I mentioned the tradeoff between fewer jobs and cheaper stuff and alluded to conditions guaranteeing that the dollar value of the latter swamps the former. A question should linger about the social value of the tradeoff. To an economist, a job is nothing but money pipeline. It has no value beyond what it pays.
So if the options are free trade with displacement of some domestic workers, and protectionism, an economist argues that the presumptively superior choice is free trade with assistance for the displaced. With all the benefits from trade (each small, but there are a lot of them) you can bribe those who lose their jobs and still have money left over for consumers. If jobs have value to people beyond their earning stream that argument is harder to make.
Of course that complicates things a lot. It means you have to ascertain how much someone's job is worth to him. Since that is not traded on any market the valuation is open to misrepresentation for strategic gains. But on a philosophical level it's a question people shouldn't let economists forget.
I understand that trade deficit stats are not the be all/end all of economic analysis. However, I assumed that they had some relevance, for Pete's sake. What does serve as a fair barometer for incrementing trade relations, with an eye towards expansion?
A country's overall trade position is important, yes. Not the lynchpin it's made out to be in the money pages but important. But trade balances for pairs of countries are not too important. What does matter is that the countries have open markets, and this is one problem wrt the US-Japanese bilateral trade balance. It's much less of an issue with China, because they can't buy most of the stuff we sell anyway. (Well, that's not quite true. The US is a net exporter of food and movies and the Chinese buy that stuff. But with a few exceptions they don't have the domestic production to protect.)
30188. Slackjaw - 6/3/2000 12:53:59 AM
Re. starvation, I am sure the birth rate had some impact. But so did development. But I don't know how to apportion credit among the factors, which is why I asked about where we get things like "most of it is due to X."
What have we gotten out of them, in exchange for enabling them to close the gap a bit?
Lower prices on stuff we buy, less pollution per unit of Chinese production than before engagement, and freedom to use our productive capacity on things we are uniquely suited to make. To say nothing of the security value of having the world's largest country and one extra nuclear power involved in an ongoing relationship.
Good job on Ben Stein. Not often do the hosts ooh and ahh at a contestant's performance.
30189. EricCartman - 6/3/2000 2:38:03 AM
Slackjaw:
Now that there is some level of commitment to the policy, the cost of commercial relationships with China is lower. I realize that gives you little comfort but as long as suppliers compete with each other in product markets that means more stuff for the money.
Sure, that distinction is certainly appreciable, but how is this more of any "commitment" than the previous policy was; i.e., why would the Chinese (or anyone else) take the guidelines of said policy with any seriousness? Do you see what I'm saying? They pretty much thumbed their noses at our bullshit policy before, knowing that it had no teeth -- why would they suddenly change tack? Money? No way -- with this, our corporations make as much money as they do.
They know we won't bite on this either. There is no incentive to change anymore -- unless one's idea of change is basically having China gradually morph into a gargantuan Singapore, where all serve (and draw breath) at the pleasure of The State.
Of course it's only a faux commitment because, as Edward Gibbon said, it's really bloody tough for a legislature to bind its successors to anything (I paraphrase). But it does change the default and that has some incremental value.
Right, and that's the other thing -- this is all essentially smoke and mirrors in the first place, merely a showpiece agreement to demonstrate in the (as I said earlier) bullshit passive-aggressive diplomat-speak that we be tight and shit. Symbolism is worth even less than a mere handshake, AFAIC (although, in the real world, a handshake does generally mean something).
30190. EricCartman - 6/3/2000 2:39:35 AM
So if the options are free trade with displacement of some domestic workers, and protectionism, an economist argues that the presumptively superior choice is free trade with assistance for the displaced.
I understand what you're saying, it's just that I tend to doubt that this is the best of all available roads. I can't help but get the feeling that an inherently flawed and suspect policy was basically bulldozed through, with a minimum of debate and dissent. Everyone likes a perpetually expanding economy; no one wants to be a disposable cog in a corporatocracy.
With all the benefits from trade (each small, but there are a lot of them) you can bribe those who lose their jobs and still have money left over for consumers.
Well, this is about where my economic knowledge pretty much disintegrates, because I figure you may as well take that "bribe" money and give all those displaced workers free college educations, at that point. And that doesn't quite ring right, so I know it's a flawed premise.
If jobs have value to people beyond their earning stream that argument is harder to make.
I like the argument you make in this vein, but surprisingly, I pretty much discard any intangible vocational "values". One's special attachment to one's job can't be allowed to hamstring economic policy. Still, the point is an important one --the effects of job displacement, especially on blue-collar workers, should not be taken lightly.
I understand what you mean by the relative importance of bilateral trade imbalance, as opposed to overall trade imbalance; still, I had supposed that it was one of possibly several important economic determinants, wrt bilateral trade incrementalism.
