posted 01-03- 01:01 PM               

When was the last time that happened? Eisenhower? Hoover?

posted 01-03- 01:10 PM               

Now there's nothing stopping the Republican party from doing all the really, really neat things they said they were going to do.

Dubya and his "Let's March Happily Backwards in Time" cabinet, aided by the House and the Senate, will surely set all the things that Rush says are wrong in this country aright, and get us out of this horrible, shameful rut we've found ourselves in.

In other words, no excuses. In this case Bush will have it a hell of a lot easier than Bill ever had it. The table is set. Let's see what's for dinner in four years.

posted 01-03- 02:24 PM            

Oh yeah, Jerry, don't forget a republican
supreme court.

The last time it happened was in 1953. By
1957 you couldn't buy a job.

posted 01-03- 11:09 PM               

BAHAHAHAHA... where does he think he will get the money to do all this? This guy needs a serious reality check. I would write him one, but I don't think he would know where to cash it.

I predict that he won't do anything he has promised.

JT

Bushism of the day:

posted 01-03- 11:14 PM               

hehehe... Yeah, I keep wondering who they will trot out next in this surreal parade of old skulls from the Raygun/Bush years.

posted 01-04- 03:58 PM               

The demo's and the mainstream press are such purveyors of fear and hate it's scary. They have convinced half the country that the worst evil imaginable is the Republican Party. Republicans are going to pollute the air, pollute our drinking water, eliminate Medicare and Social Security, rape our National Parks and starve the children. They are going to force everyone to be a Christain, reinstitute slavery and turn the country over to the evil Corporations. What a bunch of demented crap you guys believe!!

Since liberals have no core values of their own to be proud of, the only way they can get votes is to scare everyone. Their mantra is "vote for me or the Republicans will get you".

For weeks now all three of you have done nothing but wail and cry and moan about how terrible the Bush presidency is going to be...and the man hasn't even been sworn in yet!!

How do you know what he can or can't accomplish? From the look of his cabinet appointments he is going to surprise a lot of you liberals...not by becoming liberal himself but by proving that Conservative values allow anyone to succeed, regardless of their background, IF they are willing to work for it!!

Your assholes are so puckered up with fear that you can't think straight. Despite what your liberal BS propaganda wants us to believe, the world is NOT coming to an end.

posted 01-04- 04:23 PM               

You do have to admit that Dubya, the house and the senate all have a great opportunity to stomp the republican stigma developed during Bush/Reagan.

I predict they won't.

Although, in general, we're in some of the best economic times of late, we're already priming for decline, meaning the cards are already stacked against them.

posted 01-04- 06:17 PM               

So gee Jerr, how does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot? How does it feel to NOT have Bill Clinton to kick around, and realize that soon YOUR guy is going to be in the limelight, and you'll have to really pay attention for a change, and not just repeat the drivel you hear from Newt and Rush?

This is the difference between people that are good at bitching, moaning, and complaining, but know nothing of leading. Once they're given the reins, they don't know what the hell to do with the horse, so they just continue to yell at it.

Golly, for about 8 years or so, all we've heard is how Bill Clinton, alone, will cause the moral downfall of our nation as a whole.

Oh, and by the way, the mantra is, "Vote for us, we're smart enough to come in from the rain."

And fear mongering, Jesus, you guys are the most paranoid group in the world. Everyone's out to get you. The media. The liberals. The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming...give me freakin' break already. YOU calling US fear-mongers is like Norman Bates calling someone schizophrenic.

As far as polluting, I don't know about ALL of the stuff you were spewing forth there oh worthy opponent, but yes, I don't think it's a real quantum leap in thinking to realize that Dubya wants to loosen the environmental reins on big business to promote growth through supply-side economics. That's kind of, um, like a fact, and something he's stated very plainly.

What I've been trying to convey for about a month now, is that it's time to forget about Bill Clinton, and really, it's you guys who are jousting with windmills.

On and on you keep mewling and puking about how stupid liberals are, how they don't really have an agenda other than attacking good, sound, Republican ideology, and how we control everything that has to do with the media. Hey, guess what? It doesn't make any damn difference now, 'cause your guy is at the helm!

Please. Take a vacation. Get some rest. And for God's sake, why don't you start reporting to us heathen idiots wonderful things that Dubya's Whitehouse Team are going to do for this country?

ONCE AGAIN: Bill Clinton is history. You guys are in power. You have control. Pay attention now, you're driving. Stop looking at that sign you passed a quarter mile back, or you'll drive the damn car into the ditch!

Gosh, I missed these discourses Jerr!

posted 01-04- 06:22 PM            

Well, he hasn't did shit in Texas for two terms, so that may be a good leading indicator. Plus, my favorite city of Houston is the most polluted city in the nation, so you air pollution prediction may be right.

posted 01-04- 07:06 PM               

Oh, silly me, here I am judging him before we've gotten a chance to see what he can do.

