| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 05:09:14 PM |
| Object: |
Bush would lose for the third time. |
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
A majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job
than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent),
Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent
to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling
Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.
.
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
25 Oct 2005 10:02:23 PM |
|
|
Mr. Green wrote:
"ostreich" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:B7adncI2HrbKLsPeRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2005102515091450073%ggains@waddfredu...
According to the latest poll,
<snip>
Practice saying President Rudolph Guilliani
Practice tying knots for Bush's neck and the whole repug band of criminals,
sucker.
Think W will pardon Cheney so he can return the favor by pulling a Ford?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
25 Oct 2005 11:16:19 PM |
|
|
"Mimi Cohen" <imnot@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1lC7f.11165$gj1.2343@fed1read05...
Mr. Green wrote:
"ostreich" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:B7adncI2HrbKLsPeRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2005102515091450073%ggains@waddfredu...
According to the latest poll,
<snip>
Practice saying President Rudolph Guilliani
Practice tying knots for Bush's neck and the whole repug band of
criminals, sucker.
Think W will pardon Cheney so he can return the favor by pulling a Ford?
***** yeah. Nixon proved these people have no shame.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 08:56:39 AM |
|
|
Mr. Green wrote:
"Mimi Cohen" <imnot@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1lC7f.11165$gj1.2343@fed1read05...
Mr. Green wrote:
"ostreich" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:B7adncI2HrbKLsPeRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2005102515091450073%ggains@waddfredu...
According to the latest poll,
<snip>
Practice saying President Rudolph Guilliani
Practice tying knots for Bush's neck and the whole repug band of
criminals, sucker.
Think W will pardon Cheney so he can return the favor by pulling a Ford?
***** yeah. Nixon proved these people have no shame.
They're so totally without honor they've forgotten what it is, have you
seen this?
-------------------------------
What's a Little Lying Between Friends?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 11:18 AM
"Some perjury technicality"?
Did Kay Bailey Hutchison really say that?
She must have. It was on "Meet the Press."
Is this the Republican strategy for dealing with any CIA leak indictments?
Saying no real crimes were committed, just a teensy weensy bit of perjury?
Turning Patrick Fitzgerald into Ken Starr?
I hasten to add that I have no idea whether anyone will be indicted. I've
never met Pat Fitzgerald, and I had problems with the way he threatened
reporters with jail, but as the U.S. attorney in Chicago who went after
some
Daley cronies, he has a sterling reputation.
It is true that prosecutors who can't prove the original crime often
wind up
bringing perjury and obstruction charges. But lying to investigators, or to
a federal grand jury, strikes at the heart of the law-enforcement process.
This happens to be the message that GOPers pounded over and over again when
Clinton dissembled over Monica, so surely they take it seriously. Or is
that
only when a Democrat is president?
Hutchison likened the senior administration officials who might or might
not
be indicted to Martha Stewart, who was only charged with a cover-up (lying
about insider trading is okay as long as you're not convicted of insider
trading? Well, Martha did get two TV shows, even though one is tanking).
The
Texas senator also complained about "sort of a gotcha mentality in this
country," which again, try as I might, I can't remember being a significant
Republican complaint during the prosecutions of the Clinton years.
It instantly occurred to me that I might check what Sen. Hutchison had to
say during the Lewinsky scandal. But in the blog world, somebody's already
thought of your best idea five minutes ago. So before I could type in the
Nexis search, I saw that Michael Crowley , on the New Republic's new group
grope "The Plank," has this:
"Hmm . . . That's not the tune Hutchison was singing back when Bill Clinton
was caught with his hands in the intern jar. Here's the February 13, 1999
Dallas Morning News:
" 'The principle of the rule of law-- equality under the law and a clear
standard for perjury and obstruction of justice-- was the overriding issue
in this impeachment,' said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who also
voted 'guilty' on both counts."
HuffPost blogger Trey Ellis pounces on Kay Bailey:
"Senator Hutchinson's absurd utterance was another GOP trial balloon intent
on trying to mute public outrage. Fox and the rest of the right-wing echo
chamber has been beating this drum ever since 'lawyers close to the case,'
(probably Rove and Libby's), leaked that indictments were coming not for
the
felony charge of outing an undercover agent but for lying about it to
federal investigators. You have to at least hand it to these guys, when
they're handed lemons, they try their damndest to make lemonade. 'Gee,
there's not enough evidence to actually convict the highest-ranking members
of the White House and the office of the Vice President of treason, just
perjury and conspiracy. Is that so wrong?'
