Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: Rudi's push to save America!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91886 is a reply to message #91884] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 01:59   |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Aaron Allen wrote:
> Hillary is _NOT_ an improvment. Sorry, we're gonna tangle about that Jamie.
Feel free to differ. But you're just speculating about what she MIGHT do
whereas I can talk about what our current pres did do. She could hardly
do worse than our recent track record, and I can prove it over less than
three beers. So come on over, I'll buy the beer! :^)
But in any case I am not ready to choose a candidate yet, it's far too
early.
BTW, Hillary spoke today a couple miles from here and I was too busy to
make it over there to hear her speak. Since the Dems are having their
convention here next year I'll likely have more chances to hear a bunch
of Dems, and hopefully some Repubs, too. I wonder if we'll see any
independents or contending 3rd party candidates this time around...
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> AA
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:471edff6$1@linux...
>> Anything's an improvement over what we have now.
>>
>> OTOH, it's way too early to pick winners. I'm really disappointed to see
>> people dropping out already.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>> news:471ed2be@linux...
>>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry
>>>> to rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch
>>>> into the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover
>>>> from it, ever.
>>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but God
>>>> help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>>
>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>>
>>>> AA
>>>>
>>> The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty. She's
>>> as smart as she is diabolical.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>>> Rich
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91889 is a reply to message #91878] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 03:04 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yechh, that's pretty disgusting. Well, I've said before I don't trust
Hillary, so perhaps my intuition will be validated. Not that I'm happy about
that prospect, but . . . the truth is the truth.
I'm just so tired of government of the people, by the rich, for the rich.
If money keeps people above the law then there is no law, just the haves vs
the have-nots.
So, how does this change? I mean seriously . . . anybody? How does it
change?
Sincerely,
Pessimistic in Portland
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
news:471ed2be@linux...
> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry to
> rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch into
> the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover from it,
> ever.
> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but God
> help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>
> AA
>
>
> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:471ec45e@linux...
>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>
>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91901 is a reply to message #91882] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 08:09 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Deej,
You can respond off list if you like, but I've never been able to understand
the vitriol that some types of conservatives (remember, I consider myself
a conservative) for the Clintons. I eventually figured it out with Bill,
I think it was personal. So many 'social conservatives' spend their lives
doing what they're supposed to do, staying out of trouble, denying themselves
things they would like to enjoy, all in the belief that it's the right thing
to do for themselves and society. Then Bill shows up, a draft dodging, pot
smoking, wife cheating hick from the STICKS of Arkansas who by rights should
have been a city council member in Little Rock driving a 12 year old El Dorado.
He never denied himself a damn thing, from Biggie Fries to fancy cigars to
hummers from interns, and he got to be president fer effs sake. So, he's
a personal affront, which I get.
However, Hillary seems to me to be deeply, deeply vanilla. She was rabidly
pro Iraq war, is saber rattling against Iran and Syria, wants to expand NATO
to Russia's doorstep, is probably the most pro-Israel candidate imaginable,
and more than any other leading Democrat appears like she might actually
be a teensy bit Christian. Not a Bible thumper of course, but her occasional
statements about god and family sound at least potentially sincere. So, and
I'm asking this sincerely, why is she diabolical? Not annoying (she is),
power hungry (comes with wanting the job), unwilling to answer questions
straight (so are they all), or maybe a dyke (who cares). But what is diabolical
about here, and what will she DO if elected that is so awful and radical
and dangerous?
Lastly, I've been telling my lefty academic friends for years that they're
going to find religion at some point about states rights. From gay marriage
to medical pot nearly every pet issue for lefties will get squashed by federal
lawmakers and the federal judiciary. The lefties are going to have to fight
for the right of (their own) states to legislate on those issues. They scream
and yell and hem and haw and tell me I'm nuts but they have yet to come up
with a compelling argument to counter mine. Conservatives (not the ones like
me, the other kinds) are going to get their comeuppance probably after the
next election for executive power. Seems like a great idea to decide the
president is above the law when you're guy is president, but the history
of this country is the gradual erosion of judicial and legislative power,
i.e. the executive branch rarely gives anything back. I suspect any Democrat
who runs against any of the current Republicans will win, and then all of
that executive power wrenched away from Congress will be in the hands of
the other party. Law of unintended consequences, but I for one will have
a hearty belly laugh when the Rush Limbaugh set starts howling about some
abuse of executive power when a Democrat is the abuser.
Anyway, enlighten me about Hillary.
TCB
"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>
>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>news:471ed2be@linux...
>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry
to
>> rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch into
>> the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover from
it,
>> ever.
>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but God
>> help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>
>> AA
>>
>
>The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty. She's
as
>smart as she is diabolical.
>
>
>>
>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>
>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91903 is a reply to message #91886] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 08:20 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:471f0ad0$1@linux...
> Aaron Allen wrote:
>> Hillary is _NOT_ an improvment. Sorry, we're gonna tangle about that
>> Jamie.
>
> Feel free to differ. But you're just speculating about what she MIGHT do
> whereas I can talk about what our current pres did do. She could hardly do
> worse than our recent track record, and I can prove it over less than
> three beers. So come on over, I'll buy the beer! :^)
She could neglect our national security interests and pony up to the chinese
and "our allies" at the UN like her husband did. That would be enough to be
considered a disaster that makes Bush's policies seem trivial since that the
reason the Iraq war never ended.
>
> But in any case I am not ready to choose a candidate yet, it's far too
> early.
>
Me either.
> BTW, Hillary spoke today a couple miles from here and I was too busy to
> make it over there to hear her speak. Since the Dems are having their
> convention here next year I'll likely have more chances to hear a bunch of
> Dems, and hopefully some Repubs, too. I wonder if we'll see any
> independents or contending 3rd party candidates this time around...
I wonder if Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy are gonna hire some Cubans to bug
their hotel rooms.
;oD
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
Back
At'cha......
;o)
Deej
>
>
>> AA
>>
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>> news:471edff6$1@linux...
>>> Anything's an improvement over what we have now.
>>>
>>> OTOH, it's way too early to pick winners. I'm really disappointed to see
>>> people dropping out already.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>>> news:471ed2be@linux...
>>>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry
>>>>> to rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch
>>>>> into the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover
>>>>> from it, ever.
>>>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but
>>>>> God help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>>>
>>>>> AA
>>>>>
>>>> The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty.
>>>> She's as smart as she is diabolical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91904 is a reply to message #91896] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 08:21 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill L wrote:
>
>
> Jamie K wrote:
>>
>> Anything's an improvement over what we have now.
>
> First of all that's obviously not true.
Heh, true. But you get my point.
> More importantly, why must we continue to pick the lesser of two evils?
> Let's vote for someone who is actually a great man and has great ideas,
> ethics and a track record that PROVES it. Ron Paul.
Instant runoff voting or some other preferential voting system would
help avoid "lesser of two evils" voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>>
>> OTOH, it's way too early to pick winners. I'm really disappointed to
>> see people dropping out already.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>> news:471ed2be@linux...
>>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size.
>>>> Sorry to rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed
>>>> crooked b**ch into the white house again she'll so train wreck us we
>>>> may not recover from it, ever.
>>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but
>>>> God help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>>
>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>>
>>>> AA
>>>>
>>>
>>> The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty.
>>> She's as smart as she is diabolical.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>>> Rich
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91905 is a reply to message #91900] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 08:32 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mark McCurdy wrote:
> Ron Paul.. OH NO! I'm sorry but that guy is a nut ball. I'm not into the
> "legalize hemp farming" or "Blame America for 911" line of thinking.
What do you have against hemp? It's a very useful, fast growing source
of fiber.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Rudi would be a disaster. He'd be another Bush complete with open borders.
>
> Duncan Hunter would be my choice but he ain't gonna get it. :(
>
>
> "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:471f4928@linux...
>>
>> Jamie K wrote:
>>> Anything's an improvement over what we have now.
>> First of all that's obviously not true.
>>
>> More importantly, why must we continue to pick the lesser of two evils?
>> Let's vote for someone who is actually a great man and has great ideas,
>> ethics and a track record that PROVES it. Ron Paul.
>>
>>
>>> OTOH, it's way too early to pick winners. I'm really disappointed to see
>>> people dropping out already.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>>> news:471ed2be@linux...
>>>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry
>>>>> to rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch
>>>>> into the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover
>>>>> from it, ever.
>>>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but God
>>>>> help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>>>
>>>>> AA
>>>>>
>>>> The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty.
>>>> She's as smart as she is diabolical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91906 is a reply to message #91889] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 08:33 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sarah, honey, don't get bummed - get busy supporting Ron Paul!
Realistically, the system will not change unless people, individuals,
change. Then individual people will change the system.
