1. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 16, 1999 - 8:47 AM PT
The Clinton Scandal/Flytrap/Starr Report/Impeachment issue has finally been laid to rest, after an eventful year.
So, what else is interesting in the world of US Politics?
Talk about anything else *except* last year's news.
2. jexster - Feb. 16, 1999 - 9:02 AM PT
I have no idea.
3. Judithathome - Feb. 16, 1999 - 9:07 AM PT
At least last years news could be posted faster than one message every 15 minutes.
4. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 9:18 AM PT
Change the title of this thread to "US Politics 2000."
None of our posts will make it before then.
5. elliot803 - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:25 AM PT
It increasingly seems that the Republican Party is in crisis, that the tenuous coalition between the hard right and the "economically conservative, socially liberal" wing of the Party is finally unravelling, and that the long-term electoral success of Republican candidates is seriously threatened by the Party's image of intolerance and narrow-mindedness. Are there any Republicans out there who would like a serious discussion of this problem? This question is not addressed to Boomerjeff, ThomasD, BTerry, and the others who just want to endlessly refight the Clinton trial.
6. Jonesatlaw - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:28 AM PT
I predict a Bradley win in 2000. This prediction was sent at 12:28 CST. It will post slowly enought to be hindsight.
7. Judithathome - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:35 AM PT
Well, Jones...either your clock is wrong or you scored a truly unique feat: that of posting with the speed of light to the Fray!
8. Judithathome - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:49 AM PT
elliot:
I have several friends who are Republicans and they are all claiming that voters have short memories. I can state for a fact that THEY don't have short memories because all along, at least one of them has claimed that Nixon was unfairly ousted by the Democrats and that it was time for payback. Is this the thinking of the sane?
I would like to hear just what the reasoning is that I should even remotely consider taking the Republicans seriously...what do they plan to do that is so glorious it will make me view them as anything other than a group of out-of-touch old guys who are too cozy with the Religious Right and who hold themselves up as paragons of virtue when facts show they so clearly are not?
9. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:51 AM PT
Elliot Message #5
I don't see how you can separate the two. Even the "social conservatives" don't make the distinction.
10. birda1 - Feb. 16, 1999 - 12:15 PM PT
The evolvement of the GOP will be interesting to watch. I still am wondering what the GOP of today has as their agenda..what exactly defines the Republican Party anymore.. Has it become so entrenched in the ideology of the Christian Coalition that *they* are actually the definition? Or do the more Moderate of the GOP begin to create their own dominating side of the Party and return it to the days of pre-Christian Right. Upholding Christian beliefs is one thing, fanaticizm, however, is spinning oneself off in another direction, in the order of "Our way or None other". Good or bad, right or wrong,for or against..I do wonder how the GOP will be affected and how, or by who's leadership will the Conservatative Party re-unite.
11. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT
Well, apparently John Kasich isn't in any hurry to abandon the Xtian Coalition. He kicked off his Presidential campaign with an attack on "elites" in the media and Hollywood who "spent their entire lifetime degrading God and people of faith."
12. jonesatlaw - Feb. 16, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
How very interesting. My previous post is timed at the same time I sent it to the Fray. I don't recall it appearing that fast. Let's try again. 2212z
13. jonesatlaw - Feb. 16, 1999 - 1:22 PM PT
I see that my clock must be fast, it took two and one half minutes to post, but is tagged at the same time as it was sent.
In any event, onwards and upwards. While the GOP is clearly fractioned, the Democrats must prepare for the same. Now that our wagons are no longer in a circle around Clinton, he'd better get off the dime. It won't hurt to target his enemies, so long as he can keep some coherent policy agenda going. He need not even be sucessful, so long as he keeps the fireaters ranting about turning children gay from watching jibbering purple charcters with TV's in their bellies, discrimination against Christians, endless rehashes about how if the public were smarter, they would have not backed Clinton, and anti-christ sightings.
There are lots of folks in Washington with political checks written by Clinton in his hour of need. They are going to be comming around to cash them. He needs to erect some overarching theme to the paybacks. Some Morning in America style hoopla.
14. birda1 - Feb. 16, 1999 - 1:35 PM PT
Jade: Yes, its apparent that the same rhetoric will be hammered home, again and again..I hear them speaking of morality, and God, but I hear little of their policies that our Nation is in *need* of hearing right now. Is is not immoral to fail to address the parts of our society that are in dire need?
I read where even the heiress of the GOP throne, Liddy Dole, has some questionable ethics when it comes to promoting her name, via the RED CROSS bank acct, just a few days before she resigned, to test the presidential waters of her candicacy. She also had a habit of hiring political affiliations for Red Cross jobs...I would like to hear her explanation...I also believe the candidates of the next election, will be quite closely scrutinized by the voters, Who among the GOP can recapture the trust and restore their credibility in order to strengthen the faltering Party?
15. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 1:42 PM PT
Jones;
No worries. The Dem agenda is, for the most part, coherent and supported by the vast majority of Americans. I don't see any major dissent on the big issues--perhaps a little on peripheral issues.
OTOH, the GOFP has some big problems. They have no agenda, now that "Get Clinton" is dead. Their tax cut plan is a non-starter that will die soon, once everyone sees that only the wealthiest benefit. Aside from that, the Repugs offer nothing except the tired, old litany of "family values" and "morality."
What happens if Gary Bauer runs?
16. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
Bird;
I don't see Liddy as a viable candidate. She's already peaked---her only movement in the polls will be downward. My prediction is that she'll be out of it no later than the third primary.
You misunderstand the Right Wing's concept of "morality."
"Morality" is only for affluent, white Christian males.
Poor, minorities have demonstrated their lack of "morality" by being poor and minorities.
17. BTerry - Feb. 16, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
elliot803, Re Message #5:
You unfairly characterize my and other's arguments. Clinton's impeachment has always been a peripheral issue. We can accept the outcome. We know that not all verdicts are just. Humans make mistakes.
However, we HAVE been arguing other issues: small vs. big gov't, proportionate vs. disproportianate income tax, capatilism vs. socialism. These are the issues that most concern me.
The task at hand for the Republicans is to defeat the Democrat demagoguery. We need to show that even though implementing a flat 15% tax will result in more money for wealthier tax payers, it is only because the were being taxed unfairly at a higher RATE. Also, this added income will further stimulate the economy by providing more capital.
The Republicans need to get out the message that gov't isn't the solution for all problems and neither should it be. We need to empower people and protect their liberties. We've coddled people too much this century. The welfare mentality must end. True, we must pay for our mistakes. This means paying off the national debt. But, we then need to rid ourselves of the notion that all legislation is necessarily good and that a gov't program is immortal. We need to get to the point where the moniker "do nothing Congress" is a compliment.
18. Wombat - Feb. 16, 1999 - 2:28 PM PT
BTerry reporting from his parallel universe. The one that has seen the United States economy and place in the world decline for the last sixty years, because of the socialist tendencies that started with the introduction of Social Security by Franklin Roosevelt.
19. Greystoke - Feb. 16, 1999 - 2:30 PM PT
"Talk about anything else *except* last year's news."
But Irv, the LOSERS are refusing to accept the reality that Clinton was acquitted. They NEED to be on the receiving end of more gloating and nose rubbing before they are ready to move on. Pleeeeeaaaaassssse. Just one more day of trial talk. I don't have a life.
20. thomasd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 2:54 PM PT
Irony city. The Dems will try to do in 2000 what the HJC tried to do in 1999.
rapist
21. Greystoke - Feb. 16, 1999 - 3:23 PM PT
Thanks, ThomasD. I just can't quit cold turkey.
22. robertjayb - Feb. 16, 1999 - 3:56 PM PT
Weyrich Awakes, Rants...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A prominent conservative, giving voice to frustration within the Republican Party over President Clinton's acquittal, is telling conservative leaders that American society is ``approaching barbarism'' and is out of step with their political movement.
``I no longer believe that there is a moral majority,'' Paul Weyrich wrote in a letter dated Tuesday to several hundred conservatives. ``I do not believe that a majority of Americans actually share our values.''
Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation in Washington, argues that it may be time to ``drop out of this culture'' -- perhaps even abandoning efforts to influence the American political system.
``We need some sort of quarantine,'' he wrote in the letter obtained by The Associated Press.
Though no other leading conservatives have gone that far, Weyrich's letter underscores the level of resentment and anger over Clinton's acquittal.
``If there really were a moral majority out there, Bill Clinton would have been driven out of office month ago,'' Weyrich said.
``A lot of people are angry that he got off,'' said Phyllis Schlafly, he
23. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:03 PM PT
"What happens if Gary Bauer runs?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
24. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:06 PM PT
Oh Phyllis -- lighten up.
What's that you say? You can't?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
25. adrianne - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:25 PM PT
Anyone see the ad from "People for the American Way" that hits the "radical right"? I fear it's overkill - liberals don't need to do ANYTHING to vilify the Republicans right now - they're doing a fabulous job of it themselves and by ads like that we could prompt a backlash pleasenopleasenopleaseno.
26. thomasd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:30 PM PT
Backlash? What backlash?
27. adrianne - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
thomasd
The one I'm hoping we liberals aren't stupid enough to spark by airing the left-wing version of Willie Horton ads re the "radical right". If there's one thing EVERY political operative should have learned over the last year, it's that although the great unwashed are exactly that, they aren't QUITE as stupid as the political spinners would believe.
28. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
No Judge d -- it's "Feel the lash -- slave!"
29. adrianne - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:37 PM PT
Not that I'm against slamming the republicans for catering to their fringe elements - I'm not, and I think they deserve it. Just from a strategic standpoint, I think the PFAW ad was over the top. True, but strategically iffy.
30. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
No need to take out ads, Adrianne. Just turn on the tube. Larry Klayman's *still* hauling Dolly Kyle Browning's sorry butt around.
31. thomasd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:40 PM PT
I wonder how many Dem politicians will be able to successfully cultivate the 'lovable rogue' approach to politics. More than could six years ago; I'm sure of that.
32. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:41 PM PT
Kasich's getting his butt kissed by Novak right now on CNN.
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
TICK
(boom!)
33. adrianne - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
Exactly, cllrdr. We don't need to do ANYTHING - they oblige us swimmingly. Why risk it when compared to the wackos they happily set out front on the porch, our crazy aunt sally looks like a statesman.
34. lemwalker - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:43 PM PT
The only truly effective way to denounce the GOP is by not voting for it. I will probably split my vote in the next election. If you put all the rowers on one side the boat just circles.
35. thomasd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:43 PM PT
I thought Novak was a good Democrat.
36. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:48 PM PT
"35. thomasd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:43 PM PT
I thought Novak was a good Democrat."
WHAT? Hey Judge d -- It sounds as if *you* fell off that balcony right along with Larry Fortensky.
37. thomasd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:51 PM PT
cllrdr -
Ok; then, in your opinion, is Novak a *bad* Democrat?
38. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:54 PM PT
Novak is a first-rate National Socialist.
39. thomasd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 4:58 PM PT
The Political Review is running an online poll asking how the senate impeachment trial is going to affect voters' support for their party.
So far the results are:
Republicans: 61% will *increase* their support for their party.
Democrats: 85% will *decrease* their support for their party.
Oooops!
40. LadyChaos - Feb. 16, 1999 - 5:04 PM PT
Dirty, old, mangy, one-legged cat.
41. ChristinO - Feb. 16, 1999 - 5:23 PM PT
Ad,
I have to agree with you. While I'm pleased with the outcome of the impeachment hearings and heartened that the GOP has some serious work to do to regain its credibility I think that the Dem's really can't afford to rest on their laurels. The thing to do is to take the advantage and go farther not turn around to point and laugh and then have to scramble to regain the lead.
It reminds me of the old adage "Pride goeth before a fall".
42. thomasd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 5:25 PM PT
'Stop laughing! This is supposed to be serious!' dept:
Yes, we're talking Mr. 'No Controlling Legal Authority' himself here,
Al Bore Jr!
"GORE TO HOST FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FIGHTING CORRUPTION
STATE DEPARTMENT
Feb 16, 1999 State Department Deputy Spokesman James Foley briefed
16 February 1999
STATE DEPARTMENT REPORT, FEBRUARY 16, 1999
State Department Deputy Spokesman James Foley briefed.
GORE TO HOST FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FIGHTING CORRUPTION
Foley announced that Vice President Gore will host the first-ever international conference on fighting corruption at the State Department February 24-26. Over 300 justice and security officials from more than 70 counties are invited.
The conference is part of a broad Clinton Administration approach to battling the rising tide of international crime, Foley said."
43. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 5:53 PM PT
The Dirty, Old, Mangy, One-legged Cat Party sounds good to me.
44. LadyChaos - Feb. 16, 1999 - 5:53 PM PT
The best way to fight corruption = End the drug war
45. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 5:58 PM PT
Correctimento, LadyC!
46. thomasd - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:02 PM PT
I thought that was 'correctimundo'.
47. BTerry - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:17 PM PT
Wombat, Re Message #18:
Have you been to an inner city? Have you ever seen a township deteriorite before your very eyes? Do you wonder why it happens? I do. But I can guarantee that it is because of our welfare society? Imagine a nice town full of decent people. Because the town is prosperous, it is envied. However, instead of working to improve their own town, citizens plead to bleeding hear liberals to have a piece of the action. The township is forced to offer housing that is "affordable". People move in provided they make below a maximum salary. These people have no incentive to improve, or they'll lose their house. This section of town deteriorates. No one wants to live in that section. Housing prices drop. More low income residents move in. No one takes care of the town because that's the government's job. The town goes to hell.
What about schools? Are they falling apart? Well then, demand money from the federal government. Who cares about the reason WHY they're falling apart. Just get more money.
What magic solution do you want from the gov't? What can it provide?
48. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:53 PM PT
"Have you been to an inner city?"
I live in one.
"Have you ever seen a township deteriorite before your very eyes? Do you wonder why it happens? I do."
I don't.
"But I can guarantee that it is because of our welfare society?"
You can imagine whatever you like. And do.
"Imagine a nice town full of decent people."
You forgot the "white."
"Because the town is prosperous, it is envied."
By who? Non-whites?
"However, instead of working to improve their own town, citizens plead to bleeding hear liberals to have a piece of the action. The township is forced to offer housing that is "affordable"."
Quel horreur!