Oh yeah, and Bill Clinton was solely responsible for Marilyn Manson. If he hadn't gotten a blowjob in the White House, Marilyn would never have made it onto the Pop Charts.

posted 01-04- 07:42 PM               

Anyway... http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/Politics/debunk.html

posted 01-04- 08:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mk10 225th:

Wait till you see 'ol Dubya's asshole puckers when he figures out what he got hisself into!

Yes, good idea, why don't we wait...like maybe until he is in office....before we start condemning his presidency.

So gee Jerr, how does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?

The shoe is not on the other foot...yet. GW is not our President yet! How many times do I have to remind you!

How does it feel to NOT have Bill Clinton to kick around, and realize that soon YOUR guy is going to be in the limelight,

How does it feel? MARVELOUS, ABSOLUTELY FUCKING MARVELOUS!!!

and you'll have to really pay attention for a change, and not just repeat the drivel you hear from Newt and Rush?

Since liberals don't have a message of their own, other than making victims of everyone, it is difficult for them (you) to comprehend that a consistent message reflecting solid core values is the result of considered thought and analysis, not the repeation of a mantra like liberals are used to.

This is the difference between people that are good at bitching, moaning, and complaining, but know nothing of leading. Once they're given the reins, they don't know what the hell to do with the horse, so they just continue to yell at it.

We haven't been given the reins yet, (must I remind you again?) so how do you know what we'll do with the horse?

Golly, for about 8 years or so, all we've heard is how Bill Clinton, alone, will cause the moral downfall of our nation as a whole.

No, not the whole nation, just the moral downfall of the Presidency. Doesn't that bother you, even a little?

Oh, and by the way, the mantra is, "Vote for us, we're smart enough to come in from the rain."

You don't live in Oregon.

And fear mongering, Jesus, you guys are the most paranoid group in the world. Everyone's out to get you. The media. The liberals. The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming...give me freakin' break already.

...and your point is?

YOU calling US fear-mongers is like Norman Bates calling someone schizophrenic.

Unfortunately, Norman's schizophrenia is fictional, yours is real.

As far as polluting, I don't know about ALL of the stuff you were spewing forth there oh worthy opponent, but yes, I don't think it's a real quantum leap in thinking to realize that Dubya wants to loosen the environmental reins on big business to promote growth through supply-side economics. That's kind of, um, like a fact, and something he's stated very plainly.

If you study the facts you will find that "big business" is not the main polluter in this country. It's your car or truck, individuals who won't recycle, farmers who let pesticides get into the water table and who don't practice soil conservation around stream beds, voters who won't approve public transportation systems, and people who won't turn their thermostats down. "Loosening the reign" on big business can be done without destroying the environment, despite your anti-business, anti-capitalistic biased opinion that all companies want to do is rape and pilage.

What I've been trying to convey for about a month now, is that it's time to forget about Bill Clinton, and really, it's you guys who are jousting with windmills.

Clinton is still in office, not GW! Clinton has a track record as President, not GW. So why should I forget about Clinton? Why don't you forget about GW until the man gets in office and does something?

On and on you keep mewling and puking about how stupid liberals are, how they don't really have an agenda other than attacking good, sound, Republican ideology, and how we control everything that has to do with the media. Hey, guess what? It doesn't make any damn difference now, 'cause your guy is at the helm!

Dammit MK, our guy is NOT at the helm!!!! Are you on drugs???

Please. Take a vacation. Get some rest. And for God's sake, why don't you start reporting to us heathen idiots wonderful things that Dubya's Whitehouse Team are going to do for this country?

I don't know what he is going to do. I don't know what a divided Congress will allow him to do. But I am willing to withold judgement until he has a chance to try...unlike some people.

ONCE AGAIN: Bill Clinton is history. You guys are in power. You have control. Pay attention now, you're driving. Stop looking at that sign you passed a quarter mile back, or you'll drive the damn car into the ditch!

ONCE AGAIN: Our guys are NOT in power. We do NOT have control. We are NOT driving. Why do keep saying this???

Gosh, I missed these discourses Jerr!

Yeah, me too. LOL

---

posted 01-04- 09:38 PM            

A. Al Gore was a bad candidate that screwed up his campaign.
B. The election was totally fucked up and the drunk from Texas stumbled into first place.

Either one of those answers is better than blaming Bill Clinton.

Maybe washcloth....er propcloth....propwash will come in and same something brilliant to help you out. "Liberals suck"

But I think kindergarden is already back in school.

posted 01-05- 12:58 AM               

Oh, Lordy.

And you're totally on track there Jerry, all about how it's some guy in Ohio that won't turn his thermostat down to 60 degrees at night, not the fact that you're going to see more oil drilling in National Parks, and restrictions lifted off the chip mill industry, and little tidbits like that.