Ron Paul seems to me like he wants to make a real change, not just
pander to the power elite, so I like him.
Sarah wrote:
> Yechh, that's pretty disgusting. Well, I've said before I don't trust
> Hillary, so perhaps my intuition will be validated. Not that I'm happy about
> that prospect, but . . . the truth is the truth.
>
> I'm just so tired of government of the people, by the rich, for the rich.
> If money keeps people above the law then there is no law, just the haves vs
> the have-nots.
>
> So, how does this change? I mean seriously . . . anybody? How does it
> change?
>
> Sincerely,
> Pessimistic in Portland
>
>
> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
> news:471ed2be@linux...
>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry to
>> rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch into
>> the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover from it,
>> ever.
>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but God
>> help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>
>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91908 is a reply to message #91904] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 09:01 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>Bill L wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jamie K wrote:
>>>
>>> Anything's an improvement over what we have now.
>>
>> First of all that's obviously not true.
>
>Heh, true. But you get my point.
>
>
>> More importantly, why must we continue to pick the lesser of two evils?
>> Let's vote for someone who is actually a great man and has great ideas,
>> ethics and a track record that PROVES it. Ron Paul.
>
>Instant runoff voting or some other preferential voting system would
>help avoid "lesser of two evils" voting.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
>
>http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
As I always say, that might a great idea, but so is me banging Scarlett Johansson.
Neither are going to happen.
TCB
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> OTOH, it's way too early to pick winners. I'm really disappointed to
>>> see people dropping out already.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>>> news:471ed2be@linux...
>>>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size.
>>>>> Sorry to rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed
>>>>> crooked b**ch into the white house again she'll so train wreck us we
>>>>> may not recover from it, ever.
>>>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but
>>>>> God help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>>>
>>>>> AA
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty.
>>>> She's as smart as she is diabolical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91913 is a reply to message #91901] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 09:20 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:471f602a$1@linux...
>
> Hey Deej,
>
> You can respond off list if you like, but I've never been able to
> understand
> the vitriol that some types of conservatives (remember, I consider myself
> a conservative) for the Clintons. I eventually figured it out with Bill,
> I think it was personal. So many 'social conservatives' spend their lives
> doing what they're supposed to do, staying out of trouble, denying
> themselves
> things they would like to enjoy, all in the belief that it's the right
> thing
> to do for themselves and society. Then Bill shows up, a draft dodging, pot
> smoking, wife cheating hick from the STICKS of Arkansas who by rights
> should
> have been a city council member in Little Rock driving a 12 year old El
> Dorado.
> He never denied himself a damn thing, from Biggie Fries to fancy cigars to
> hummers from interns, and he got to be president fer effs sake. So, he's
> a personal affront, which I get.
I "dodged" the draft by staying in school. I've never cheated on my wife,
but before I married I did cheat "with" certain of others' wives (and
somethimes I was even aware that they "were" wives). I "did" inhale (among
other more radical and destructive behaviours) and now the world is a better
place (trust me on this) because I no longer do this, but I don't really
have a problem with others partaking of their substance of choice, up to the
point that it infringes on my safety..............and back during my salad
days, I had no problem lying through my teeth so stay out of trouble
regarding possible repercussions from various entities who took issue with
my philandering and recreational hobbies. My SAT scores in 1968 could have
easily landed me a spot at an ivy league institution but, being a Texas
hick, and all, I stayed in the south where I felt I could do the most
damage. :). I really had no problem with Bills history and behavioural
propensities. Hell, I could really relate to the guy. He and I had some
things in common and I would be the ultimate hypocrite to judge him on moral
grounds. OTOH, I certainly had no business being president.
Problem with Bill was that he was supposed o be watching the store and
thinking in terms of our national security and energy policy (which are
synonymous and completely interrelated) instead of running a popularity
contest based on global opinion polls. I don't have the time right now to
rehash all of his disastrous energy and foriegn policy decisions, but first
and foremost, IMO, was to make sure that our "allies" didn't play us and do
exactly what they did with turning the sanctions on Sadaam to his advantage
and "balancing the budget" on the back of cheap oil while ignoring the
declaration of war that was publicly broadcast by Bin Ladin and discouraging
domestic energy production while simultaneously ramping up petrochemical
imports as a quick fix to create the illusion of a healty economy propped up
on the fantasy that OPEC would be "our buddies".
>
> However, Hillary seems to me to be deeply, deeply vanilla. She was rabidly
> pro Iraq war, is saber rattling against Iran and Syria, wants to expand
> NATO
> to Russia's doorstep, is probably the most pro-Israel candidate
> imaginable,
> and more than any other leading Democrat appears like she might actually
> be a teensy bit Christian. Not a Bible thumper of course, but her
> occasional
> statements about god and family sound at least potentially sincere. So,
> and
> I'm asking this sincerely, why is she diabolical? Not annoying (she is),
> power hungry (comes with wanting the job), unwilling to answer questions
> straight (so are they all), or maybe a dyke (who cares). But what is
> diabolical
> about here, and what will she DO if elected that is so awful and radical
> and dangerous?
...........I get your point. I just don't trust her because she was 1/2 of
the disaster that was Bilary. She's the epitome of a calculating
opportunist.......which, come to think of it, may be exactly what we might
need as Secretary of State, or Secretary of War.......but at the same time,
there something very Talleyrand'esque about both Bilary/Hilbilly which, in
the end, serves their personal interests at the expense of the national
interest. Just look at how popular Bill Clinton is after the incredible
damage (by omission and incompetence, if nothing else) he did to our
national security by allowing the situation in Iraq to fester under the
watchful eye of the UN. I think that the enduring "cult of Bill", says more
about the idiocy of the American public than it does about the Clinton's
though. The Clinton's, being smartn'all, recognize it and feed off it like
catfish in a pond full of blood bait.
>
> Lastly, I've been telling my lefty academic friends for years that they're
> going to find religion at some point about states rights. From gay
> marriage
> to medical pot nearly every pet issue for lefties will get squashed by
> federal
> lawmakers and the federal judiciary. The lefties are going to have to
> fight
> for the right of (their own) states to legislate on those issues. They
> scream
> and yell and hem and haw and tell me I'm nuts but they have yet to come up
> with a compelling argument to counter mine. Conservatives (not the ones
> like
> me, the other kinds) are going to get their comeuppance probably after the
> next election for executive power. Seems like a great idea to decide the
> president is above the law when you're guy is president, but the history
> of this country is the gradual erosion of judicial and legislative power,
> i.e. the executive branch rarely gives anything back. I suspect any
> Democrat
> who runs against any of the current Republicans will win, and then all of
> that executive power wrenched away from Congress will be in the hands of
> the other party. Law of unintended consequences, but I for one will have
> a hearty belly laugh when the Rush Limbaugh set starts howling about some
> abuse of executive power when a Democrat is the abuser.
>
> Anyway, enlighten me about Hillary.
I think those who are howling about how Bush
ignores/circumvents/reinterprets the law are going to be in for more of the
same old same old, but it's going to be less about a national security
agenda and more about a "Hilary" agenda, which will be determined by
popularity polls and their uberleftist buddies in Hollyweed.
;o)
>
> TCB
>
> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>>
>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>news:471ed2be@linux...
>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry
> to
>>> rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch into
>
>>> the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover from
> it,
>>> ever.
>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but God
>
>>> help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>
>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>
>>> AA
>>>
>>
>>The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty. She's
> as
>>smart as she is diabolical.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>> Rich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91914 is a reply to message #91908] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 09:22 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TCB wrote:
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Bill L wrote:
>>>
>>> Jamie K wrote:
>>>> Anything's an improvement over what we have now.
>>> First of all that's obviously not true.
>> Heh, true. But you get my point.
>>
>>
>>> More importantly, why must we continue to pick the lesser of two evils?
>
>>> Let's vote for someone who is actually a great man and has great ideas,
>
>>> ethics and a track record that PROVES it. Ron Paul.
>> Instant runoff voting or some other preferential voting system would
>> help avoid "lesser of two evils" voting.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
>>
>> http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> As I always say, that might a great idea, but so is me banging Scarlett Johansson.
> Neither are going to happen.
Never say never. You may meet her in the old folks home and have a grand
old time.
Preferential voting is already being used in a variety of elections. As
it continues to be successful, it continues to be adopted.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> TCB
>
>>
>>>> OTOH, it's way too early to pick winners. I'm really disappointed to
>
>>>> see people dropping out already.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>>>> news:471ed2be@linux...
>>>>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size.
>>>>>> Sorry to rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed
>>>>>> crooked b**ch into the white house again she'll so train wreck us we
>
>>>>>> may not recover from it, ever.