"People move in provided they make below a maximum salary. These people have no incentive to improve, or they'll lose their house. This section of town deteriorates. No one wants to live in that section. Housing prices drop. More low income residents move in. No one takes care of the town because that's the government's job. The town goes to hell."
The heartbreak of White Flight.
Where's the violins for this?
49. LadyChaos - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:09 PM PT
BTerry,
You are really a dumb-ass. Here you go again with some sort of liberal-minority conspiracy mythos that has sprung from the depths of your own demented mind.
The subsidization of urban neighborhood renewal only occurs after an area has gone downhill. The question is, what causes urban neighborhoods to go downhill? The answer is by local governments subsidizing suburban sprawl in the name of spurring employment growth in the construction sector, an outcome of which is white flight away from integrated urban centers. Once this flight has begun, infrastructures must be built to accomodate suburban commuters. Freeways are built right through the middle of what were once thriving urban neighborhoods. By that time, those neighborhoods have become so unattractive that providing incentives for ownership becomes one of few viable alternatives.
Those damned socialist Europeans do urban growth much better than we do it.
50. LadyChaos - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:10 PM PT
Dirty, old, mangy, one-legged cat...
Drowning.
51. BTerry - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:15 PM PT
cllrdr, Re Message #48:
Please note that YOU have added the element of racism, not me. Other than that, you don't make a single point. Well done, liberal.
52. LadyChaos - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:21 PM PT
*
53. BTerry - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:32 PM PT
LadyChaos, Re Message #49:
Spew forth your scorn all you want. But, I have to tell you, you're wrong. The next town over from me happens to be one of the richest in the country. And guess what? It has TWO major highways running through it (one of them an interstate highway). On the other side is also one of the richest towns in the country. It has the same interstate highway running through it. Our biggest sewer of a town is about twenty miles farther from the major metropolitan area than these two towns. Oh yeah, they both also have a major mass-transit train system running through them.
I don't mean to belabor a minor point, but I can't just let you hide behind urban sprawl or "white flight" (more racism? I'm shocked!). But, there is SOME hope. You do seem to hint that government meddling has something to do with these problems. You're right about that one.
What's wrong with our sewer town? Well, there are many low- or no-income residents. How is their rent paid? Welfare. What happens if they don't mind living in a sewer? Nothing. Status quo. Why work? They have a roof over their head and they have a TV. What more could they want? Sometimes their boredom drives them to extremes, but they're reminded that it's not their fault by our western guilt mentality, so they don't feel accountable.
I know you're going to spew forth more scorn and ridicule, but this has to be said: the problem with these sewer towns is the residents don't aspire to anything more. Sure, they'd like a life of luxury (or a better TV), but it's just not worth working for it. True, there are some unfortunate ones who really do want out, but most who do end up working their way out. The rest collect their welfare and live happily in their sewer coming out only when society has the audacity to not pay them any attention.
54. LadyChaos - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:43 PM PT
Talk about sewers spewing forth...
55. BTerry - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:51 PM PT
LadyChaos, Re Message #54:
Ooohhh, good one. That's right out of Carville's book. "If you can't beat the message, attack the messenger." Now you can claim victory because by refusing to address the issue, you haven't lost even if you haven't won. When are you going to learn that that kind of tactic only works for your kind and for the sheep that follow you?
56. CharlieL - Feb. 16, 1999 - 8:35 PM PT
There is no issue, BT. You made it all up. Here's one of the rules of debate:
Anecdotal "evidence" isn't.
57. LadyChaos - Feb. 16, 1999 - 8:37 PM PT
BTerry,
If I had something to argue against, I suppose I would have more to say. As it is, all you have done is whip up a rather juvenile version of a typical fantasy about how welfare families are "ripping off" this country. It's simply not based in reality at all. The factors leading to urban decay are very complex, and you try to portray it as: The government encourages undeserving welfare families to move in, the neighborhood goes to hell, 'nuff said. Your vision assumes a lot of things that simply aren't true, and I don't have time to explain it all to you. Finish high school first, then get a good college education. If you're still confused, maybe I can help you iron out the loose ends at that time.
But until then...
58. birda1 - Feb. 16, 1999 - 9:38 PM PT
B Terry: It is the "asshole mentality" , like, yours, displayed in your recent posts, that has the GOP in tatters, with no one but dyslexic Danny Q. and "don't cha just luv meeee!!!!!!! " Liddy D. to hail as their presidentaial candidate. (Now where'd all those RED CROSS donations end up Liddy???) Photo-ops and PR can certainly be costly can't it!!
Your repubic faction of white, Right, and male supreme, is eating itself from within since they got their butts kicked in their bogus impeachment trial..
Like Irving said, Its past tense now..live with it BT.
You carry on the same rhetoric and whine about the uselessness of poor and uneducated people as they apply to your shelfish stuck up world. Sounds like a "new Republican" to me BTerry....
Sounds like the same mentality that destroyed the unity of the GOP.
