posted 12-15- 03:13 PM               

Is it me or is this not an obvious, yet underhanded move to swing the balance of power in the Senate?

posted 12-15- 04:36 PM               

He's not 10 minutes out of the gate, still bloviating about bipartisanship, and he's already playing dirty pool.

I'll bet Dubya's Republican benefactors were breathing down his neck to make him ask Breaux.

posted 12-15- 05:30 PM               

There is NOTHING wrong about doing this! This is like chess, and it is a good move. No one is forcing him into the cabinet.

posted 12-15- 05:31 PM               

Look guys, when your neighbor comes over and asks if he can borrow your lawnmower and you let him, is that stealing? To call this a "dirty trick" just shows how paranoid you are. GW isn't trying to "trick" anyone. It's obvious to everyone what the potential impact of this is on the Senate. Even before he talked to GW, Breaux was thinking about accepting if GW could guarantee that another Demo would be nominated to replace him in the Senate. When you go into something with your eyes wide open it isn't "underhanded". The press is reporting on the Senate balance impact this nomination would have. What they are not reporting is how devious a dirty trick this is...because it isn't!

posted 12-15- 05:48 PM               

And, of course, Breaux didn't accept, which probably means that Bush couldn't promise that Breaux would be replaced by a Democrat. Thus my gripe! :-P

I know what Bush is trying to do. What really worries me is that Dubya is not concerned about how obvious it is that he's trying to swing the balance in the Senate.

Dubya is so owned by the Delay/Lott/Barr/Limbaugh crowd that he would do anything to push their agenda.

>God, I feel sorry for you if you're going to spend the next four years looking for the "devious angle" to everything the President does.

Why not... isn't that exactly what the Republicans did for 8 years?

posted 12-16- 11:08 AM               

Trying to woo a certain fella out of a certain seat to create an advantage in the houses for a majority is an old trick...VERY old.

Republicans do it, Democrats do it, just this time it didn't work. Oh well.

And it's "You Republicans" that are going to be on the defensive for the next four years, believe me. All "Us Bleeding-Heart Liberal Scum" will have to do is quote the daily news verbatim. And we'll even try to pick moderate publications to quote from, even though I'm sure no matter WHAT we quote from, you'll refer to it as a publication of Satan and the Liberal Left.

On a side note, to save future arguments, if you conservative folks could take a moment from mentally flogging Bill Clinton's dead horse, could you let us communist sympathizers know what publications you will accept printed quotes from, without arguing that the paper is run by the spirit of Abbie Hoffman's ghost? It would be appreciated.

I'll tell you one thing though. I was listening to Rush whine yesterday about how the Democrats are going to make sure and do everything they can to make Bush's tenure in office ineffective, and basically if Bush seems ineffective, or can't get anything done, it will all be the fault of the Democrats.

I thought that was pretty special. "Hey, if our guy fucks up and looks like an idiot, it's not his fault, it's those damn Liberal Democrats again."

What a bunch of horseshit. Clinton fought against Republicans his whole tenure in office for 8 solid years, did wonderful things for the country, made me lots of money, and made most people outside of the United States think he was an alright type of guy.

And he did it while he was witch-hunted, stymied in congress, hit with lawsuit after lawsuit, and harassed by Republicans for having an affair with a young woman, all before the eyes of the world.

Republicans make worthy opponents. NO ONE can whine like a Republican. You don't have to make sense, you don't even really need to speak in complete sentences, you just whine, bitch, moan and complain, and blame it all on a Democrat.

I'd say you self-righteous Republicans should put a lid on it right now. This guys screws the pooch, it's his own damn fault, and no one else's.

How do you hang a self-righteous Republican?

You give'em enough rope!

And as far as Democrats acting like "a bunch of chicks," aside from being a rather mysoginistic comment, is basically the exact opposite of the way it is in reality.

Republicans for the last eight years have acted like a bunch of little kids, whining and crying, rolling on the ground peeing on themselves, pointing fingers and saying, "Bill Clinton hit me! Somebody beat him up for me!" It's been rather pathetic.

So now, and I know it's really hard for you guys to do so, you need to stop acting like Bill Clinton is still president, and understand you won.

Since you're not used to that, what I mean is that Bill Clinton is no longer the president after late January. At all. Really. No shit.

