting armies and providing and maintaining a Navy?
83. BTerry - March 16, 1999 - 3:01 PM PT
Wombat, Re Message #82:
Beats me. Maybe it's for the same reason you can't just say "you can't chew gum" because you have to say "you can't chew, crunch, blow, pop, or otherwise have gum in your mouth".
Besides, the Air Force could fall under "To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..."
84. Wombat - March 16, 1999 - 3:45 PM PT
BTerry:
I have reproduced the complete clause pertaining to raising and supporting armies. "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:"
You can disagree with my interpretation of why armies are raised and supported, but a strict interpretation of the Constitution seems to support my contention that an army can be raised to counter an invasion, or insurrection (as needed), although only for a fixed period of time. No standing army would be required, as the "well-regulated" militias would form the army.
You don't know why the writers of the Constitution differentiated between raising armies and maintaining a Navy? Why not? You seem secure on what the writers of the Constitution had to say about taxation and the powers of the Federal government versus the States. You pride yourself in the strictest interpretation of the Constitution.
Now, why am I harping on this? Partly to suggest that your knowledge of the Constitution is neither complete nor free of nuance. Those who wrote the Constitution realized that the clauses pertaining to the Army were nonsensical almost from the beginning (The mobilization of National forces to counter the Whisky Rebellion was a nightmare), and that militias were not sufficient to defend in the frontier territories. In short, a standing army was needed. The performance of militias against an foreign threat in 1812 was for the most part deplorable, and cried out for a professional officer corps. Thus came the US military academy.
The people who wrote the Constitution realized that it had to either be interpreted or changed to reflect actual situations faced by the country. Where do you get off claiming that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted as it was written, when those who wrote it were pragmatic enough to realize that the Constitution must be mutable?
85. elliot803 - March 16, 1999 - 4:51 PM PT
BTerry:
"Besides, the Air Force could fall under "To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..."
You're doing exactly what you claim to be invalid when "liberals" do it: engaging in creative interpretations of the Constitution that depart from the original intent in order to justify empowering Congress to establish and maintain a government program (the Air Force) that you favor. So much for a strict reading of the text. So much for original intent.
86. cllrdr - March 16, 1999 - 4:53 PM PT
Don't you get it,Elliot? "BTerry" is just following in the footsteps of his guru, Robert Bork.
87. wonkers2 - March 16, 1999 - 5:07 PM PT
Seems to me the GOP could help itself by edging away from the religious right and toward the libertarians, emphasizing smaller, less intrusive government, more efficient government, more decentralized government; and creating a better environment for a world competitive private enterprise system; and cooling it on school prayer, reversing Roe v. Wade; gay bashing and the like; and not getting carried away and scaring the public about Social Security and Medicare, programs that were endorsed by a bipartisan majority, for good reason. And avoid, head-in-the-sand isolationist positions--recognizing that obviously the world is shrinking due to technology and accept a broad and constructive role for the United States in it and as well for carefully developed international institutions like the UN, IMF, OECD, NAFTA and the like. The GOP might steal a leaf out of Jesse "The Body" Ventura's book by appealing to disaffected moderates, of which I suspect there are plenty at this juncture in history.
88. adrianne - March 16, 1999 - 5:09 PM PT
Bterry
Your 401K is a gamble, you know, there's no guarantee that you'll be getting a chunk of cash when you retire. Particularly if you have your way and the Fed guts the constitution - think there *might* be a little stock market upheaval in that case?
And since you were responding to a post that said "I hope you never suffer a catastrophic illness...etc.", bringing up your 401K is pretty silly. I'm sure you know what happens to all "your" money on early withdrawal.
And the Hop-n-Shop doesn't offer a 401k, or retirement/pension plan. What's your take - the cashier there deserves to eat dogfood (which she might anyway, even with SS benefits) because she wasn't "smart" enough to get a job that allowed her to invest?
Probably doesn't bother you, huh? I bet you shop at one of those gigantic bag-your-own places, don't you? :-)
89. wonkers2 - March 16, 1999 - 5:26 PM PT
Yeah, BTerry and some of the others, in the unlikely event they got their way, would likely end up at age 65 down by the tracks in a tenement room with a bare light bulb hanging from the ceiling sitting on their bed in their pee-stained underwear with a bottle of ripple on the cracked linoleum floor.