So who cares about some snob like you.."Blessed are the poor.."
Maybe your fine, white boys on the Right could find a way to re-introduce Slavery..put all those worthless poor people to some use..eh? Yeah and like Newt said..put their kids in orphanages too..
59. Trialshark - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:03 PM PT
"House Judiciary Committee chairman Henry Hyde, who led the prosecution team against Clinton, told senators toward the end of the trial, 'I wonder if, after this culture war is over that we are engaged in, an America will survive that will be worth fighting to defend.'"
Hmmmm.
Well, us good Democrats out here think America is worth fighting to defend, *even if* Chairman Hyde doesn't get his way all the time.
60. schoolmaster - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:22 PM PT
Men may come and men may go, but the world goes on for ever. More so with minimum repercussion when it is a democracy. Chances of survival are better when we are friends than we are enemies. The parties must come together and behave like a single party with a unified goal of fulfilling the needs of the people and the country. I do not know why different parties should see the needs differently.
61. ptboya - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:39 PM PT
I'd like to put in a good word for partisanship. Shit gets sorted out that way. Top down organization should be applied only in dire emergencies, like the Depression and the two big wars, e.g. Better solutions through competition of ideas is what it's ideally about. Unfortunately there is a paucity of ideas at the moment.
The GOP now has an agenda to have an agenda…dangerously for them, their loony wing lurks in the wings licking wounds. The Dems best not gloat too long.
62. PincherMartin - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:48 PM PT
Elliot --
It increasingly seems that the Republican Party is in crisis, that the tenuous coalition between the hard right and the "economically conservative, socially liberal" wing of the Party is finally unravelling, and that the long-term electoral success of Republican candidates is seriously threatened by the Party's image of intolerance and narrow-mindedness. Are there any Republicans out there who would like a serious discussion of this problem? This question is not addressed to Boomerjeff, ThomasD, BTerry, and the others who just want to endlessly refight the Clinton trial."
I agree that we Republicans have a serious problem, but it is not a problem with our constituents being religious nuts, as you have so crudely put it before. In both successful times and now in not so successful times, they have been an important part of our constiuency, and they will probably always be an important part of our constituency. Dumping them is out of the question.
The real problem with Republicans is a failure of ideas. Twenty years ago, Republicans were the party of ideas. Now, they are not. If they want to return to being a ruling party (and I don't consider that joke of a majority group in the House or Senate a ruling party, they are areactive majority), then there has to be some new ideas.
63. PincherMartin - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:49 PM PT
The first paragraph in the above post is Elliot's, not mine.
64. PincherMartin - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:58 PM PT
JG --
"Well, apparently John Kasich isn't in any hurry to abandon the Xtian Coalition. He kicked off his Presidential campaign with an attack on "elites" in the media and Hollywood who "spent their entire lifetime degrading God and people of faith."'
Why would the conservatives want to abandon the Xtians? Moderate them, sure. Lock them in the basement come the general election, by all means. But we should never abandon them.
65. Slackjaw - Feb. 16, 1999 - 11:08 PM PT
schoolmaster:
it's not always a question of what the needs are, but of deciding the best way to meet them in the presence of some urgency and the absence of complete information on alternative solutions.
Besides, we're talking about people who want to hold office. If competitive parties are more conducive to that goal than unity, then competitive parties are what we'll get.
I admit, though, that the existence of parties sometimes puzzles me. What purpose do they serve for the individual legislator? It's not really fundraising, though doubtless someone is thinking that, and anyway they sprang up long before campaign finance became the number one activity of legislators.
66. viewpoint - Feb. 16, 1999 - 11:29 PM PT
Trialshark Message #59 "House Judiciary Committee chairman Henry Hyde, who led the prosecution team against Clinton, told senators toward the end of the trial, 'I wonder if, after this culture war is over that we are engaged in, an America will survive that will be worth fighting to defend.'"
More & more worth defending, it appears.
Comparison in the news: A friend told me today that the US has budgeted $80 million to bring down Saddam Hussein. The Repubs spent half that trying to bring down Clinton!
67. PincherMartin - Feb. 16, 1999 - 11:57 PM PT
BTW, this current lowpoint for Republicans shouldn't get us down. We should use it to develop some new ideas and, just as importantly, new ways of presenting these ideas. This kind of up and down cycle is normal for bipartisan politics -- we were never destined to stay on top the whole time. We had a good long ride at the top but now our rhetoric is starting to sound tinny to most people, and those peoleare not just Democrats.
68. PincherMartin - Feb. 17, 1999 - 12:03 AM PT
One of the biggest victories for the Republican party has been that we have made the Democrats a sane party again. Unable to beat us at a presidential election and stuck with the kind of congressional majority that we Republicans have now (that is an inept one), they were finally forced to moderate their views.
69. Slackjaw - Feb. 17, 1999 - 12:20 AM PT
that's the single greatest impact of two-party competition along a single dominant ideological dimension (e.g. "liberal" vs. "conservative")--the desire to attain office forces parties to moderate or lose.