And further, and I know I'm stretching the boundaries of your comprehension here, but after that, guess what? You guys actually have a guy named George W. Bush who's going to be president. For FOUR WHOLE YEARS! I'm not kidding.

So what we're going to be doing here, and by that I mean here on the front lines of the scum-sucking liberal pinko-fag communist party, is simply watching. And listening.

And guess what? If Dubya blows a speech, or looks like a goofball with a camera in his face while fielding a bunch of questions his Dad or Dick Cheney didn't give him answers to...it's not Bill Clinton's fault.

And if he screws up the economy, and causes the loss of tons of jobs like the Reagan administrations "cleansing term of down-sizing," a Democrat had nothing to do with it.

Let me just say this one more time: Bill Clinton, after late January, will not be president any longer. Honest.

Your guy, George W. Bush actually won, er...well anyway, wound up being president, so you won't have to worry any more...at least for four more years.

And if he blows it, he'll have ONLY himself to blame. Clinton paddled uphill for 8 years against the Republican political onslaught, and did pretty damn good. Like the skit on Saturday Night Live said, "Face it America...I'm a tough act to follow!"

But good luck George. Let's start concentrating on what George does when he's in office. Us socialist anarchist pinko's masquerading as moderate Democrats will be watching.

We won't need "devious angles," although to most Bush-backers apparently we do not seem "intelligent," so that would probably keep us from ever being truly devious right there.

And really, ANYBODY could be Bush's energy secretary. You just have to stand in front of a bunch of Texas oilmen, point to a map of the Alaskan wilderness, and say, "Boys...DRILL THAT SUMBITCH!"

So, c'mon you Republicans Rapscallions. Try to do something different for a change. Take responsiblity for yourselves, your president, and the nation. It's time to stop pointing fingers, trying to shift blame, and make it someone else's fault. You've got the helm Mr. Sulu, take us out of here.

Your guy in on the bridge, he's got some friends on capital hill, and you should be ready to rock. Now shut up and play your damn guitar.

Hope everybody is having a great weekend!

posted 12-16- 10:44 PM               

Rush us a whining bastard.

I never grip about Clinton, his policies were almost more conservative than Bush's! Most Americans think Bush is more in line with Clinto than with Gore is, that is why Bush did so well - and the people are correct. But that makes Clinton a phony liberal. I don't care - I really think he was good for the economy, BUT not becuase if his liberal views LOL, because he ACTED just live a conservative president!

Note that I have not bashed Clinton once. I did not, and would not vote for him because I am support conservatives, and Clinton "says" he is a moderate liberal. But I will take his being president for another 4 years over Gore any day.

posted 12-16- 11:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smokey:
That's right Jerry, get your ducks in a row.
Just because your portfolio as taken a little
dip in the past few weeks doesn't mean
economic disaster for everyone. You know as
well as I do that court appointee Bush and
the republicans on capitol hill couldn't run
a popcorn stand let alone our nations
economy. I don't think 4% unemployment is too
shabby. We'll see where it goes under Bush's
guiding hand.

BTW are you implying, with the economy showing
some signs of weekening, that Bush and the
republican majority in both houses don't have
the ability to straighten things out?

---

Comrade Smokey...huh? A little too much Vodka maybe? It was your friend Lothar who said the economy was taking a dump. I said IF it's taking a dump.

Where did I say the economy was going to be a disaster for everyone?

I "know"??? that the Republican's can't run the economy? No, I don't "know" that. What I do know is that only Communists even think in terms of the government "running" the economy. Gave youself away again comrade. In a capitalistic (sorry, I know you hate that word) country the government does not "run" the economy.

I hear that Cuba is nice this time of year Smokey. I think you would enjoy it there....no Republicans, just loyal party members like yourself...and some damn fine baseball players.

Did I say that 4% unemployment rate was shabby? Where did I say that?

How could you possibly glean, from anything I said, that I implied that the Republicans can't straighten out the economy? And don't get confused, (I know that's difficult for you but try) "running" and "straightening out" are two different things. Government tax and spend policies can influence the economy over time but the Federal Reserve and Alan Greenspan have more power over the direction of the economy than either party. Sorry if that's above you....I know how a Vodka stupor can cloud things.

Besides, it's not the economy that needs straightening out. It's Government that needs straightening out after 8 years of a Democrat at the helm.