"The party that said they won the last election because of their stand on
moral issues doesn't have a leg to stand on. Nothing shows how out of touch
Republicans now are with the values of the American people."
Michelle Malkin takes exception to Hutchison's remarks:
"Um, has anyone suggested that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is a
'gotcha' kind of guy who would throw away his good reputation by pursuing
'technicalities' instead of 'real' crimes? I haven't heard anyone on our
side suggest anything of the kind."
And yes, this must be an official strategy, as the New York Times reports
that "allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to
pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over
legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor."
Pat Fitzgerald, menace to society?
Wasn't this guy appointed by the Bush Justice Department after Ashcroft
realized he was too conflicted to investigate Plamegate?
So the vice president of the United States did have some involvement:
"I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President ***** Cheney's chief of staff, first
learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation
in a
conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in
2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday," according to the NYT .
"Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr.
Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a
federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer,
Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said."
Nothing like preemptive leaking-- one of the great spectator sports.
Bill Kristol tries to elevate the argument against White House indictments
(and anticipates the Clinton-comparison argument):
"Unless the perjury is clear-cut or the obstruction of justice willful and
determined, we hope that the special prosecutor has the courage to end the
inquiry without bringing indictments. It is fundamentally inappropriate to
allow the criminal law to be used to resolve what is basically a policy and
political dispute within the administration, or between the administration
and its critics. One trusts that the special counsel will have the courage
after conducting his exhaustive investigation to reject inappropriate
criminal indictments if the evidence does not require them, no matter how
much criticism he might then get from the liberal establishment that yearns
to damage the Bush administration through the use of the criminal law.
"And I will go out on a limb to say this, based on the very limited
information one can glean from press accounts: It seems to me quite
possible-- dare I say probable?-- that no indictments would be the just and
appropriate resolution to this inquiry.
"I say this knowing that administration officials may have engaged in
behavior that is not altogether admirable. I say this knowing that legions
of Clinton defenders will complain that conservatives were happy to support
the impeachment of a president for lying under oath seven years ago. My
response to the second charge is that if anyone lied under oath the way
Bill
Clinton did-- knowingly and purposefully in order to thwart a legitimate
legal process, or if anyone engaged in an obstruction of justice, the way
Bill Clinton did, then indictments would be proper. What is more, the
Clinton White House mounted an extraordinary-- and successful-- political
campaign against the office of the independent counsel and the person of
Kenneth Starr. All the evidence suggests that the Bush White House has been
fully cooperative with, even deferential to, the Fitzgerald investigation."
Except if a senior official doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth to a grand jury-- and is charged with perjury-- that,
by definition, is less than "fully cooperative."
I found this John Dickerson piece in Slate to be one of the most revealing
about Scooter:
"It's surprising . . . to find Libby is at the center of a press scandal.
The daily communications operation is not something he cares much about.
Rove, by contrast, spends a portion of every day running his own press
operation. He sends BlackBerry messages, forwards polling data, and argues
his case to influential journalists. Libby flies at a higher altitude,
talking mostly to marquee columnists and preferring longer and more
in-depth
conversations to the rat-a-tat-tat required by reporters on deadline.
"Libby does enjoy the intellectual cat-and-mouse game of longer form
interviews, those who have worked with him say. He challenges basic
assumptions and presses on a reporter's sloppy definitions. In my
experience
interviewing him, if a line of reasoning was in any way harmful to the
administration or the vice president, it was sometimes impossible to get
past the gorilla dust. His shimmy and shake sometimes got so bad, I
wondered
if he would even admit to working for the vice president. 'It's very
lawyerly kind of amusement,' says a former aide.
"When the Cheneys hosted a party in February 2002 for the paperback
publication of Libby's book, the guest list was not filled with workaday
journalists, but with the elite from New York and Washington: Sally Quinn
and Ben Bradlee, Leon Wieseltier and Maureen Dowd. In those early days
after
9/11, it seemed like the relationship between the press and the media elite
might turn out to be a fairly cozy one. The Bushies hated 'old Washington,'
but as Libby and the vice president spoke from the landing at the bottom of
the stairs, it seemed as if their half of the administration understood the
quiet commerce between the ruling elite and the more permanent Washington
establishment . . .