>>>>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but
>
>>>>>> God help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AA
>>>>>>
>>>>> The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty.
>
>>>>> She's as smart as she is diabolical.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91917 is a reply to message #91901] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 11:16 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Deej,
>
>You can respond off list if you like, but I've never been able to understand
>the vitriol that some types of conservatives (remember, I consider myself
>a conservative) for the Clintons. I eventually figured it out with Bill,
>I think it was personal. So many 'social conservatives' spend their lives
>doing what they're supposed to do, staying out of trouble, denying themselves
>things they would like to enjoy, all in the belief that it's the right thing
>to do for themselves and society. Then Bill shows up, a draft dodging, pot
>smoking, wife cheating hick from the STICKS of Arkansas who by rights should
>have been a city council member in Little Rock driving a 12 year old El
Dorado.
>He never denied himself a damn thing, from Biggie Fries to fancy cigars
to
>hummers from interns, and he got to be president fer effs sake. So, he's
>a personal affront, which I get.
Well, you're way off base here. This is an atheist caricature of
many people's problems with Bill.
It is and was his compelling and striking inability to tell the
truth. The sense that you could believe nothing that came
out of his mouth.
I remember when the Juanita Broderick case came up. Someone
in Slate (as I remember) not at all a conservative, said:
"well we don't know that Bill raped her, but it sounds like
our guy".
This was earlier in the culture war, when the left
was willing to occasionaly be honest about one of their own.
Those days are gone, and now the Bill Maher crowd wants to
make this all about BJ's and Mr. Zigzag so they can pretend
that Bill's very nature did not cause huge problems in the
world as it did in his own household.
But we know it did. We know that OBL seized upon the lack of
resolve, wisdom and discipline Bill showed in Somalia as
evidence that we are not to be feared and that error and many,
many others helped bring about 911.
These things are the result of having a leader with no moral
center. It's not about doing bad things, it's about being
a bad guy.
Remember during the Lewiniski biz, when Bill got several
"spiritual advisors" to help him through his troubles?
One of them was Tony Campolo. Tony is a bigtime lefty
Christian who I heard actually say "you don't give a shit" in
the pulpit when speaking of helping the poor. Tony cannot be
purchased or influence by politics. He is also the friend of a
good friend of mine.
Know why Tony dropped out of the "spiritual advisor" group
after a couple weeks? (and yes this is insider info) Because
Bill is a phony and likely a damn sociopath and has NO intention
of ever changing anything other than his lines; for more effective
ones. Other pastors stayed in, and later called in their favors
and got Bill to speak at their megachurch. At which point I
lost all respect for them. Tony walked. He walked because
Bill is scum. But we knew that.
So now, it ain't resentment cuz he got to do fun/naughty stuff.
Not even close...
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91919 is a reply to message #91917] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 12:13 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Two things, Don. First, non of this explains why the Clintons IN PARTICULAR
generate the visceral hatred they do. Nobody seems to hate Russ Feingold
or Barney Frank PERSONALLY. I explain the PERSONAL hatred of the Clintons
the way I do for those reasons.
As far as being a lying, cheating, showboating asshole, well he's a politician.
That's what they are, that's what they do. I think it was HL Menken who said
the definition of an honest politician is that once he's bought he stays
bought. If in a single generation we have a handful of actual decent people
in national politics we're lucky, and those handful are almost universally
demonized. For example, I think Ron Paul is tells us what he believes and
would act on it. Jimmy Carter was the same way. I think Pat Buchanan is another,
and so is Ralph Nader. I don't agree with everything they believe, but I
believe they are honest and if ever in public office would do their best
to advance what they honestly thought were those ideas.
Second, and a point of order, OBL might have drawn some conclusions from
Somalia but he specifically said that it was Lebanon where he turned on the
USA. Remember (or more likely don't, since it's problematic for your binary
world) that OBL was a happy recipient of US military and logistical support
when we were bankrolling the muj against the Soviets. He even asked Prince
Bandar to thank the US for their support. But in Lebanon he saw US warships
shelling Sunni neighborhoods in Beirut and that one lethally effective suicide
bomber could drive the Americans out of that war. That was when Cowboy Ronnie
was in charge, not the Clintons. Was Bill a craven coward in the face of
gulf potentates who were in essence buying protection from OBL? Yes. Was
he, and the Democrats, unique in such cowardice? Not by a long shot.
TCB
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Deej,
>>
>>You can respond off list if you like, but I've never been able to understand
>>the vitriol that some types of conservatives (remember, I consider myself
>>a conservative) for the Clintons. I eventually figured it out with Bill,
>>I think it was personal. So many 'social conservatives' spend their lives
>>doing what they're supposed to do, staying out of trouble, denying themselves
>>things they would like to enjoy, all in the belief that it's the right
thing
>>to do for themselves and society. Then Bill shows up, a draft dodging,
pot
>>smoking, wife cheating hick from the STICKS of Arkansas who by rights should
>>have been a city council member in Little Rock driving a 12 year old El
>Dorado.
>>He never denied himself a damn thing, from Biggie Fries to fancy cigars
>to
>>hummers from interns, and he got to be president fer effs sake. So, he's
>>a personal affront, which I get.
>
>
>Well, you're way off base here. This is an atheist caricature of
>many people's problems with Bill.
>
>It is and was his compelling and striking inability to tell the
>truth. The sense that you could believe nothing that came
>out of his mouth.
>
>I remember when the Juanita Broderick case came up. Someone
>in Slate (as I remember) not at all a conservative, said:
>"well we don't know that Bill raped her, but it sounds like
>our guy".
>
>This was earlier in the culture war, when the left
>was willing to occasionaly be honest about one of their own.
>Those days are gone, and now the Bill Maher crowd wants to
>make this all about BJ's and Mr. Zigzag so they can pretend
>that Bill's very nature did not cause huge problems in the
>world as it did in his own household.
>
>But we know it did. We know that OBL seized upon the lack of
>resolve, wisdom and discipline Bill showed in Somalia as
>evidence that we are not to be feared and that error and many,
>many others helped bring about 911.
>
>These things are the result of having a leader with no moral
>center. It's not about doing bad things, it's about being
>a bad guy.
>
>Remember during the Lewiniski biz, when Bill got several
>"spiritual advisors" to help him through his troubles?
>
>One of them was Tony Campolo. Tony is a bigtime lefty
>Christian who I heard actually say "you don't give a shit" in
>the pulpit when speaking of helping the poor. Tony cannot be
>purchased or influence by politics. He is also the friend of a
>good friend of mine.
>
>Know why Tony dropped out of the "spiritual advisor" group
>after a couple weeks? (and yes this is insider info) Because
>Bill is a phony and likely a damn sociopath and has NO intention
>of ever changing anything other than his lines; for more effective
>ones. Other pastors stayed in, and later called in their favors
>and got Bill to speak at their megachurch. At which point I
>lost all respect for them. Tony walked. He walked because
>Bill is scum. But we knew that.
>
>So now, it ain't resentment cuz he got to do fun/naughty stuff.
>Not even close...
>
>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91920 is a reply to message #91913] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 12:14 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
OK, Deej, I think I get your point. We disagree on the timeline (it's extent
mostly) on the terrorism/energy stuff. But I get your point.
TCB
"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:471f602a$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey Deej,
>>
>> You can respond off list if you like, but I've never been able to
>> understand
>> the vitriol that some types of conservatives (remember, I consider myself
>> a conservative) for the Clintons. I eventually figured it out with Bill,
>> I think it was personal. So many 'social conservatives' spend their lives
>> doing what they're supposed to do, staying out of trouble, denying
>> themselves
>> things they would like to enjoy, all in the belief that it's the right
>> thing
>> to do for themselves and society. Then Bill shows up, a draft dodging,
pot
>> smoking, wife cheating hick from the STICKS of Arkansas who by rights
>> should
>> have been a city council member in Little Rock driving a 12 year old El
>> Dorado.
>> He never denied himself a damn thing, from Biggie Fries to fancy cigars
to
>> hummers from interns, and he got to be president fer effs sake. So, he's
>> a personal affront, which I get.
>
>I "dodged" the draft by staying in school. I've never cheated on my wife,
>but before I married I did cheat "with" certain of others' wives (and
>somethimes I was even aware that they "were" wives). I "did" inhale (among
>other more radical and destructive behaviours) and now the world is a better
>place (trust me on this) because I no longer do this, but I don't really
>have a problem with others partaking of their substance of choice, up to
the
>point that it infringes on my safety..............and back during my salad
>days, I had no problem lying through my teeth so stay out of trouble
>regarding possible repercussions from various entities who took issue with
>my philandering and recreational hobbies. My SAT scores in 1968 could have
>easily landed me a spot at an ivy league institution but, being a Texas
>hick, and all, I stayed in the south where I felt I could do the most
>damage. :). I really had no problem with Bills history and behavioural
>propensities. Hell, I could really relate to the guy. He and I had some
>things in common and I would be the ultimate hypocrite to judge him on moral
>grounds. OTOH, I certainly had no business being president.