Dosvedanya

posted 12-17- 01:27 PM               

And yes, there are communists everywhere, and they go by stealth, calling themselves liberals. I am all for another red scare, the only good commie is, indeed, a dead one - in my country.

Why should I not worry about theives who want to take my money?

I like the Peter Tosh story. Marley got it right, he was a great man, but poor Peter, poor communist Peter, he trusted theives and killers over good people. He thought all criminals where just oppressed by the rich and powerfull - like him. He lived among these scum, and gave them all they wanted, and trusted them. Then one of them killed him and tried to kill his entire family - and for what? To steal Peter's money - and Peter said it was in the bank and he would get it for them... they paniced and shot everyone... criminals are criminals - theives are theives. Call me greedy, but I horde freedom and plan on keeping my stuff.

posted 12-17- 02:20 PM               

Unless you do that, you are admitting that you like living in a "community", which makes you a type of "communist".

posted 12-17- 05:26 PM               

A few weeks ago, you said that John McCain is a liberal. Considering the fact that you believe that liberals are really stealth communists, would it be fair to say that you think John McCain, war hero and son of a US Navy Admiral, is a really a stealth communist? And, if we apply your other statement that "the only good commie is a dead commie", would it be fair to say that you wish John McCain was dead?

And, just as an aside, why do you care if there are communists in this country? I thought you were against the government trying to control what people think or believe. After all, South Carolina can fly any flag, even one containing the hammer and sickle, over their state capitol building, right?

Don't you love how I tie all this stuff together? ;-)

posted 12-17- 05:30 PM               

Oh, Jerry, you were right on cue!

posted 12-17- 07:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothar:
So I guess a communist teacher is about as bad as it gets?

Oh, Jerry, you were right on cue!

[This message has been edited by Lothar (edited 12-17-2000).]

---

1) Yes.

2) Glad I didn't disappoint you.

posted 12-17- 08:04 PM               

Remember, however, JT - I said McCain was a liberal republican, NOT a liberal - he is liberal to me, but not a "liberal". To me JT, you are not a liberal either, but more a moderate VERY sympathetic to the liberal agenda.

It seems to me that if John MacCain was a satan worshiper you would follow him just because he was a war hero. Being a war here is a great, great thing - but using that fact to prove that I am wrong about something because I disagree with a war hero is a liberal tactic to make me look like a monster for not agreeing with everything McCains says. I don't like a war hero, what you gonna do about it?

I like Willie Nelson, and he is a tax evader - oh well, I guess I am evil.

Also I said that there are many communists hiding out as liberals, but there are many liberals that are not communist - Lieberman is a pussy, but he has 10 times more respect for capitalism than McCain does.

posted 12-17- 08:53 PM               

I see... so, the Liberal Democrats are communists, not the Liberal Republicans?

I hope nobody ever judges you by such an imcomprehensible standard.

>It seems to me that if John MacCain was a satan worshiper you would follow him just because he was a war hero.

I don't follow him. He is a conservative. About the only thing I agree with him on is the South Carolina flag issue and campaign finance reform.

>I like Willie Nelson, and he is a tax evader - oh well, I guess I am evil.

If liking Willie Nelson is an evil deed, then I am I evil too! Wille is cool.

>Also I said that there are many communists hiding out as liberals, but there are many liberals that are not communist

You never said that there are many liberals who are not communists.

>I love the way you argue, NOT - you just wait and put together odd relations that were never intended. Maybe your reading comprehension is not what it should be - did you reall gather from what I was saying that I felt McCain was a communist?

Nope... that's why I asked. I was merely following your argument to it's logical conclusion.

But forget McCain for just a minute... what about Hillary... You said that she was a communist. Do you wish she was dead?

posted 12-18- 09:50 AM               

So for now I will argue against communism - but if they day comes where communism is becoming reality in America - I will fight against communism instead. This is my home, and I will defend it with my life. I only hope that by arguing against communism I can keep any fighting from ever happening.

My wife believes that the pendulum will swing back towards freedom and capitalism soon, I am not so sure. We have all the ingrediants to head fast towardas complete socialism. We have wealth, guilt in having wealth, almost a 50% tax rate, public schools that push the state's political agenda, laws that push the state's political agenda, and social programs that are considered to be more sacred than the constitution. I get the feeling that most people believe in social security more than the US Constitution.