"Libby is fussy and precise with reporters, which is why friends and
colleagues find it so hard to believe that he would have been involved in
leaking Plame's identity, obstructing justice, or committing perjury.
"Libby was an exacting source for anyone who talked to him. After using a
Libby quote, it was not unusual for reporters to receive a call from the
vice president's press shop. Mr. Libby wanted to know why only a portion of
his comment was used. 'He would prefer that if a reporter was going to
quote
him that it be an unedited transcript,' says one who worked closely with
him. Other reporters were scolded if a Libby quote hidden under the
attribution of 'senior administration official' was placed near sentences
that he thought might identify him, even if no reasonable reader could come
to such a conclusion. In other words, he's as careful as they come in
Washington."
On the Miers front, Ryan Lizza marvels in the New Republic at how quickly
the right has turned:
'That was fast. Last month, George W. Bush was the leader of the
conservative movement. This month, he's a traitor . . .
"To be sure, the conservative abandonment of Bush isn't total. The right is
divided. Some see the split as one of Washington eggheads versus the
red-state masses. Others, noting that the debate over Miers is, at its
core,
about abortion, interpret the current anger as a revolt by social
conservatives. But neither of these explanations quite captures what is
going on. The conservative war over Miers is being fought by elites on both
sides. The pro-Miers elites are just doing a better job of wrapping their
cause in populism."
The WSJ's John Fund is feeling the heat for his Harriet reporting:
"In desperation, I took to going on radio talk shows in Texas and
tongue-in-cheek offered to practice 'checkbook journalism' for the first
time in my career. I said I would write a small check to the favorite
charity of anyone who contacted me and could plausibly say that he has
had a
serious discussion about politics or judicial philosophy with Ms. Miers. So
far it hasn't cost me a dime.
"For my trouble, I have been incorrectly attacked by allies of Ms. Miers,
including some in the White House, for supposedly waving a checkbook
seeking
negative information about her. For the record, I made my offer in a
jocular
fashion, but to make a serious point. With the exception of President Bush,
no one appears to know the nominee's judicial philosophy."
By the way, says Fund, "I believe it is almost inevitable that Ms. Miers
will withdraw or be defeated."
In National Review, Danielle Crittenden offers a woman's perspective I
haven't seen before:
"It doesn't involve cigars or a stained dress. But the nomination of
Harriet
Miers has created a woman problem on the Right every bit as big as that
which faced feminists during Bill Clinton's presidency.
"For years, conservative women's groups such as the Independent Women's
Forum have opposed feminist visions of female equality. We opposed
affirmative action in the workplace, believing women had to be held to the
same standards as men. We rallied against quotas, with the reasoning
that if
there were fewer female firefighters than male, this was because women
didn't wish to take these jobs, and not because of discriminatory hiring
practices by the fire department . . .
"We were disgusted with feminist groups when they stood by Bill Clinton
through all his women troubles--when the National Organization for Women,
for example, jettisoned all its previously stated principles on sexual
harassment in order to retain political power.
"Now conservative women face a similar dilemma with Harriet: President Bush
has asked us to stand by a woman who is unqualified for the Court
because he
knows what's in her 'heart'-- not in her head.
"We are asked to stand by her because, simply, she is a woman-- a
'pioneer,'
a 'glass-ceiling breaker' -- even while other more qualified women were
rejected for the position (and interestingly, rejected by Harriet herself,
who headed the 'search' committee).
"That her pioneering had nothing to do with gathering expertise in
constitutional law -- well, no biggie. We must swallow the idea that quotas
and affirmative action are justifiable policies for the highest Court in
the
land.
"We are asked, further, to stand hypocritically by this decision as
Patricia
Ireland did when she stood by Bill Clinton--going so far as to sign letters
with other 'accomplished' women saying we believe Harriet Miers is
qualified
for the Court. Whatever our principles, we must jettison them in order to
retain political power."