70. PincherMartin - Feb. 17, 1999 - 12:25 AM PT
SlackJaw --
"along a single dominant ideological dimension"
Is there a reason that you added this part to the definition.
71. Slackjaw - Feb. 17, 1999 - 1:18 AM PT
heh heh. Quite perceptive. Yes, there is a reason I added that. "ideological" isn't important, but happens to be a reasonable way to interpret the American context.
The "single dimension" part is important. It will take a while to explain exactly why. The short answer is that a fellow by the name of Richard McKelvey, a political scientist, demonstrated in the 1970s that majority rule, all by itself, is in general "globally unstable" in more than one dimension of conflict--there is no configuration of policy platforms such that each candidate likes where he is, given where the other candidate is.
Think of a number line, representing, say, the amount of government intervention in the economy (or think of the [0,1] interval representing the degree). Think of voters as each having an ideal level, and imagine that for any two levels, every voter prefers whichever is closer to her ideal. Finally, think of candidates as announcing levels to voters, who then each cast a ballot in favor of the nearest candidate. Candidates will do whatever is necesary to maximize their vote share. There is no abstention, and for simplicity assume there is an odd number "n" of voters.
Then it is quite elementary to show that it is in each candidate's best interest to select the level that is the median of all the voters' ideal levels--the level L such that (n-1)/2 voters have ideal points higher and lower than L. Given that the the opponent is at the median, locating anywhere else is equivalent to throwing away votes. Relative to the electorate, office seeking candidates moderate. Note that this depends on two party/2 candidate competition. This is called (Black's) median voter result, first formally proved in a political context by Duncan Black in the '50s (but known to economists decades earlier).
(cont.)
72. Slackjaw - Feb. 17, 1999 - 1:20 AM PT
Things are generally much more complicated in several dimensions. Imagine two--involvement in the economy, and involvement in social mores. There are still 2 candidates who announce platforms to voters, and voters now have ideal points anywhere in this 2 dimensional space. Now imagine concentric circles around each ideal point, and two possible outcomes X and Y. A voter prefers whichever is on the concentric circle closest to his ideal point.
For the fun of it, imagine a policy space from -1 to 1 on the horizontal axis, and -1 to 1 on the vertical axis, and suppose there are 5 voters. Let voter 1 have an ideal point (-1,0)--that's -1 on the horizontal, 0 on the vertical. 2's ideal is (1,0), 3's is (0,-1), and 4's is (0,1). 5's is (0,0). As luck would have it, here there IS a stable configuration of candidate platforms--namely, each candidate announces (0,0). Given that one candidate is there, the other maximizes vote share by announcing (0,0) as well.
Turns out that this is the ONLY time you get a stable configuration of candidate platforms--perfect "radial symmetry." (You might be thinking, any symmetric configuration of preferences will do, not just this particular one--all that counts is that it can be translated into this one with appropriate projections. You're right.) For any other configuration of voter preferences, even the most minute deviation from PERFECT symmetry, there is no configuration of candidate positions such that no candidate desires to change positions, given the positions of the other candidate. (The proof is rather involved, but you can get a feel by experimenting with a piece of paper--draw a few cases.)
Now here's the sad part: "almost all" voter preference configurations fail this symmetry condition. That means that if you drew voter ideal points out of a hat, the probability of drawing a symmetric configuration is 0 (not the same as it being impossible, mind you).
(cont.)
73. Slackjaw - Feb. 17, 1999 - 1:21 AM PT
To make a long story short, though, one cannot predict moderation or anything else on the basis of a plurality rule election alone. Some other institution is needed to determine the outcome.
The radial symmetry conditions were first demonstrated to be necessary by a fellow named Charlie Plott, who also happens to be one of the first people to do laboratory experiments in economics.
74. stostosto - Feb. 17, 1999 - 4:29 AM PT
Slackjaw
Great good posts. I didn't know the references you cited (McKelvey, Black, Plott). The one-dimension story you tell sounds like the Hotelling theory of spacing which was once presented to me. There is a one dimensional space in which people are scattered - like along a sandy beach on a sunny day. There are two actors competing for people's attention - like two icecream outlets. Where should they locate themselves to maximize attention? The optimal solution for the beach population would be for them to divide the beach in two equally long stretches and place the outlets in the middle of each stretch. That will minimize the combined distance from the beach spots of bathing guests to the nearest icecream stand.
But each outlet can advantageously move towards the middle of the beach, capturing costumers from the other. The customers at the extremes, whose distance to the nearest icecream stand will increase, will still have no closer alternative.
Hence, the equilibrium solution is for both icecream stands to place themselves right next to each other at the center of the beach.
It's an interesting point that this outcome is not the optimal solution for the society of beach dwellers as a whole.