>
>Problem with Bill was that he was supposed o be watching the store and
>thinking in terms of our national security and energy policy (which are
>synonymous and completely interrelated) instead of running a popularity
>contest based on global opinion polls. I don't have the time right now to
>rehash all of his disastrous energy and foriegn policy decisions, but first
>and foremost, IMO, was to make sure that our "allies" didn't play us and
do
>exactly what they did with turning the sanctions on Sadaam to his advantage
>and "balancing the budget" on the back of cheap oil while ignoring the
>declaration of war that was publicly broadcast by Bin Ladin and discouraging
>domestic energy production while simultaneously ramping up petrochemical
>imports as a quick fix to create the illusion of a healty economy propped
up
>on the fantasy that OPEC would be "our buddies".
>
>>
>> However, Hillary seems to me to be deeply, deeply vanilla. She was rabidly
>> pro Iraq war, is saber rattling against Iran and Syria, wants to expand
>> NATO
>> to Russia's doorstep, is probably the most pro-Israel candidate
>> imaginable,
>> and more than any other leading Democrat appears like she might actually
>> be a teensy bit Christian. Not a Bible thumper of course, but her
>> occasional
>> statements about god and family sound at least potentially sincere. So,
>> and
>> I'm asking this sincerely, why is she diabolical? Not annoying (she is),
>> power hungry (comes with wanting the job), unwilling to answer questions
>> straight (so are they all), or maybe a dyke (who cares). But what is
>> diabolical
>> about here, and what will she DO if elected that is so awful and radical
>> and dangerous?
>
>..........I get your point. I just don't trust her because she was 1/2 of
>the disaster that was Bilary. She's the epitome of a calculating
>opportunist.......which, come to think of it, may be exactly what we might
>need as Secretary of State, or Secretary of War.......but at the same time,
>there something very Talleyrand'esque about both Bilary/Hilbilly which,
in
>the end, serves their personal interests at the expense of the national
>interest. Just look at how popular Bill Clinton is after the incredible
>damage (by omission and incompetence, if nothing else) he did to our
>national security by allowing the situation in Iraq to fester under the
>watchful eye of the UN. I think that the enduring "cult of Bill", says more
>about the idiocy of the American public than it does about the Clinton's
>though. The Clinton's, being smartn'all, recognize it and feed off it like
>catfish in a pond full of blood bait.
>
>>
>> Lastly, I've been telling my lefty academic friends for years that they're
>> going to find religion at some point about states rights. From gay
>> marriage
>> to medical pot nearly every pet issue for lefties will get squashed by
>> federal
>> lawmakers and the federal judiciary. The lefties are going to have to
>> fight
>> for the right of (their own) states to legislate on those issues. They
>> scream
>> and yell and hem and haw and tell me I'm nuts but they have yet to come
up
>> with a compelling argument to counter mine. Conservatives (not the ones
>> like
>> me, the other kinds) are going to get their comeuppance probably after
the
>> next election for executive power. Seems like a great idea to decide the
>> president is above the law when you're guy is president, but the history
>> of this country is the gradual erosion of judicial and legislative power,
>> i.e. the executive branch rarely gives anything back. I suspect any
>> Democrat
>> who runs against any of the current Republicans will win, and then all
of
>> that executive power wrenched away from Congress will be in the hands
of
>> the other party. Law of unintended consequences, but I for one will have
>> a hearty belly laugh when the Rush Limbaugh set starts howling about some
>> abuse of executive power when a Democrat is the abuser.
>>
>> Anyway, enlighten me about Hillary.
>
>I think those who are howling about how Bush
>ignores/circumvents/reinterprets the law are going to be in for more of
the
>same old same old, but it's going to be less about a national security
>agenda and more about a "Hilary" agenda, which will be determined by
>popularity polls and their uberleftist buddies in Hollyweed.
>
>;o)
>
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>>news:471ed2be@linux...
>>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry
>> to
>>>> rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch
into
>>
>>>> the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover from
>> it,
>>>> ever.
>>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but
God
>>
>>>> help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>>
>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>>
>>>> AA
>>>>
>>>
>>>The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty. She's
>> as
>>>smart as she is diabolical.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>>> Rich
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91921 is a reply to message #91919] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 12:29 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Two things, Don. First, non of this explains why the Clintons IN PARTICULAR
>generate the visceral hatred they do. Nobody seems to hate Russ Feingold
>or Barney Frank PERSONALLY. I explain the PERSONAL hatred of the Clintons
>the way I do for those reasons.
Neither had the power of the Clintons. Put Barney Frank in the
White House and watch what happens...
>As far as being a lying, cheating, showboating asshole, well he's a politician.
>That's what they are, that's what they do.
Not true. Not the case with Gerald Ford, nor Jimmy Carter,
in just recent memory.
>If in a single generation we have a handful of actual decent people
>in national politics we're lucky, and those handful are almost universally
>demonized. For example, I think Ron Paul is tells us what he believes and
>would act on it. Jimmy Carter was the same way. I think Pat Buchanan is
another,
>and so is Ralph Nader.
Nader is a jerk and a self-promoter, but we agree on the point.
The problem with Ron Paul is not that he wouldn't tell the
truth, but as with Carter, would his version of truth be wise?
>Second, and a point of order, OBL might have drawn some conclusions from
>Somalia but he specifically said that it was Lebanon where he turned on
the
>USA.
There is a direct quote from him basing his view about the USA
specifically on Somalia. Lebenon was certainly an issue as
well, but exactly how does that excuse Bill??
>Remember (or more likely don't, since it's problematic for your binary
>world) that OBL was a happy recipient of US military and logistical support
>when we were bankrolling the muj against the Soviets.
Well, this mught be difficult for your postmodern delusions to
coexist with, but all of it adds up, and no one gets a pass....
The hate for Reagan, from the left, was pretty virulent if you
remember.
>Was
>he, and the Democrats, unique in such cowardice? Not by a long shot.
Unique is not the issue, nor will it matter at all to history.
I am glad you agree about Clinton though.
Now, the hard part. Who to elect?
hmmmm...
We always say that "big business" is the problem, or the
religious right, or the secular left, or the Soros crowd, but
really, suppose the country has simply gotten too big
to govern from a central point? Suppose the damn office of
the president is simply a rockstar contest with the winner
getting to hang with Bono? Suppose there is no one to
save us? then what?
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91922 is a reply to message #91921] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 13:59 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Puts this whole discussion in a somewhat meta-light:
going with yer gut predicts actual election results
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID= CE4CD4FE-E7F2-99DF-350A53757475700D&ref=rss
-steve
"DC" <dc@spammersintheovaloffice.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Two things, Don. First, non of this explains why the Clintons IN PARTICULAR
>>generate the visceral hatred they do. Nobody seems to hate Russ Feingold
>>or Barney Frank PERSONALLY. I explain the PERSONAL hatred of the Clintons
>>the way I do for those reasons.
>
>Neither had the power of the Clintons. Put Barney Frank in the
>White House and watch what happens...
>
>
>
>
>>As far as being a lying, cheating, showboating asshole, well he's a politician.
>>That's what they are, that's what they do.
>
>Not true. Not the case with Gerald Ford, nor Jimmy Carter,
>in just recent memory.
>
>
>
>>If in a single generation we have a handful of actual decent people
>>in national politics we're lucky, and those handful are almost universally
>>demonized. For example, I think Ron Paul is tells us what he believes and
>>would act on it. Jimmy Carter was the same way. I think Pat Buchanan is
>another,
>>and so is Ralph Nader.
>
>Nader is a jerk and a self-promoter, but we agree on the point.
>
>The problem with Ron Paul is not that he wouldn't tell the
>truth, but as with Carter, would his version of truth be wise?
>
>
>>Second, and a point of order, OBL might have drawn some conclusions from
>>Somalia but he specifically said that it was Lebanon where he turned on
>the
>>USA.
>
>There is a direct quote from him basing his view about the USA
>specifically on Somalia. Lebenon was certainly an issue as
>well, but exactly how does that excuse Bill??
>
>
>>Remember (or more likely don't, since it's problematic for your binary
>>world) that OBL was a happy recipient of US military and logistical support
>>when we were bankrolling the muj against the Soviets.
>
>
>Well, this mught be difficult for your postmodern delusions to
>coexist with, but all of it adds up, and no one gets a pass....