Meanwhile, the Senate will not get a key part of the paper trail, as the
Boston Globe reports:
"President Bush vowed yesterday not to release any White House memos by his
Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, provoking a standoff with senators
from both parties who have demanded more information about her work in the
White House.
"Senate leaders, who have asked that they be given a complete list of
Miers's memos by tomorrow, vowed to continue their efforts to obtain at
least some of Miers's White House work, arguing that such documents are
especially important because Miers lacks a record as a judge or law
professor.
"The emerging confrontation developed as criticism of the Miers nomination
expanded with the launching of two new conservative websites aimed at
forcing her withdrawal and raising money for ads against her."
The other woman under fire, Judy Miller, gives an interview to New York
Post
columnist Andrea Peyser :
" 'I'm not mad, I'm sad,' Judy told me from her home on Long Island. 'Isn't
it sad that, after going to jail for 85 days for a principle, it's come to
this?' . . .
"Judy will not take on her colleagues as personally as they've maligned
her.
'Believe it or not, I can be pretty mild. I'm not going to sink to that
level,' she said. 'But if someone says I'm a liar, I'm going to say I'm not
a liar.'"
Of course, those "colleagues" include her boss, Bill Keller.
American Journalism Review Editor Rem Rieder says Keller's mea culpa "was
both the right thing and the smart thing to do. Admitting that you've
screwed up is never easy. It's exponentially harder when you're the boss at
a revered (if flawed) American institution, and your mistakes have
compounded that institution's problems.
"The Times has never been what you would call a particularly transparent
newspaper. Its From the Editors note about the misguided Wen Ho Lee
coverage
was tortured, grudging. Its awfully late guilty plea about the paper's WMD
fiasco didn't even mention Miller.
"But this time Keller was forthright, to the point. And there was none of
the accepting-responsibility-but-not-blame that is so popular these
days. No
'mistakes were made.' These, Keller said, were on me. That's the way a true
leader acts."
Among the unhappy ex-Timesmen is David Halberstam :
" 'I think the paper has taken a terrible hit,' said David Halberstam, one
of the Times' most respected alums, and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning
writer. 'I think it is shocking that this young woman who has been a known
identified land mine for a long time seems to have guaranteed loyalty to
the
office of the Vice President of the United States more than to The New York
Times.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/10/25/BL2005102500520.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
25 Oct 2005 06:36:08 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2005102515091450073%ggains@waddfredu...
According to the latest poll,
<snip>
Practice saying President Rudolph Guilliani
"One last note: I am very surprised at your reaction especially after
just a few short months ago I provided a copy of my DD214 Right in box
18...1st line it says... SERVED 2 AUG 90 TO 1 OCT 94 IN SUPPORT OF
OPERATION DESERT SHIELD/STORM and in box 13 NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE
MEDAL Funny how you have selective memory, why? Yes, I served in combat
during Desert Storm."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/38f5de5691243868?dmode=source&hl=en
"Fine, if you want to play on words...no I was not in actual "combat" "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/db12fe6b6ec66a35?dmode=source&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 10:00:35 PM |
|
|
George <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote:
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
A majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job
than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent),
9/11!
Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent),
9/11!
gasoline prices (51 percent
to 31 percent)
Stay the course!
and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
9/11!
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling
Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.
Coincidentally, a trained chimp could do better than Bush and his
cronies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
27 Oct 2005 01:42:39 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
George <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote:
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
A majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job
than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent),
9/11!
Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent),
9/11!
gasoline prices (51 percent
to 31 percent)
Stay the course!
and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
9/11!
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling
Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.
Coincidentally, a trained chimp could do better than Bush and his
cronies.
Ouch, the Dems couldn't beat a trained chimp? Stinging admission.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
28 Oct 2005 12:03:02 AM |
|
|
<omarenoryt@aol.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
George <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote:
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
A majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job
than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent),
9/11!
Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent),
9/11!
gasoline prices (51 percent
to 31 percent)
Stay the course!
and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
9/11!
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling
Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.
Coincidentally, a trained chimp could do better than Bush and his
cronies.
Ouch, the Dems couldn't beat a trained chimp? Stinging admission.
Deserved, too.