90. CoralReef - March 16, 1999 - 5:32 PM PT
Message #89 That's a perfect description of me and my lifestyle now. Gotta problem with it??
91. wonkers2 - March 16, 1999 - 5:47 PM PT
CoralReef, Ha! Not if you don't. But I didn't mention a computer with an internet hook-up!
92. Greystoke - March 16, 1999 - 5:59 PM PT
wonkers
"Seems to me the GOP could help itself by edging away from the religious right and toward the libertarians, emphasizing smaller, less intrusive government, more efficient government, more decentralized government; and creating a better environment for a world competitive private enterprise system."
That sounds like good advice for the Republicans. But past history leads me to believe that their vision of smaller, less intrusive government only applies to deregulation of large corporations, preferably ones who have made big campaign contributions.
The reflexive Republican response to social problems of "build more prisons" and "hire more police" doesn't exactly square with a libertarian philosophy towards the common man. Republicans are drug war mongers, not civil libertarians. Fourth Amendment? What Fourth Amendment?
Another anti-civil liberties position of Republicans is their zeal to censor the internet. To hell with the free exchanges of ideas, some kid might see some titties! First Amendment? What First Amendment?
Another issue where the Republicans are way to the right of mainstream America is the environment. Richard Nixon was a tree-hugger compared to today's Republicans.
Republicans = Rape Public Lands.
If you can't cut the trees down, dig a gold mine, or build a resort on it, then what good is public land to a Republican?
93. thoughtful - March 16, 1999 - 6:09 PM PT
wonkers, I agree it's time for the GOP to return to being the party of getting the government off your back AND out of your bedroom. But that seems unlikely without a formal split. Just you wait. The dark horse (and I do mean dark horse) candidate has not yet announced -- the devil himself, old 666, Ralph Reed! Let him lead the Xns in their own party (certainly Buchanan lacks the charisma or brains for that) and sweet, innocent, harmless-looking Ralph can ride to the rescue.
Then what you need is some more old-fashioned Republican type, like a Ford around which the moderate GOP and the not-so-radical libertarians could rally, and we'd end up with 3 parties. Problem is, trying to find an old-line repub...maybe in today's left wing?
94. thoughtful - March 16, 1999 - 6:12 PM PT
That's the problem with the left. There is no left left. I guess they left. Even LaFontaine left. What's left? Hard to present balance when you've only got the right and the middle and no left left.
95. wonkers2 - March 16, 1999 - 6:31 PM PT
Greystoke and Thoughtful, We are on the same basic wave length. Ralph Reed? Hadn't thought of him. Very clever guy, but I wonder if he is macho enough. He and Gary Bauer have a wimpy TV persona, IMO. (Maybe its time for a non-macho in the White House!) Of the two, Reed would be much better--he's smarter and more willing to compromise and accommodate views more toward the center than his own.
96. thoughtful - March 16, 1999 - 6:45 PM PT
wonkers -- don't you see -- that's Ralphie's appeal. He seems to compromise, he's telegenic, and highly unlikely to have a "monica" problem. But just wait til he's in office and see what havoc! He'll be the sweetest, darlingest little control freak you've ever seen.
In fact, that's why I thought he left the Xn Coalition -- so he could run, since they refuse to admit they're a political party so they can keep their tax exempt status.
97. wonkers2 - March 16, 1999 - 7:49 PM PT
Fortunately for the Republic Ralphie won't make it. Neither will Shrub or Libby or Bauer or Forbes or any of the other sorry bunch of characters. It'll either be 8 more with Gore or Bradley.
98. JJBiener - March 16, 1999 - 9:25 PM PT
Greystoke - Message #92 is just the kind of bullshit propaganda I have come to expect from you. It is nice to see you stay so consistent.
Oh, excuse me. I forgot the rules. If a Republican were to post something like that against a Democrat we would be treated to howls about hate speech. Since it is Democrat doing the posting it isn't hatred, it's hyperbole. It's bullshit.
99. trouserPilot - March 16, 1999 - 9:28 PM PT
-yawn-
100. trouserPilot - March 16, 1999 - 9:28 PM PT
That was a good nap.