>
>The hate for Reagan, from the left, was pretty virulent if you
>remember.
>
>
>>Was
>>he, and the Democrats, unique in such cowardice? Not by a long shot.
>
>Unique is not the issue, nor will it matter at all to history.
>I am glad you agree about Clinton though.
>
>Now, the hard part. Who to elect?
>
>hmmmm...
>
>We always say that "big business" is the problem, or the
>religious right, or the secular left, or the Soros crowd, but
>really, suppose the country has simply gotten too big
>to govern from a central point? Suppose the damn office of
>the president is simply a rockstar contest with the winner
>getting to hang with Bono? Suppose there is no one to
>save us? then what?
>
>DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91923 is a reply to message #91913] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 13:54 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ, those things you did do not make it OK for the f/ing President to do
them.
Are you acting like that now? I hope you're wiser. Well, Bill Clinton
never got wiser.
I wouldn't cheat on my wife, and I wouldn't lie about it. I DO hold the
President to the same standard of ethics to which i hold myself.
Shouldn't I? When you get elected president you better crank it up a
notch and keep your nose clean and your eyes on the ball. It's a big
responsibility and since you asked for it you better live up to it.
DJ wrote:
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:471f602a$1@linux...
>> Hey Deej,
>>
>> You can respond off list if you like, but I've never been able to
>> understand
>> the vitriol that some types of conservatives (remember, I consider myself
>> a conservative) for the Clintons. I eventually figured it out with Bill,
>> I think it was personal. So many 'social conservatives' spend their lives
>> doing what they're supposed to do, staying out of trouble, denying
>> themselves
>> things they would like to enjoy, all in the belief that it's the right
>> thing
>> to do for themselves and society. Then Bill shows up, a draft dodging, pot
>> smoking, wife cheating hick from the STICKS of Arkansas who by rights
>> should
>> have been a city council member in Little Rock driving a 12 year old El
>> Dorado.
>> He never denied himself a damn thing, from Biggie Fries to fancy cigars to
>> hummers from interns, and he got to be president fer effs sake. So, he's
>> a personal affront, which I get.
>
> I "dodged" the draft by staying in school. I've never cheated on my wife,
> but before I married I did cheat "with" certain of others' wives (and
> somethimes I was even aware that they "were" wives). I "did" inhale (among
> other more radical and destructive behaviours) and now the world is a better
> place (trust me on this) because I no longer do this, but I don't really
> have a problem with others partaking of their substance of choice, up to the
> point that it infringes on my safety..............and back during my salad
> days, I had no problem lying through my teeth so stay out of trouble
> regarding possible repercussions from various entities who took issue with
> my philandering and recreational hobbies. My SAT scores in 1968 could have
> easily landed me a spot at an ivy league institution but, being a Texas
> hick, and all, I stayed in the south where I felt I could do the most
> damage. :). I really had no problem with Bills history and behavioural
> propensities. Hell, I could really relate to the guy. He and I had some
> things in common and I would be the ultimate hypocrite to judge him on moral
> grounds. OTOH, I certainly had no business being president.
>
> Problem with Bill was that he was supposed o be watching the store and
> thinking in terms of our national security and energy policy (which are
> synonymous and completely interrelated) instead of running a popularity
> contest based on global opinion polls. I don't have the time right now to
> rehash all of his disastrous energy and foriegn policy decisions, but first
> and foremost, IMO, was to make sure that our "allies" didn't play us and do
> exactly what they did with turning the sanctions on Sadaam to his advantage
> and "balancing the budget" on the back of cheap oil while ignoring the
> declaration of war that was publicly broadcast by Bin Ladin and discouraging
> domestic energy production while simultaneously ramping up petrochemical
> imports as a quick fix to create the illusion of a healty economy propped up
> on the fantasy that OPEC would be "our buddies".
>
>> However, Hillary seems to me to be deeply, deeply vanilla. She was rabidly
>> pro Iraq war, is saber rattling against Iran and Syria, wants to expand
>> NATO
>> to Russia's doorstep, is probably the most pro-Israel candidate
>> imaginable,
>> and more than any other leading Democrat appears like she might actually
>> be a teensy bit Christian. Not a Bible thumper of course, but her
>> occasional
>> statements about god and family sound at least potentially sincere. So,
>> and
>> I'm asking this sincerely, why is she diabolical? Not annoying (she is),
>> power hungry (comes with wanting the job), unwilling to answer questions
>> straight (so are they all), or maybe a dyke (who cares). But what is
>> diabolical
>> about here, and what will she DO if elected that is so awful and radical
>> and dangerous?
>
> ..........I get your point. I just don't trust her because she was 1/2 of
> the disaster that was Bilary. She's the epitome of a calculating
> opportunist.......which, come to think of it, may be exactly what we might
> need as Secretary of State, or Secretary of War.......but at the same time,
> there something very Talleyrand'esque about both Bilary/Hilbilly which, in
> the end, serves their personal interests at the expense of the national
> interest. Just look at how popular Bill Clinton is after the incredible
> damage (by omission and incompetence, if nothing else) he did to our
> national security by allowing the situation in Iraq to fester under the
> watchful eye of the UN. I think that the enduring "cult of Bill", says more
> about the idiocy of the American public than it does about the Clinton's
> though. The Clinton's, being smartn'all, recognize it and feed off it like
> catfish in a pond full of blood bait.
>
>> Lastly, I've been telling my lefty academic friends for years that they're
>> going to find religion at some point about states rights. From gay
>> marriage
>> to medical pot nearly every pet issue for lefties will get squashed by
>> federal
>> lawmakers and the federal judiciary. The lefties are going to have to
>> fight
>> for the right of (their own) states to legislate on those issues. They
>> scream
>> and yell and hem and haw and tell me I'm nuts but they have yet to come up
>> with a compelling argument to counter mine. Conservatives (not the ones
>> like
>> me, the other kinds) are going to get their comeuppance probably after the
>> next election for executive power. Seems like a great idea to decide the
>> president is above the law when you're guy is president, but the history
>> of this country is the gradual erosion of judicial and legislative power,
>> i.e. the executive branch rarely gives anything back. I suspect any
>> Democrat
>> who runs against any of the current Republicans will win, and then all of
>> that executive power wrenched away from Congress will be in the hands of
>> the other party. Law of unintended consequences, but I for one will have
>> a hearty belly laugh when the Rush Limbaugh set starts howling about some
>> abuse of executive power when a Democrat is the abuser.
>>
>> Anyway, enlighten me about Hillary.
>
> I think those who are howling about how Bush
> ignores/circumvents/reinterprets the law are going to be in for more of the
> same old same old, but it's going to be less about a national security
> agenda and more about a "Hilary" agenda, which will be determined by
> popularity polls and their uberleftist buddies in Hollyweed.
>
> ;o)
>
>> TCB
>>
>> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>> news:471ed2be@linux...
>>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry
>> to
>>>> rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch into
>>>> the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover from
>> it,
>>>> ever.
>>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but God
>>>> help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>>
>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>>
>>>> AA
>>>>
>>> The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty. She's
>> as
>>> smart as she is diabolical.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>>> Rich
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91924 is a reply to message #91922] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 14:06 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That's pretty alarming...
DC
"steve the artguy" <artguy@somethingorother.net> wrote:
>
>Puts this whole discussion in a somewhat meta-light:
>
>going with yer gut predicts actual election results
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID= CE4CD4FE-E7F2-99DF-350A53757475700D&ref=rss
>
>-steve
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersintheovaloffice.com> wrote:
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Two things, Don. First, non of this explains why the Clintons IN PARTICULAR
>>>generate the visceral hatred they do. Nobody seems to hate Russ Feingold
>>>or Barney Frank PERSONALLY. I explain the PERSONAL hatred of the Clintons
>>>the way I do for those reasons.
>>
>>Neither had the power of the Clintons. Put Barney Frank in the
>>White House and watch what happens...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as being a lying, cheating, showboating asshole, well he's a politician.
>>>That's what they are, that's what they do.
>>
>>Not true. Not the case with Gerald Ford, nor Jimmy Carter,
>>in just recent memory.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If in a single generation we have a handful of actual decent people
>>>in national politics we're lucky, and those handful are almost universally
>>>demonized. For example, I think Ron Paul is tells us what he believes
and
>>>would act on it. Jimmy Carter was the same way. I think Pat Buchanan is
>>another,
>>>and so is Ralph Nader.
>>
>>Nader is a jerk and a self-promoter, but we agree on the point.
>>
>>The problem with Ron Paul is not that he wouldn't tell the
>>truth, but as with Carter, would his version of truth be wise?
>>
>>
>>>Second, and a point of order, OBL might have drawn some conclusions from
>>>Somalia but he specifically said that it was Lebanon where he turned on
>>the
>>>USA.