The problem with most senators (and Kerry in particular) is that
they're so used to being polite and diplomatic that when they check
their balls at the Senate cloakroom they then lose the claim check.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
27 Oct 2005 09:51:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Ouch, the Dems couldn't beat a trained chimp? Stinging admission.
Only in your dubious "mind"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John W. Gilmer of Jacksonville, FL" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
25 Oct 2005 07:07:58 PM |
|
|
George wrote:
According to the latest poll,
Rednecks are trash. And these newsgroups are full of toothless,
uneducated, lazy rednecks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: A Message From The Future (was: Bush would lose for the third time.) |
26 Oct 2005 03:02:59 PM |
|
|
George wrote:
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
Secretly planted in an out-of-the-way place by a time traveller from
the future:
Dated 2003 April 15; rec.running
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.running/msg/3093e6a5eb128b63?dmode=source
"Bush will serve no more than 2 terms as president. He is the last man
who will ever be elected president of the United States. But the United
States will elect a president in 2008."
Also: dated 2005 October 5:
Presage #11 (from Lynette):
"Revived in the New World were the legions of Rome,
Who sought to make the world its new home.
The son of its chief shall be the last man to command.
But there will be more after him to rule the land."
.
|
|
|
| User: "mugawump" |
|
| Title: Re: A Message From The Future (was: Bush would lose for the third time.) |
27 Oct 2005 04:27:54 PM |
|
|
"Bush will serve no more than 2 terms as president. He is the last man
who will ever be elected president of the United States. But the United
States will elect a president in 2008."
Is this a sneaky way to predict that from now on, we will have only
Women as presidents??? If not, Your comment doesn't make sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: A Message From The Future (was: Bush would lose for the third time.) |
29 Oct 2005 12:22:27 AM |
|
|
"mugawump" <dwaldo29@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1130448474.477281.23670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
"Bush will serve no more than 2 terms as president. He is the last man
who will ever be elected president of the United States. But the United
States will elect a president in 2008."
Is this a sneaky way to predict that from now on, we will have only
Women as presidents??? If not, Your comment doesn't make sense.
Nope. He probably meant that the Bush Cartel's attempt to
start a dictatorship has failed. The Dominionists made the
mistake of choosing a big weinie as their front man. And,
the rest of them are turning out to be weinies, too.
Dangerous, rich and powerful, but weinies just the same.
When power and money are all people care for, it is often
their downfall. And, soon, they will all start to inform on
each other like the rats they are. This will make Watergate
look like child's play.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: A Message From The Future (The "Bush The Last Man To Be President" Prophecy) |
08 Nov 2005 03:07:34 PM |
|
|
mugawump wrote:
"Bush will serve no more than 2 terms as president. He is the last man
who will ever be elected president of the United States. But the United
States will elect a president in 2008."
Is this a sneaky way to predict that from now on, we will have only
Women as presidents??? If not, Your comment doesn't make sense.
Look below...
Secretly planted on the USENET by a time-traveller from the future ...
Analysis Of The Kerry vs. Bush US Presidency Debate #2, Part II
talk.politics.european-union, 2004 October 10
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.european-union/msg/e3de13f27d45422b?dmode=source&hl=en
The remarks are mine, offering a more direct and in-depth
characterizaton of the candidates' positions.
SPEAKERS:
1. George W. Bush, the last man who will be President of the United
States
(but not the last President of the United States)
2. John F. Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts, no (direct) relation to
JFK.
3. Charles Gibson, ABC anchor
4. A surprise guest speaker
[The surprise guest speaker? You'll have to read the original article
to see who that turned out to be]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 03:47:36 PM |
|
|
George wrote:
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
There will be no such election, and it is juvenile to speculate about
the outcome of one. Those (including me) who are intensely
dissatisfied with Bush will have to wait until 2008.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
The Supreme Court never "appointed" him even once. Grow up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
25 Oct 2005 06:12:53 PM |
|
|
George wrote:
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
A majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job
than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent),
Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent
to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling
Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.
Yep W's numbers are worse than his poppy's in 1992. It must suck to be him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
29 Oct 2005 02:09:40 PM |
|
|
George wrote:
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
The sad part is that Bush actually lost the first time already,
but came into office by fraud and with the aid of a corrupt judge.
RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 04:11:52 PM |
|
|
He hasn't lost once. Try not to let that destroy you.
George wrote:
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
A majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job
than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent),
Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent
to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling
Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
25 Oct 2005 05:40:53 PM |
|
|
In news:2005102515091450073%ggains@waddfredu George <ggains@waddfr.edu>
wrote:
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
If you actually believe that, I guess you won't be voting in the next
election, but will instead be leading the armed overthrow of the sitting
government.
Or is this just more impotent whining from a sore loser?
Put up or shut up.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
25 Oct 2005 11:17:34 PM |
|
|
"Bert Hyman" <> wrote in message
news:Xns96FAB3F3D45A0VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7...
In news:2005102515091450073%ggains@waddfredu George <ggains@waddfr.edu>
wrote:
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
If you actually believe that, I guess you won't be voting in the next
election, but will instead be leading the armed overthrow of the sitting
government.
Or is this just more impotent whining from a sore loser?
Put up or shut up.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN
Oh a poor loser. Yeah you.
Bush's Presidency ends...and our challenge begins
With Washington swirling in scandal and a seemingly endless barrage of bad
news at home and abroad, it is time to focus on a fundamental fact: the Bush
Presidency is over.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 12:46:19 AM |
|
|
"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote
George <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote:
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush
if an election were held this year. (However, the USSC
would probably appoint him once again.)
If you actually believe that, I guess you won't be voting in the
next election, but will instead be leading the armed overthrow
of the sitting government.
To be absolutely honest, I would be surprised if some people
on the right didn't try to do exactly that.
Bush, like his dad before him, has stroked the flames of the
lunatic right. He's mainstreamed... well... *Everything*!
From the 2000 election theft, onto allowing 9/11 to happen &
threw the war to protect Iranian extremism, Bush has cast
aside every rule of law & decency.
Where are the limits today? What's going "too far" now, in
a post Bush world?
There are none. So if the right has to [blah-blah] to maintain
minority rule, it will.... regardless of how you fill in that
blank.
Cheating? Stealing? Killing? No problem. If that's what it
will take to keep their grip on the throat of America, they
will do it. And, yeah, Bush has done his part to ensure that
outcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 05:56:51 PM |
|
|
In news:gPudnchtmpI7iMLeRVn-gA@comcast.com "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
To be absolutely honest,
Well ...
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 12:55:01 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:09:14 -0700, George <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote:
According to the latest poll,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html
A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election
were held this year.
That's probably true, but the next Presidential election is actually
still three years away and Dubya can't run again in any case. The
collective memory of the American public is notoriously short, and if
there's one thing the Republicans are *very* good at, it's damage
control. The Dems can't count on Bush's plummeting approval scores to
guarantee them a shoo-in victory.
(However, the USSC would probably appoint him once again.)
A majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job
than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent),
Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent
to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling
Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 01:41:42 AM |
|
|
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 04:26:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
I can think of several who would be good. Hillary Clinton would be
good. Al Gore. Colin Powell. Even Paul Wellstone would be better than
George Bush, and he's dead!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
26 Oct 2005 02:50:05 PM |
|
|
Martin Smith wrote:
hc2...@mac.com wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
I can think of several who would be good. Hillary Clinton would be
good. Al Gore. Colin Powell.
I disagree. These are not candidates of any merit. They're weak.
All they really do is correspond precisely to the Anyone But Bush
league of uselessness that will continue to provide Dirty Uncle Jafo
with an abundance of flank to sink his fangs into while Karl Rove's in
prison.
Colin Powell provided *how* much opposition to Bushes I or II ?
Powell's always been a sellout to Wargate. The best thing he ever did
in his life was that supporting role in "Mars Attacks". In which he
dies like a stuck pig.
Hillary Clinton wrote herself off for good with her computer-game
censorship brainwave, pandering to puritanism like Tipper did to
diminish Al - as if his other impediments weren't already so lethally
impedimentary. From stumping as a censor, you just don't come back,
any more than trying to revive long-dead people is a natural thing.
That's how Dirty Uncle Jafo was made. And see how badly he turned out.
Even Paul Wellstone would be better than George Bush, and he's dead!
There's probably still a bigger pecentage of people who'd vote for
Mussolini in an Armani suit than support George W Bush at this point.