I tell you what: You start paying attention to facts concerning the comments you make, and I'll start paying attention to you.

Until you stop sounding like a broken "Best of Rush" album, I'll be forced to use actual factual data to contest your Paranoid Right Point of View.

So my sincere apologies for thinking that sixteen more days isn't enough for Clinton to totally screw things up to the point where Dubya can't straighten them out in four years. Silly me.

You're absolutely right. It was the Republicans that made everything totally fantastic for the last 8 years, and it's all Clinton's fault that things will suck for the next four.

It can't be Dubya's fault if things go bad. Daddy and Jeb done said so. It's them damn Demmy-crats.

I guess I better just resign myself to the fact that all your side can do for the next four years is continue to throw up some kind of smoke screen, and blame someone who isn't around for the mess you make.

It would only be fitting. It's the other side of the coin to taking credit for anything good that happens, even when the only thing you were trying to do while it was going on was to tear it to pieces.

Sure, man. Makes sense to me.

posted 01-05- 01:22 AM               

Yes there is Mirth. Intelligent, artistic people tend to back candidates from the Democratic Party.

Shut-ins, introverts, paranoid schizophrenics, folks with personality defects, and ignorant people who are insanely jealous of those capable of using their brains, tend to be Republicans.

I'm so proud of you for catching on!

posted 01-05- 10:31 AM               

And while the smilie face at the end of the post would have clued MOST people in that my comments were intended as a good-natured jest, let's take a moment and realize 50% of the people in this country are NOT Republicans. 50% of the people in this country didn't even vote for Bush.

Those that did vote for Bush, were basically voting against Clinton, even though he wasn't even in the race.

They had been subjected to 8 years of Republican witch-hunting, whining, and oh, a touch of sarcasm here and there. If you can look someone straight in the face and tell them that you don't think Rush and Newt are just a tad bit sarcastic most of the time, then you're lying to yourself.

Guess that makes two of the biggest spokesmen (figuratively and literally) of the party guilty of being desperate, since they quite frequently stoop to pick up the tool of the ignorant.

I won't even talk about that sarcastic smirk that seems to be a permanent feature of George Dubya's face.

Y'know, out of the lot of you, only Sv was able to say things that didn't have to do with a paranoid fear of the Democrats, didn't even really mention Bill Clinton in most of his writings, and actually tried to put into words what he thought the philisophical differences were between the two candidates who recently ran for office.

He explained his viewpoints, and why he arrived at them. Jerry, I think that's about the second time over the last month or two that I've heard you paraphrase one of the most abhorrent slogans of all time, "Love It or Leave It."

You may have suggested Hollywood as an alternative to leaving the country completely, but to someone from the Midwest, it's almost worse!

I don't know about you, but I'm old enough to remember seeing those bumper stickers on cars. Even as a child, I didn't understand them then, and I don't understand them now.

They were frequently put on cars driven by people who could not engage in an intelligent argument with someone who used words with three, sometimes even four syllables, and since they couldn't do that, they wrapped themselves in the flag, and told them to get out of the country.

This is a free country. We don't just go around telling people to leave, because they don't agree with our politics. For some reason, Republicans seem to be able to declare themselves "more American" than others whenever it's convenient. While that is an obnoxious trait that there may be no remedy for, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from repeatedly suggesting folks leave the country, or worse, go to Hollywood, just because they don't buy your line of crap.

What's next Jerry? Maybe putting a red "L" on our lapels, so if things get a little hairy we could be rounded up, and put in interment camps?

Let me throw out a challenge to you Jerry, one you probably won't be able to accept, even if you WANT to.

Why don't you try to act more like the intelligent member of YOUR triumverate, instead of acting like a paranoid weirdo who can only blindly attack liberal ghosts floating in the air, and accuse the world of conspiring against them in Alec Baldwin's living room?

Why don't you try elaborating on what you feel the fundamental difference between the Republican and Democratic parties are?

Sv's viewpoint was that he felt Republicans were for the most part conservative, and that meant that they wanted to "conserve" certain ideals, certain values, and certain ways of life.

While I only agreed with about 12-15% of what he posted, I believe he was able to do it in an intelligent, coherent fashion, without once suggesting that if somebody didn't agree with him, they should leave the country.

Sarcasm alone is not a tool of the ignorant Jerry. Sarcasm used to hide a deficiency in a point of view IS.

Don't be the kid who didn't get to have the rules his way on the basketball court, and decides to just take the ball, and go home.

Stay here with us a while, and let's discuss, in an open, intelligent manner, befitting the democracy in which we live, why we think we're each full of shit.

It makes a lot more sense than thinking the world is out to get you, and telling people who don't agree with you to leave the country.

The Clinton Legacy? Well, there IS no Clinton Legacy according to people like you Jerry, is there?