>>
>>There is a direct quote from him basing his view about the USA
>>specifically on Somalia. Lebenon was certainly an issue as
>>well, but exactly how does that excuse Bill??
>>
>>
>>>Remember (or more likely don't, since it's problematic for your binary
>>>world) that OBL was a happy recipient of US military and logistical support
>>>when we were bankrolling the muj against the Soviets.
>>
>>
>>Well, this mught be difficult for your postmodern delusions to
>>coexist with, but all of it adds up, and no one gets a pass....
>>
>>The hate for Reagan, from the left, was pretty virulent if you
>>remember.
>>
>>
>>>Was
>>>he, and the Democrats, unique in such cowardice? Not by a long shot.
>>
>>Unique is not the issue, nor will it matter at all to history.
>>I am glad you agree about Clinton though.
>>
>>Now, the hard part. Who to elect?
>>
>>hmmmm...
>>
>>We always say that "big business" is the problem, or the
>>religious right, or the secular left, or the Soros crowd, but
>>really, suppose the country has simply gotten too big
>>to govern from a central point? Suppose the damn office of
>>the president is simply a rockstar contest with the winner
>>getting to hang with Bono? Suppose there is no one to
>>save us? then what?
>>
>>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91925 is a reply to message #91922] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 14:31 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Makes perfect sense, he who figures out fastest if what he sees is a hostile
member of another tribe/predatory animal or, on the other hand, a friendly
member of his own group has the best chance of surviving to have a/nother
kid on the African plain. Thus we were made.
TCB
"steve the artguy" <artguy@somethingorother.net> wrote:
>
>Puts this whole discussion in a somewhat meta-light:
>
>going with yer gut predicts actual election results
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID= CE4CD4FE-E7F2-99DF-350A53757475700D&ref=rss
>
>-steve
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersintheovaloffice.com> wrote:
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Two things, Don. First, non of this explains why the Clintons IN PARTICULAR
>>>generate the visceral hatred they do. Nobody seems to hate Russ Feingold
>>>or Barney Frank PERSONALLY. I explain the PERSONAL hatred of the Clintons
>>>the way I do for those reasons.
>>
>>Neither had the power of the Clintons. Put Barney Frank in the
>>White House and watch what happens...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as being a lying, cheating, showboating asshole, well he's a politician.
>>>That's what they are, that's what they do.
>>
>>Not true. Not the case with Gerald Ford, nor Jimmy Carter,
>>in just recent memory.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If in a single generation we have a handful of actual decent people
>>>in national politics we're lucky, and those handful are almost universally
>>>demonized. For example, I think Ron Paul is tells us what he believes
and
>>>would act on it. Jimmy Carter was the same way. I think Pat Buchanan is
>>another,
>>>and so is Ralph Nader.
>>
>>Nader is a jerk and a self-promoter, but we agree on the point.
>>
>>The problem with Ron Paul is not that he wouldn't tell the
>>truth, but as with Carter, would his version of truth be wise?
>>
>>
>>>Second, and a point of order, OBL might have drawn some conclusions from
>>>Somalia but he specifically said that it was Lebanon where he turned on
>>the
>>>USA.
>>
>>There is a direct quote from him basing his view about the USA
>>specifically on Somalia. Lebenon was certainly an issue as
>>well, but exactly how does that excuse Bill??
>>
>>
>>>Remember (or more likely don't, since it's problematic for your binary
>>>world) that OBL was a happy recipient of US military and logistical support
>>>when we were bankrolling the muj against the Soviets.
>>
>>
>>Well, this mught be difficult for your postmodern delusions to
>>coexist with, but all of it adds up, and no one gets a pass....
>>
>>The hate for Reagan, from the left, was pretty virulent if you
>>remember.
>>
>>
>>>Was
>>>he, and the Democrats, unique in such cowardice? Not by a long shot.
>>
>>Unique is not the issue, nor will it matter at all to history.
>>I am glad you agree about Clinton though.
>>
>>Now, the hard part. Who to elect?
>>
>>hmmmm...
>>
>>We always say that "big business" is the problem, or the
>>religious right, or the secular left, or the Soros crowd, but
>>really, suppose the country has simply gotten too big
>>to govern from a central point? Suppose the damn office of
>>the president is simply a rockstar contest with the winner
>>getting to hang with Bono? Suppose there is no one to
>>save us? then what?
>>
>>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91926 is a reply to message #91904] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 14:31 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>Instant runoff voting or some other preferential voting system would
>help avoid "lesser of two evils" voting.
I do like your thinking, but I believe there are some issues with it.
IMHO...
Firstly, the implementation paradox. Neither of the major parties are likely
to bring in something to diminish their duopoly as "THE major parties". Hence
it seems likely you'd need a minor party/candidate to win in order to get
it happening. In other words, to change the system so that a minor candidate
can win, a minor candidate has to win. Catch 22.
Secondly, we have preferential voting here in Australia, and while I do think
it's, well, preferable, it's not some wondrous solution to the faults of
democracy. Our federal election is in a month, and a recent poll just showed
that the leading party has 47% of the primary vote (ie 47% of Australians
are going to choose them as no.1 option). In other words, while we are perfectly
able to do otherwise, for some reason the general population votes for the
major parties as first preference regardless of the fact that you can, effectively,
vote for both the majors as the last two options, and in effect, your vote
ends up with one of them and has the same strength as it would have if you'd
voted them as no.1 if you get my drift. In some ways it makes things worse.
I don't think it's "the problem" as such.
The problem, fundamentally, in both the U.S. and here, is that the public
think there are only two options and vote accordingly because they don't
want some "weirdo" getting in (ironic really). One would suggest that a massive
education campaign is required to explain to the common man why this line
of thinking is flawed, but who is going to do it? The major parties obviously
won't. Nobody reads books (well, not enough). The media? The media would
argue, and disappointingly they have a point, that their role is to report
the status quo, not alter it. I realize they are far from doing this well
in many cases, but they actually do it reasonably in this case. The media
would simply say that:
(*) It's not our job to enforce deliberate change.
(*) The major parties are currently most likely to win.
(*) Because the majors will win, we should focus reporting on them.
And you and I would say:
(*) It's because you focus reporting on them that they win.
And they would point out that:
(*) Even if we adjusted our reporting, the public is so set in the idea of
voting for a major party that most will do so anyhow.
(*) The only way to change this mindset would be for the media to deliberately
re-educate the public for a decade, perhaps several. At what point are they
pushing their ideals, when their role should be to simply report what goes
on.
See my point? It's an unfortunate collaboration of catch 22's.
The only way around it that I can say is to have some amazingly intelligent,
charismatic, ethical, and powerful individual take leadership of one of the
existing major parties in order to enforce some major changes and help educate
the public. Unfortunately I've got other things on at the moment. ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91929 is a reply to message #91922] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 17:02 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Inside my head there's a chicken and an egg who are asking questions about
this.
One is saying that it's concerning that perceived visual competence appears
to play such a role. The 60+% accuracy figure may even be higher if the "judges"
actually had access to ALL the images that the voters saw, rather thanm one
presumes, just a single, possibly randomly selected image.
The other is saying that it is usually accurate in society to wander the
streets saying "Ah. Man in suit." and make a judgement about his role. "Ah,
man in overalls" etc. It is actually not altogether impossible that the person
who IS most competent may also LOOK most competent, as is reflected by the
fact that men in overalls generally look more competent than men in suits.
;o) I mean you don't generally look at a man in a suit and think "Gee, what
a slimy looking ladder climbing snake he is". ;o)
Just a thought, or two. ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.
"steve the artguy" <artguy@somethingorother.net> wrote:
>
>Puts this whole discussion in a somewhat meta-light:
>
>going with yer gut predicts actual election results
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID= CE4CD4FE-E7F2-99DF-350A53757475700D&ref=rss
>
>-steve
>
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersintheovaloffice.com> wrote:
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Two things, Don. First, non of this explains why the Clintons IN PARTICULAR
>>>generate the visceral hatred they do. Nobody seems to hate Russ Feingold
>>>or Barney Frank PERSONALLY. I explain the PERSONAL hatred of the Clintons
>>>the way I do for those reasons.
>>
>>Neither had the power of the Clintons. Put Barney Frank in the
>>White House and watch what happens...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as being a lying, cheating, showboating asshole, well he's a politician.
>>>That's what they are, that's what they do.
>>
>>Not true. Not the case with Gerald Ford, nor Jimmy Carter,
>>in just recent memory.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If in a single generation we have a handful of actual decent people
>>>in national politics we're lucky, and those handful are almost universally
>>>demonized. For example, I think Ron Paul is tells us what he believes
and
>>>would act on it. Jimmy Carter was the same way. I think Pat Buchanan is
>>another,
>>>and so is Ralph Nader.