Also, that the stands in the centre may still need to appeal to the dwellers at the extremes lest they give up on icecream altogether.
It's a neat little story, I think. But, as Slackjaw wisely puts it:
"Things are generally much more complicated in several dimensions".
75. wexxford1 - Feb. 17, 1999 - 4:30 AM PT
HMrs Clinton needs to pout on black trousers, according to the Daily News .When Madison Avenue field marshals ordered "Mrs. Clinton as Senator for NY" to be the topic until we all vomit on it,the New York hacks went to town . Mrs Clinton will do her part by hanging around the the fellow, Schumer, who recenrly became senator in the " You're a Putz" election. Mrs. Clinton from now on will include Yiddish phrases in all her New York outings . She will pull on them black trousers . She will have a sandwich named after her at the Stage Delicatessen. And all the new York columnists are under orders to publicize Mrs Clinton as if she was the second coming of Marilyn.
This, folks, is political journalism in the media capital of the only world power .
76. SaraBand - Feb. 17, 1999 - 4:44 AM PT
Message #10 is correct (about Bradley) if the Democrats have a brain in their collective head.
77. SaraBand - Feb. 17, 1999 - 4:50 AM PT
I guess I meant Message #6 is correct about Bradley.
78. SaraBand - Feb. 17, 1999 - 4:56 AM PT
I hope Message #10 is incorrect. Who cares what a bunch of losers do? The Dems should take the ball and run like hell.
79. shaka1 - Feb. 17, 1999 - 5:13 AM PT
What's this I read in the morning papers that Judge Susan Webber Wright is going to hold President Clinton in contempt of court for lying to her in the Paula Jones case.
I thought lying in court and sexual harassment weren't that big a deal anymore if you were a Democrat.
Us Clinton suckers better come up with some good insults to scorn that ugly, 4-eyed, buck-teethed, honkey bitch of a judge.
80. SaraBand - Feb. 17, 1999 - 5:28 AM PT
Message #79
All the Dems need do, facing such a threat, is sigh, lower their eyes and be silent in a very humble and accepting-of-torture manner.
And then continue to run like hell, this time with laughter.
81. Trialshark - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:26 AM PT
Pincher (re Message #68):
"One of the biggest victories for the Republican party has been that we have made the Democrats a sane party again. Unable to beat us at a presidential election and stuck with the kind of congressional majority that we Republicans have now (that is an inept one), they were finally forced to moderate their views."
There's a lot of truth to that. We hope to return the favor for the Republicans, who may yet muzzle(or simply shed) the crazier elements of their party.
82. BTerry - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:30 AM PT
birda1, Re Message #58:
My what western guilt you have! How can you sleep at night? You think my rhetoric means I don't care about the poor. No, let me correct that. You FEEL it. You are incapable of seeing the difference between attacking the poor and attacking those who are unwilling to work. You don't take into account that we may have lower unemployment because people were forced off of welfare. This bothers you because it goes against everything you FEEL.
You assume, rather you FEEL, based on my rehetoric that I must be some rich, stuck-up white male. You say this despite knowing nothing about my roots or current economic standing. You're so filled with hatred and intolerance to my view that you can't reason with it. You just succumb to your feelings and attack anything I say. Why don't you try thinking rationally for a change? Consider what I'm saying. Try and understand what motivates people and what a lack of motivation does. Consider the concept of "tough love". Why must you be so narrow minded?
83. Trialshark - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:31 AM PT
shaka1 --
Re: Judge Susan Webber-Wright --
You wrote " ... better come up with some good insults to scorn that ugly, 4-eyed, buck-teethed, honkey bitch of a judge."
Nah. The right-wingers already came up with all the insults necessary when she said Paula Jones had no case.
We'll just steal your ideas, like we always do. [g]
84. BTerry - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:35 AM PT
Trialshark, Re Message #59:
Is that a new views the Democrats have taken since the 60's? Or, is it just the appropriate thing to say because it's popular?
85. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:46 AM PT
BT Message #82;
Come now.
Repugs are the masters of FEELINGS disguised as policy. After all, what could be a greater FEELING that the GOFP position that all of society's ills can be cured with FEELINGS such as "family values," "character," and "a return to morality."
86. footsie - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:49 AM PT
PincherMartin,
I suppose the R. party was "the party of ideas" but those ideas were nothing to brag about: kicking poor people off welfare, restricting (sometimes reversing) hard-fought civil rights gains, antagonism toward labor. Some ideas are just worth leaving behind - unless, of course, "merit" is exclusively understood to be "electoral success".
If the R.'s were to emerge from their self-created impeachment fiasco by championing civil rights, workers' rights, and immediate relief to the poor & suffering then more people would take them seriously. But as long as they preach that sexuality is restricted to sex acts and that the govt has no responsibility to help those in need, they'll always be the minority party, manufacturing crises just to get peoples' attention.
87. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:58 AM PT
Excellent points, footsie.