But they're a minority compared to those who realize these zombies are
actually one and the same.
Putting another party-line stiff from an overall unispiring Democratic
Party up for election would just distract from the real priority of
driving a stake through the heart of the vampire system once and for
all.
There are real urgent changes needing made, starting at the top. Both
leading parties have at least a few better candidates than the ones you
mentioned. The little parties have even more to offer - and I don''t
mean those sodding Libertarians.
Let's not settle for another shadow-boxing contest. That would make it
three ugly ones in a row.
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
27 Oct 2005 03:20:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Martin Smith wrote:
hc2...@mac.com wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
I can think of several who would be good. Hillary Clinton would be
good. Al Gore. Colin Powell.
I disagree. These are not candidates of any merit. They're weak.
Each of them is far more qualified to be President of the US than
George Bush, even though George Bush has been president for five
years. Even Paul Wellstone could do a better job than George Bush.
Even you aren't so big a fool as to deny Bush has fucked everything
up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
27 Oct 2005 09:05:52 AM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Martin Smith wrote:
hc23hc@mac.com wrote:
Martin Smith wrote:
hc2...@mac.com wrote:
To be worth mentioning much less voting for in the event that votes
mattered, the Democratic Party would have to provide an alternative.
You know, like ...sort of an opposition ?
I can think of several who would be good. Hillary Clinton would be
good. Al Gore. Colin Powell.
I disagree. These are not candidates of any merit. They're weak.
Each of them is far more qualified to be President of the US than
George Bush, even though George Bush has been president for five
years. Even Paul Wellstone could do a better job than George Bush.
Even you aren't so big a fool as to deny Bush has fucked everything
up.
You missed the point.
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
27 Oct 2005 11:25:12 AM |
|
|
Martin Smith wrote:
Each of them is far more qualified to be President of the US than
George Bush, even though George Bush has been president for five
years. Even Paul Wellstone could do a better job than George Bush.
That's not saying much. In fact, it isn't about who could do a better
job than George W Bush right now since nobody could be any worse.
That in itself is more than reason enough to get rid of him. It seems
to be what most people want and W should go quickly, before the tone of
their requests ceases being polite.
However, at some point if not this, the question will arise what sort
of government we really want as a people. Rearranging the present-day
furniture is one way to make no progress at all. What we are
witnessing under W isn't free enterprise let alone any sort of freedom
to choose anything at all. The whole gamut of how corporate Washington
D.C. "works" is due for total dismantling and none of those pallid
folks the Democratic Party may or may not have lined up - stooges, as
it were, programmed to go on losing and maybe scraping by in some
eternal electoral shell-game - will make that much of a difference at
all, when the chips are down. They would only be stations along the
way toward a complete and utter abolition of crony pseudo-capitalism,
and by doing so, making peace in and with this world possible, in our
time.
This is, after all, our time and not Time-Warner's.
Luckily, it isn't about whom the Democratic Party nominates, unless the
quality of their nominees greatly improves over what it has been of
late. Or they will have to go, too. Not because they're as bad as
Bush, precisely, but that they're insufficiently different from his
dynasty to be reasonably mistaken for a clean alternative in the long
run. And also, because no ruler should have to, or be allowed to be as
bad as George W Bush before being ousted.
Even you aren't so big a fool as to deny Bush has fucked everything
up.
He personifies evil incarnate and has wrecked large tracts of the
political landscape as well as the actual environment itself. Not
only must he, George W Bush, go and go fast, but go also must anyone
who even vaguely resembles him or plays with the same marked deck.
Would it be fair to expect you to comprehend this ?
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
27 Oct 2005 04:21:22 PM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Slick <hc23hc@mac.com> wrote:
<snipped to bring focus>
However, at some point if not this, the question will arise what
sort of government we really want as a people.
In other words, "what are you *for*".
Not bad, Slick. You and I may not agree about the ultimate form
of good government, but your comment is certainly on the right track.
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush would lose for the third time. |
28 Oct 2005 10:01:53 AM |
|
|
Dirty Uncle Jafo wrote:
<hc23hc@mac.com> wrote:
<snipped to bring focus>
.... snipped to bring W nearer to Jafo so they can focus up altogether
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