>>
>>Nader is a jerk and a self-promoter, but we agree on the point.
>>
>>The problem with Ron Paul is not that he wouldn't tell the
>>truth, but as with Carter, would his version of truth be wise?
>>
>>
>>>Second, and a point of order, OBL might have drawn some conclusions from
>>>Somalia but he specifically said that it was Lebanon where he turned on
>>the
>>>USA.
>>
>>There is a direct quote from him basing his view about the USA
>>specifically on Somalia. Lebenon was certainly an issue as
>>well, but exactly how does that excuse Bill??
>>
>>
>>>Remember (or more likely don't, since it's problematic for your binary
>>>world) that OBL was a happy recipient of US military and logistical support
>>>when we were bankrolling the muj against the Soviets.
>>
>>
>>Well, this mught be difficult for your postmodern delusions to
>>coexist with, but all of it adds up, and no one gets a pass....
>>
>>The hate for Reagan, from the left, was pretty virulent if you
>>remember.
>>
>>
>>>Was
>>>he, and the Democrats, unique in such cowardice? Not by a long shot.
>>
>>Unique is not the issue, nor will it matter at all to history.
>>I am glad you agree about Clinton though.
>>
>>Now, the hard part. Who to elect?
>>
>>hmmmm...
>>
>>We always say that "big business" is the problem, or the
>>religious right, or the secular left, or the Soros crowd, but
>>really, suppose the country has simply gotten too big
>>to govern from a central point? Suppose the damn office of
>>the president is simply a rockstar contest with the winner
>>getting to hang with Bono? Suppose there is no one to
>>save us? then what?
>>
>>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91931 is a reply to message #91923] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 17:21 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:471fb26a@linux...
> DJ, those things you did do not make it OK for the f/ing President to do
> them.
>
> Are you acting like that now?
Nope........I cleaned up my act considerably about 20 years ago.
I hope you're wiser.
there's some debate about that ;o)
Well, Bill Clinton > never got wiser.
Untreated codependency and sexual addiction is a bad recipe for presidential
candidates.
>
> I wouldn't cheat on my wife, and I wouldn't lie about it. I DO hold the
> President to the same standard of ethics to which i hold myself. Shouldn't
> I?
Everyone loves JFK. He gets a moral pass and Clinton doesn't?.....probably
because he assasinated. If someone would have blown Clinton's head
off.......well........hmmmmn.......OK, nevermind.
When you get elected president you better crank it up a
> notch and keep your nose clean and your eyes on the ball. It's a big
> responsibility and since you asked for it you better live up to it.
If I was gonna be president, I'd probably be something along the lines of
hybrid between Bush, Ron Paul and Al Gore....and everybody would hate my
guts.
;o)
> DJ wrote:
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:471f602a$1@linux...
>>> Hey Deej,
>>>
>>> You can respond off list if you like, but I've never been able to
>>> understand
>>> the vitriol that some types of conservatives (remember, I consider
>>> myself
>>> a conservative) for the Clintons. I eventually figured it out with Bill,
>>> I think it was personal. So many 'social conservatives' spend their
>>> lives
>>> doing what they're supposed to do, staying out of trouble, denying
>>> themselves
>>> things they would like to enjoy, all in the belief that it's the right
>>> thing
>>> to do for themselves and society. Then Bill shows up, a draft dodging,
>>> pot
>>> smoking, wife cheating hick from the STICKS of Arkansas who by rights
>>> should
>>> have been a city council member in Little Rock driving a 12 year old El
>>> Dorado.
>>> He never denied himself a damn thing, from Biggie Fries to fancy cigars
>>> to
>>> hummers from interns, and he got to be president fer effs sake. So, he's
>>> a personal affront, which I get.
>>
>> I "dodged" the draft by staying in school. I've never cheated on my wife,
>> but before I married I did cheat "with" certain of others' wives (and
>> somethimes I was even aware that they "were" wives). I "did" inhale
>> (among other more radical and destructive behaviours) and now the world
>> is a better place (trust me on this) because I no longer do this, but I
>> don't really have a problem with others partaking of their substance of
>> choice, up to the point that it infringes on my safety..............and
>> back during my salad days, I had no problem lying through my teeth so
>> stay out of trouble regarding possible repercussions from various
>> entities who took issue with my philandering and recreational hobbies.
>> My SAT scores in 1968 could have easily landed me a spot at an ivy league
>> institution but, being a Texas hick, and all, I stayed in the south where
>> I felt I could do the most damage. :). I really had no problem with Bills
>> history and behavioural propensities. Hell, I could really relate to the
>> guy. He and I had some things in common and I would be the ultimate
>> hypocrite to judge him on moral grounds. OTOH, I certainly had no
>> business being president.
>>
>> Problem with Bill was that he was supposed o be watching the store and
>> thinking in terms of our national security and energy policy (which are
>> synonymous and completely interrelated) instead of running a popularity
>> contest based on global opinion polls. I don't have the time right now to
>> rehash all of his disastrous energy and foriegn policy decisions, but
>> first and foremost, IMO, was to make sure that our "allies" didn't play
>> us and do exactly what they did with turning the sanctions on Sadaam to
>> his advantage and "balancing the budget" on the back of cheap oil while
>> ignoring the declaration of war that was publicly broadcast by Bin Ladin
>> and discouraging domestic energy production while simultaneously ramping
>> up petrochemical imports as a quick fix to create the illusion of a
>> healty economy propped up on the fantasy that OPEC would be "our
>> buddies".
>>
>>> However, Hillary seems to me to be deeply, deeply vanilla. She was
>>> rabidly
>>> pro Iraq war, is saber rattling against Iran and Syria, wants to expand
>>> NATO
>>> to Russia's doorstep, is probably the most pro-Israel candidate
>>> imaginable,
>>> and more than any other leading Democrat appears like she might actually
>>> be a teensy bit Christian. Not a Bible thumper of course, but her
>>> occasional
>>> statements about god and family sound at least potentially sincere. So,
>>> and
>>> I'm asking this sincerely, why is she diabolical? Not annoying (she is),
>>> power hungry (comes with wanting the job), unwilling to answer questions
>>> straight (so are they all), or maybe a dyke (who cares). But what is
>>> diabolical
>>> about here, and what will she DO if elected that is so awful and radical
>>> and dangerous?
>>
>> ..........I get your point. I just don't trust her because she was 1/2 of
>> the disaster that was Bilary. She's the epitome of a calculating
>> opportunist.......which, come to think of it, may be exactly what we
>> might need as Secretary of State, or Secretary of War.......but at the
>> same time, there something very Talleyrand'esque about both
>> Bilary/Hilbilly which, in the end, serves their personal interests at the
>> expense of the national interest. Just look at how popular Bill Clinton
>> is after the incredible damage (by omission and incompetence, if nothing
>> else) he did to our national security by allowing the situation in Iraq
>> to fester under the watchful eye of the UN. I think that the enduring
>> "cult of Bill", says more about the idiocy of the American public than it
>> does about the Clinton's though. The Clinton's, being smartn'all,
>> recognize it and feed off it like catfish in a pond full of blood bait.
>>
>>> Lastly, I've been telling my lefty academic friends for years that
>>> they're
>>> going to find religion at some point about states rights. From gay
>>> marriage
>>> to medical pot nearly every pet issue for lefties will get squashed by
>>> federal
>>> lawmakers and the federal judiciary. The lefties are going to have to
>>> fight
>>> for the right of (their own) states to legislate on those issues. They
>>> scream
>>> and yell and hem and haw and tell me I'm nuts but they have yet to come
>>> up
>>> with a compelling argument to counter mine. Conservatives (not the ones
>>> like
>>> me, the other kinds) are going to get their comeuppance probably after
>>> the
>>> next election for executive power. Seems like a great idea to decide the
>>> president is above the law when you're guy is president, but the history
>>> of this country is the gradual erosion of judicial and legislative
>>> power,
>>> i.e. the executive branch rarely gives anything back. I suspect any
>>> Democrat
>>> who runs against any of the current Republicans will win, and then all
>>> of
>>> that executive power wrenched away from Congress will be in the hands of
>>> the other party. Law of unintended consequences, but I for one will have
>>> a hearty belly laugh when the Rush Limbaugh set starts howling about
>>> some
>>> abuse of executive power when a Democrat is the abuser.
>>>
>>> Anyway, enlighten me about Hillary.
>>
>> I think those who are howling about how Bush
>> ignores/circumvents/reinterprets the law are going to be in for more of
>> the
>> same old same old, but it's going to be less about a national security
>> agenda and more about a "Hilary" agenda, which will be determined by
>> popularity polls and their uberleftist buddies in Hollyweed.