I was watching C-SPAN last night and they had a little news conference from a group called "Republicans for Choice."
I thought, 'Wow, somebody might be getting a clue.'
Unfortunately, the spokesperson launched into a diatribe about how the Dems want Govt to tell everyone how to live their lives and that Repugs were for smaller Govt and giving the individual control over their lives, yadda, yadda. Even some of the reporters couldn't conceal their mirth as they brought up Repug opposition to abortion rights, opposition to civil rights, etc.
88. buckykc - Feb. 17, 1999 - 6:58 AM PT
Week of Dec. 7th 1998 will go down in infamy when this bunch of white, lots of southerners, some bigots declared war on President William Jefferson Clinton. Although they lost the war, listening to the managers spew the hatred that this country is experiencing is frightening. Couldn't they present their case without calling THE PRESIDENT everything but a rapist and murderer.
I didn't think these thoughts were expressed against Nixon and of course he was a paragon of virtue. Reagan gave us a 5 trillion dollar debt and Iran-Contra but I held him in the highest regard for the office he held. All you Clinton haters remember Pearl Harbor.
89. BTerry - Feb. 17, 1999 - 7:37 AM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #85:
Not really. The Republican message of family values, morals, character, etc. is an answer to the liberal solution of big government as the solution to all problems. Their message is based on a reasoned belief that private behavior is the cause of and potential solution to our current problems. It is reasoned because they have decided that it is better to teach a man how to fish for himself rather than give him fish when he's hungry. The have decided that by encouraging productive behavior while constitutionally protecting our liberties, we are providing people with a means to "fish" while encouraging them to make sure the pond is stocked. They also believe that the big gov't approach is equivalent to giving people their ration of fish when they're hungry while also encouraging them to keep the pond stocked. However, they believe that if the man doesn't have to fish for himself, he's much less inclined to make sure the pond is stocked. After all, it's someone else's problem, right? Or, the rich people are stocking their fair share.
90. cllrdr - Feb. 17, 1999 - 7:40 AM PT
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
91. BTerry - Feb. 17, 1999 - 7:41 AM PT
buckykc, Re Message #88:
Yeah, you're right. Reagan created the laws, voted on them, sent them to himself to be signed, and signed them into law giving us our national debt that has crippled our economy well into the future.
92. JaDeGoLd - Feb. 17, 1999 - 7:45 AM PT
BT;
The Repug approach to everything is based on FEELINGS.
Gee, teen pregnancy, drug use, violence, etc. would all go down if we had forced school prayer. The deficit would be reduced if we emphasized "family values." Foreign policy would be enhanced if we had "character." Sound familiar?
Real problems call for real solutions.
The GOFP only produces FEELINGS. Ask 100 Americans what "morality" is--you'll get 100 different answers. Same goes for "family values." You might as well be asking for a definition of "happy."
They are all FEELINGS.
Real problems call for real solutions---not buzzwords.
93. jonesatlaw - Feb. 17, 1999 - 7:48 AM PT
BTerry- I'll admit that the democrats were complicit in the expansion of the deficit under Reagan if you'll admit he never intended to balance the budget, or even tried. "Feel" right to you?
94. cllrdr - Feb. 17, 1999 - 7:49 AM PT
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
95. elliot803 - Feb. 17, 1999 - 8:13 AM PT
PincherMartin:
"Why would the conservatives want to abandon the Xtians? Moderate them, sure. Lock them in the basement come the general election, by all means. But we should never abandon them."
Because they're nuts? Because their views do not represent those of mainstream Republicans? Because they're a threat to fundamental liberties? Because they're a liability at the ballot box?
"The real problem with Republicans is a failure of ideas. Twenty years ago, Republicans were the party of ideas. Now, they are not."
Simply "having ideas" isn't very significant. The Republicans have lots of ideas--the flat tax, Star Wars, banning abortion, discriminating against homosexuals. The problem is, they're *stupid* ideas.
96. BTerry - Feb. 17, 1999 - 8:18 AM PT
jonesatlaw, Re Message #93:
I'll admit this: Reagan's primary focus was to curb or reduce the growth of government. He intended government to work with what it had rather than allow it to levy more taxes.
97. cllrdr - Feb. 17, 1999 - 8:19 AM PT
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Deep in my hea-r-r-r-t
98. elliot803 - Feb. 17, 1999 - 8:19 AM PT
BTerry:
The level of spending in the budgets Reagan submitted to Congress was *higher* than the level of spending Congress actually approved. Reagan was a spend-into-debt conservative.
99. BTerry - Feb. 17, 1999 - 8:25 AM PT
JaDeGoLd, Re Message #92:
"Real problems call for real solutions---not buzzwords."
I agree, and *private* problems call for *private* solutions.
100. cllrdr - Feb. 17, 1999 - 8:27 AM PT
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Whoooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-inligs
Whooa, Whooa, Whooa
Fe-e-e-e-lings
Feelings of antipathy.