30191. EricCartman - 6/3/2000 2:39:58 AM
Re. starvation, I am sure the birth rate had some impact. But so did development. But I don't know how to apportion credit among the factors, which is why I asked about where we get things like "most of it is due to X."
That was a bit of a rhetorical assumption on my part. I assumed it was reasonably ascertained, but I suppose that's not necessarily so. Still, China's breeding policy is sufficiently infamous that one could reasonably suppose that it has had some significance in alleviating famine and starvation. Perhaps not; again, it was something I had assumed was practically axiomatic.
Lower prices on stuff we buy, less pollution per unit of Chinese production than before engagement, and freedom to use our productive capacity on things we are uniquely suited to make. To say nothing of the security value of having the world's largest country and one extra nuclear power involved in an ongoing relationship.
Yes, fair enough. Would that relationship have substantially changed, had we not bulled this "opportunity" through Congress? Maybe, maybe not. That is the essential question I've been pushing. I really don't think there is much China could have done, had we decided to truly take humanitarian values seriously, and insisted on keeping the annual review intact. (Not that it was doing much good; the annual review had devolved into a paper tiger at best.)
Glad you were able to catch the Ben Stein thing. FWIW, when the talent coordinator asked me before the show where I was originally from, I gave props to my homiez in Pasadena. OG Congress Avenue, yo.
30192. Slackjaw - 6/3/2000 3:26:01 AM
Cartman
why would the Chinese (or anyone else) take the guidelines of said policy with any seriousness? Do you see what I'm saying? They pretty much thumbed their noses at our bullshit policy before, knowing that it had no teeth -- why would they suddenly change tack?
No, I agree. The noncommitment engendered by a recurring decision does not necessarily create any uncertainty. And the Chinese knew it was American business interest that would be held for ransom when the decision came up. That ransom money, if you will, used to be just thrown into the money pit of political rent seeking. Now it doesn't have to be. The benefit of the partial commitment PNTR creates is not less uncertainty but less money diverted into a big sinkhole.
Right, and that's the other thing -- this is all essentially smoke and mirrors in the first place, merely a showpiece agreement to demonstrate in the (as I said earlier) bullshit passive-aggressive diplomat-speak that we be tight and shit.
There is some symbolism value on the public stage of diplomacy, but there is another benefit. While a legislature can't bind a future legislature with the same powers, this decision changes the default in the case of no action. And, the existence of veto players (the president, the 61st Senator on any issue, the Speaker of the House, the Rules Committee, the substantive Committee chairs) in American politics means that policy output is controlled to some extent by minorities. That means there are fewer people to buy off in order to keep these relationships stable. Thus, changing this default is tantamount to a limited commitment by the legislature to extract less rent from the beneficiaries of an open relationship.
30193. Slackjaw - 6/3/2000 3:26:30 AM
I understand what you're saying, it's just that I tend to doubt that this is the best of all available roads. I can't help but get the feeling that an inherently flawed and suspect policy was basically bulldozed through, with a minimum of debate and dissent.
Well, whether this is "best" depends on the factors you consider. If you search only over the space of all available policies, you are probably right. If you limit your search to the politically feasible subset of all policies this may be the best in that subset. That is the sense in which I used the phrase "second best." Lamenting that this is not first best, i.e., best in the set of all policies, is starry eyed idealism.
I figure you may as well take that "bribe" money and give all those displaced workers free college educations, at that point. And that doesn't quite ring right, so I know it's a flawed premise.
I don't follow you. With all the money ploughed into retraining and displacement assistance that is not too far from reality. Actually I believe this to be an underutilized component of the NAFTA safety net.
30194. Slackjaw - 6/3/2000 3:26:44 AM
I pretty much discard any intangible vocational "values". One's special attachment to one's job can't be allowed to hamstring economic policy.
Why? Economic policy should only be about the welfare of the populace. Growth for its own sake is useless. If the actions that lead to growth reduce welfare by more than the growth they create adds to it, what good are they? And it is just that possibility that is created by non-pecuniary attachment to a job. All it means is that this has value even if it's not traded in a market, and to the extent possible that should be reckoned in any policy decision.
Missed this earlier...
But we're not going to be paying ten bucks for a bag of chips if we don't hand the Chinese PNTR.
I'm not saying we would. What is analogous to $10 doritos is insisting on Western style wages, working conditions, or expenditures on a unit of labor in general. You might as well join the Unions then, who are so concerned about 3rd world labor they want to price it out of existence. But they really have the best interest of the workers at heart, trust them.
Did you live around Congress when you lived here? I don't live all that far from there.
30195. robertjayb - 6/3/2000 5:22:28 PM
.
Newsweek Poll: Bush Reprieve Was Political
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Six of 10 Americans say George W. Bush approved his first reprieve in a Texas death penalty case for political reasons, according to a new poll. Bush supporters were about evenly split on his motivation for approving the reprieve.
30196. RosettaStone - 6/3/2000 8:26:57 PM
Everything's political with babyBush. But at least he's not a slumlord like Al Gore.