>>
>> ;o)
>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>>> news:471ed2be@linux...
>>>>> I'm really starting to like Rudi..... try this one out for size. Sorry
>>> to
>>>>> rant about political stuff, but if we let this crazed crooked b**ch
>>>>> into
>>>>> the white house again she'll so train wreck us we may not recover from
>>> it,
>>>>> ever.
>>>>> I'm not opposed to a woman in the white house in the slightest, but
>>>>> God
>>>>> help us all if her broom gets parked out on the lawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=bz303
>>>>>
>>>>> AA
>>>>>
>>>> The era of Hilbilly is fast approaching. It ain't gonna' be pretty.
>>>> She's
>>> as
>>>> smart as she is diabolical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:471ec45e@linux...
>>>>>> Rudi Giuliani's push to save America........
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91932 is a reply to message #91926] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 18:41 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kim wrote:
>> Instant runoff voting or some other preferential voting system would
>> help avoid "lesser of two evils" voting.
>
> I do like your thinking, but I believe there are some issues with it.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
> IMHO...
>
> Firstly, the implementation paradox. Neither of the major parties are likely
> to bring in something to diminish their duopoly as "THE major parties". Hence
> it seems likely you'd need a minor party/candidate to win in order to get
> it happening. In other words, to change the system so that a minor candidate
> can win, a minor candidate has to win. Catch 22.
Maybe. Right now, preferential voting is not widely known in the USA.
But what's happening here, despite that, is that it is catching on in
smaller elections. Over time the more that works out, the more it can
become known and the more it can catch on further. It won't happen over
night.
> Secondly, we have preferential voting here in Australia, and while I do think
> it's, well, preferable, it's not some wondrous solution to the faults of
> democracy. Our federal election is in a month, and a recent poll just showed
My only claim is that it would help, not that it would be a panacea.
How does your preferential system work?
> that the leading party has 47% of the primary vote (ie 47% of Australians
> are going to choose them as no.1 option). In other words, while we are perfectly
> able to do otherwise, for some reason the general population votes for the
> major parties as first preference regardless of the fact that you can, effectively,
> vote for both the majors as the last two options, and in effect, your vote
> ends up with one of them and has the same strength as it would have if you'd
> voted them as no.1 if you get my drift. In some ways it makes things worse.
> I don't think it's "the problem" as such.
>
> The problem, fundamentally, in both the U.S. and here, is that the public
> think there are only two options and vote accordingly because they don't
> want some "weirdo" getting in (ironic really). One would suggest that a massive
> education campaign is required to explain to the common man why this line
> of thinking is flawed, but who is going to do it? The major parties obviously
> won't. Nobody reads books (well, not enough). The media? The media would
> argue, and disappointingly they have a point, that their role is to report
> the status quo, not alter it. I realize they are far from doing this well
> in many cases, but they actually do it reasonably in this case. The media
> would simply say that:
> (*) It's not our job to enforce deliberate change.
> (*) The major parties are currently most likely to win.
> (*) Because the majors will win, we should focus reporting on them.
>
> And you and I would say:
> (*) It's because you focus reporting on them that they win.
>
> And they would point out that:
> (*) Even if we adjusted our reporting, the public is so set in the idea of
> voting for a major party that most will do so anyhow.
> (*) The only way to change this mindset would be for the media to deliberately
> re-educate the public for a decade, perhaps several. At what point are they
> pushing their ideals, when their role should be to simply report what goes
> on.
>
> See my point? It's an unfortunate collaboration of catch 22's.
Of course in the USA we are smarter than that (ducking).
> The only way around it that I can say is to have some amazingly intelligent,
> charismatic, ethical, and powerful individual take leadership of one of the
> existing major parties in order to enforce some major changes and help educate
> the public. Unfortunately I've got other things on at the moment. ;o)
We all have our priorities. :^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Cheers,
> Kim.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91934 is a reply to message #91932] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 19:29 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>How does your preferential system work?
It's pretty basic, but effective for mine. Imagine you have 4 candidates.
You get four boxes. I am paraphrasing here, but the paraphrase will be "conceptually
accurate" if you get my drift:
"You must place a number in every box. The numbers must start from one, and
be sequential".
That is basically it. So, for example, you can (and I have many times) give
a 1 and 2 to a couple of people who are highly unlikely to win, and give
3 and 4 to the major parties. Assuming a major party victory, your vote ends
up, in full strength, being counted as a vote for whoever you put 3rd, just
as if you voted them as 1. As they count the votes, once it it established
that a given candidate cannot possibly win, their preferences are distributed
to other candidates, if you get my drift. At the end of the count, every
single valid vote will be in one of two piles, being the victor, or the runner
up.
Additionally, if you read my legal paraphrase above, there is a little quirk
in the system. It was found in a court of law that placing " 1 2 3 3
" in your boxes counted as being sequential. As a result, for example, you
can deliberately vote for one person, or another, but refuse to allow your
vote to go to any of your non-preferences. As you can see, this quirk is
an amazingly powerful little tool for democracy. Of course the "powers that
be" didn't like that at all. Unfortunately for them, fortunately for us,
changing the voting system requires a referendum, so the whole country would
have to be informed of the issue and would then vote on it. The powers that
be would have known that such an event would serve only to educate the public
on how powerful this tool could be, and the vote would likely not go in their
favour, so the "quirk" still exists. The bad new is that they actually made
it illegal to publicise it. A couple of years back somebody was actually
put in prison for a couple of years for informing the public of a perfectly
legal way to vote.
Go figure.
But that's the system. Basically if you number each candidate sequentially
in order of preference, until you run out of people you like, at which point
you put the same number in each box. Assuming you haven't used the quirk
to avoid your vote ending up with somebody you dislike, you will always end
up with a full strength vote against one of the two most popular candidates.
I actually think our system is really good. If the Australian public knew
how to use it, and, for that matter, who to vote for for their own best interests,
it would work pretty well methinks.
Cheers,
Kim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rudi's push to save America!!! [message #91937 is a reply to message #91934] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 21:34 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:471fff80$1@linux...
>
>>How does your preferential system work?
>
> It's pretty basic, but effective for mine. Imagine you have 4 candidates.
> You get four boxes. I am paraphrasing here, but the paraphrase will be
> "conceptually
> accurate" if you get my drift:
>
> "You must place a number in every box. The numbers must start from one,
> and
> be sequential".
>
> That is basically it. So, for example, you can (and I have many times)
> give
> a 1 and 2 to a couple of people who are highly unlikely to win, and give
> 3 and 4 to the major parties. Assuming a major party victory, your vote
> ends
> up, in full strength, being counted as a vote for whoever you put 3rd,
> just
> as if you voted them as 1. As they count the votes, once it it established
> that a given candidate cannot possibly win, their preferences are
> distributed
> to other candidates, if you get my drift. At the end of the count, every
> single valid vote will be in one of two piles, being the victor, or the
> runner
> up.
>
> Additionally, if you read my legal paraphrase above, there is a little
> quirk
> in the system. It was found in a court of law that placing " 1 2 3 3
> " in your boxes counted as being sequential. As a result, for example, you
> can deliberately vote for one person, or another, but refuse to allow your
> vote to go to any of your non-preferences. As you can see, this quirk is
> an amazingly powerful little tool for democracy. Of course the "powers
> that
> be" didn't like that at all. Unfortunately for them, fortunately for us,
> changing the voting system requires a referendum, so the whole country
> would
> have to be informed of the issue and would then vote on it. The powers
> that
> be would have known that such an event would serve only to educate the
> public
> on how powerful this tool could be, and the vote would likely not go in
> their
> favour, so the "quirk" still exists. The bad new is that they actually
> made
> it illegal to publicise it. A couple of years back somebody was actually
> put in prison for a couple of years for informing the public of a
> perfectly
> legal way to vote.
>
> Go figure.
>
> But that's the system. Basically if you number each candidate sequentially
> in order of preference, until you run out of people you like, at which
> point
> you put the same number in each box. Assuming you haven't used the quirk
> to avoid your vote ending up with somebody you dislike, you will always
> end
> up with a full strength vote against one of the two most popular
> candidates.
>
> I actually think our system is really good. If the Australian public knew
> how to use it, and, for that matter, who to vote for for their own best
> interests,
> it would work pretty well methinks.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
Well........if we had such a system here, then the liberals could get all of
the fraudulent votes from the undocumented alien residents,and a bunch of
dead people that they trot out to pad the rolls with every election cycle,
not publicize this (about as likely as the sun exploding at noon tomorrow)
and use as a "no confidence" bludgeon to grind every ballot to a halt here.
Cool!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Dec 11 02:08:11 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02758 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