Some people say that, if you believe in freedom, then you must let there be communism. They are only 1/2 correct. I will let people be communists, but they are NOT allowed to serve in our government! Why??? Because you swear to uphold the constitution, and that forbids communism by its very nature.

You can not be free to choose (vote for) the elimination of freedom (communism) - by definition! So free people are only free in such a way that perpetuates freedom.

Don't think it can't happen... just look at England, poor guys. Well at least it looks like the momentum that put them into socialism is totaly exhausted - no worry about going further there - but I don't think England would ever have pushed for communism anyway, they are missing the ingrediants that we have. It will be a great day when England joins the world of capitalism again...

quote:

---

>Also I said that there are many communists hiding out as liberals, but there are many liberals that are not communist

You never said that there are many liberals who are not communists.

---

posted 12-18- 10:02 AM               

-4: Communist (leftist liberal)
-3: Moderate liberal
-2: Conservative liberal
-1: Moderate
0: Liberal conservative
1: Moderate conservative
2: Anarchist/Nutty libertarian

My America is at the zero mark. I think we are at the -1 mark now. I find JT to be a -2. Smokey is a -3. Hillary is a -4. Bush is on the zero mark with me. Clinton was a -1. Gore would have been a -2. Lieberman is a -2. Cheny is a 1. McCain is a -1 to me thanks to his desire to unconstitutionaly implement campaign finance reform and the take away freedoms from big business, eliminate lobbying, etc.

Also keep in mind that a "Nutty" libertarian is not a good libertarian. Libertarianism, like the religious right, does not fit into this scale, but rather is a 3rd dimmension.

posted 12-18- 12:13 PM            

BWAAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAH!!!

posted 12-18- 05:04 PM               

Money is sacred. Why? Because people will talk and do any old thing, but when it comes to money, things change. Money is our currency, for both buying stuff and having power - and it is right that it functions this way. Without this mechanism, we would have nothing.

If money is so easy to get, where is yours? Or maybe you have allot of money, where did you get it all from? It all comes from productivity, every penny. Without productivity there is no wealth. What people do and what they are worth has everything to do with politics.

Most of people's life is work. I think liberals pretend this is not the case, or they have been watching too much Jessee Jackson on TV, I don't think those guys work...

But for the rest of us in the world, rich and poor, our lives are about our work. So the economy certainly is a vital part of our society. Also it brings the only real fairness outside the law. While the law tells people what they can't do, the ecconomy inspires people to do what they should do.

If there is no incentive, we would all sit around all day looking for the Earth mother to feed us. Money gets people off their ass, especially the most talented among us.

So the economy rewards those who help humanity out, and it plays NO favorites! Left or right, black or white - those who create value are rewarded. Are there some tough aspects to this? Yes, sometimes things can be hard against you for various reasons - but in the end it is up to you and your community.

I am no racist, but I look at the way the jews have worked and the way the blacks have worked - I think there is a lesson there, a lesson I apply to my life everyday. I once thought life was all unfair, why did I have nothing and other stupid people have so much? I thought I was never given a chance, and then I relized that I never took a chance on myself.

Now we have winners and losers, and to many's suprise, the D students are rewarded while the A students are making big macs. Becuase unlike school, effort is not graded - only the result.

People are not going to throw thier money into things they do not believe in.

Everyday there is a magic system at play - from the markets to the state buildings, private investors, government investors, and lobbyists - all work to make sure money goes where it needs to go - and in the end we reap the reward: wealth. We all have wealth. Money is only the tool to wealth, for what good is money withing to buy with it? Curruption leads to meaningless wealth...

Also, as a bonus, I will tell you what libertarians don't get. They do not understand that living in a perfectly free world is not very fun if you have completely differnt views in life than all your neighbors. If you are free to be X, but everyone else is Y, it can ruin the whole trip.

So what do we do? We all get together and say, "these things we believe in" and call it the constitution. All things else are up to the people, we are free here. Only where we come together shall we legislate.

But like Newt said, if our society is not homogeneous enough, then we can not legislate anything! How can you ever legislate something that we are 50/50 split with in the country? That is why, although I am very pro-life, I am 100% pro-choice as far a the law is concearned. I repect the decision of my fellow man - I respectively disagree, but I afford them that we do not have a concensus here. The default is always for non-legislation, that is clearly the constitutional way.

Campaign finance reform would be like letting the oil out of this engine, it is only time to the works get mucked up and the system starts to fail.