Since it was all set into motion by, oh let's see, Reagan I guess, then really, Bill Clinton didn't do squat for the last 8 years besides play hide-the-salami in the Oval Office, right?

And if George stumbles and stubs his toe, it will be the lingering effect of the Clinton Curse, right?

C'mon boys. You can do better than that. Start telling us things that George is going to do different, that will change this country from the horrible shambles you feel it is in today.

I'd really like to know. Since I DO love this country, I actually tried to pay attention to some of the fundamental differences between the two candidates, and I voted my conscience. I didn't do it because a bunch of long-hairs wearing hirachi sandals in front of the post office told me to. And I don't even KNOW Alec Baldwin. The only thing I ever really liked him in was that Clancy movie, "Miami Blues," and "The Shadow."

Ah well, I'm done. I guess on the whole, just every third or fourth time we fire shots across each other's bows, I just think it would be nice if we were actually talking about facts and real stuff, instead of repeating the same paranoid ramblings over and over.

I'll try if you will. Oh hell, no I won't! I'll just keep being that sarcastic, liberal bastard in the background!

posted 01-05- 04:36 PM               

Bitter? I am jubilent that Bush won. We The People need to be reminded why we kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years. Who better to remind us than Dubya?

Given all that Bush has promised, it is a given that he will fail. I predict he will be thoroughly discredited within two years... and believe you me, nothing President Cheney can do will prevent this trainwreck from happening.

>So hopefully the democrat's will pull thier heads out of thier asses and get along.
Quick question... did gore ever explain about his super polluting Zink mines? Thought not.

What is zink?

Anyway, I've never even heard of these Al Gore zinc mines you keep referring to. I'd look it up, but it would probably turn out to be more Right Wing disinformation... like that phony quote from Earth in the Balance... or everyone's favorite... the lie that Gore said he invented the internet... he never said that. Bush claims he did. Bush = liar

posted 01-06- 12:09 AM               

{sigh}... I should have known better, but I looked it up anyway. Guess what.... this story is yet more Right Wing Bullshit.

Mirth, does your side ever check facts?

Anyway, here is the truth for anyone who is interested in this dreary, here-we-go-again excercise... http://www.geocities.com/gore_in_context/zinc.html

So, tell me, Mirth... why can't Conservatives resist the urge to distort facts and lie about their opponents? Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you of doing that, but I do think you are too quick to believe the people who you consider to be on your side.

More often than not, the people who claim to be righteous are not.

posted 01-06- 12:14 AM               

Are you kidding? If Clinton would have run in the last election, he would have beat the pants off Dubya.

posted 01-06- 08:30 AM            

"Come the millennium, month twelve/In the
house of the greatest power/The village idiot
will come forth/And be acclaimed the leader."

posted 01-06- 09:04 AM               

Wow, you mean they're just like politicians?

posted 01-06- 12:23 PM               

On top of that, the writer of the article, Micah Morrison, is a well known Conservative writer who has written a lot of smear pieces on the Clinton administration. He's another one of those can't-get-them-on-the-facts-so-make-stuff-up kind of writers.

In any case, I'll try to find the WSJ retraction, but bear in mind that the WSJ website only archives articles for 30 days.

posted 01-06- 01:16 PM               

http://www.junkscience.com/jun00/gorezinc.htm

That ought to be a good enough 3rd party source. The publisher of JunkScience.com ( http://www.junkscience.com/Junkman.html ) is a columnist for FoxNews.com. As you know, Fox News has a reputation for bending toward the Conservative point of view.

posted 01-06- 06:44 PM               

You do realize that you are siding with the environmentalists on this one, don't you? Are you sure you're comfortable taking a liberal point of view on this?

I mean, after all, even the article which originated this scandal admits that...

Tests for The Wall Street Journal by two independent Tennessee laboratories, conducted in September 1999 and this month, showed trace amounts of zinc and other metals in the Caney Fork that were in compliance with federal standards.

But, OK, that's not the beef. The article then goes on to say...

But soil tests revealed what one lab called problematic "large quantities" of heavy metals in the riverbank soil downstream of the Caney Fork effluent. In both sets of tests, samples of water and soil were provided to the labs by the Journal.

Notice that only the words "large quantities" are in quotes. The word "problematic" is not in quotes. Why? Because, neither labs felt that any anomolies in the soil posed a hazard. The use of the word "problematic" was the writer's own embellishment. Problematic how? What could possibly be problematic about anomolies in soil? Junk science!

If you deconstruct this article, what you have is a sort of awkward attempt to prove that Al Gore is a hypocrite. The article is asserting that this mine, which Gore makes a substantial profit on, would never pass the rigorous standards promoted in Earth In the Balance.

The problem is, of course, that the mine does pass those standards.

Face it, the story is crap.