(NewsChannel5.com) What would you call a landlord who let his property get run-down, who refused to make repairs, who evicts a tenant who complains? A Carthage woman calls that landlord Mr. Vice President.
Tracy Mayberry, who lives in property owned by VP Al Gore, has a problem with her plumbing and her toilets regularly overflow. "It smells just like open sewer right there," Mayberry said Friday.
She said Gore refuses to make any repairs to the property. "I consider him no better than some of the other landlords--the slumlords I call them.
Every month Mayberry sends Al Gore $400 for rent. She said she's complained repeatedly about the plumbing. She's also complained about how sinks won't drain and smell like rotten eggs.
After she complained, she received a letter from Gore's poperty manager telling her she ahd until the end of the month to vacate the premises.
****
(guess who's moving in--The Secret Service and the government will make the repairs.)
30197. RosettaStone - 6/3/2000 8:29:18 PM
Everything's political with babyBush. But at least he's not a slumlord like Al Gore.
(NewsChannel5.com) What would you call a landlord who let his property get run-down, who refused to make repairs, who evicts a tenant who complains? A Carthage woman calls that landlord Mr. Vice President.
Tracy Mayberry, who lives in property owned by VP Al Gore, has a problem with her plumbing and her toilets regularly overflow. "It smells just like open sewer right there," Mayberry said Friday.
She said Gore refuses to make any repairs to the property. "I consider him no better than some of the other landlords--the slumlords I call them.
Every month Mayberry sends Al Gore $400 for rent. She said she's complained repeatedly about the plumbing. She's also complained about how sinks won't drain and smell like rotten eggs.
After she complained, she received a letter from Gore's poperty manager telling her she ahd until the end of the month to vacate the premises.
****
(guess who's moving in--The Secret Service and the government will make the repairs.)
30198. Greystoke - 6/3/2000 8:46:18 PM
Perhaps Al could get Bill Clinton to check out Ms. Mayberry's plumbing. I hear that he's pretty effective with the snake.
30199. RosettaStone - 6/3/2000 9:12:45 PM
Instead of just fixing the plumbing problem when it first happened ($300 dollars), here is that latest from Algore's Nashville Damage Control:
"A lawyer for the Gores faxed NewsChannel 5 a statement that said the Gores want the Mayberrys to stay in the home while it's being fixed. If that's not possible (because the Secret Service want the place), they'll help the Mayberrys find another place to stay during the renovation work and then let them move back in when it's done."
30200. robertjayb - 6/4/2000 2:33:07 AM
.
AUSTIN -- Well, isn't that special? The governor has granted a 30-day stay to a man on death row so we can figure out from DNA evidence whether the guy should be on Death Row. Which he may well be, but it'll be nice to be certain for a change.
It took Bush only 131 executions to find a case where he thought there might be some doubt about the matter. No, I take that back. He did once grant a pardon: he had to. That was memorable case of Henry Lee Lucas, the serial liar, who confessed to 150 murders before our brighter law enforcement minds started to wonder if he was telling the truth.
...More of Molly Ivins
30201. jonesatlaw - 6/4/2000 2:36:15 AM
Slumlord, really, where praytell is this slum located? Carthage Tenn? Al Gore's property manager won't hop right to it? My goodness, I thought that lax enforcement of housing codes was "getting the government off our backs." She only pays four hundred a month rent, what does she want? IF she was a real american who had some cash, she could pay 4 grand a month and have a nice place in a gated community. Then she could bitch if things weren't top shape. Maybe she could move to Texas, near the boarder where she wouldn't have to worry about indoor plumbing problems. A compassionate conservative would just tell her to build an outhouse.
30202. RosettaStone - 6/4/2000 10:21:59 AM
The tenant asked Gore 30x to fix the mother earth environmental problem. The day after she went to a Nashville TV station to complain, he responding claiming it will be fixed.
Not good being called a "slumlord" by tenants living on Social Security checks.
30203. Cellar Door - 6/4/2000 10:25:52 AM
Typical Liberal.If he were a REAL AMERICAN ( ie. Conservative) he'd have used the slum as a trap for Welfare Cheats and set up a public gallows to eliminate them.
Oh, forget the gallows -- gas is best. And I right or am I right, Rosie?
30204. RosettaStone - 6/4/2000 11:27:53 AM
Cellar- Don't be so silly. This isn't Table Talk.
30205. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/4/2000 12:16:45 PM
30206. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/4/2000 1:29:43 PM
30207. Cellar Door - 6/4/2000 1:56:50 PM
Molly Rocks!
30208. dusty - 6/4/2000 4:21:11 PM
Message # 30083 Ronski
I wouldn't mind it at all if insurance companies were put out of business. They are a government-created boondoggle.
30209. jexster - 6/4/2000 4:40:23 PM
The Compassionate Conservative
The man who has the balls to champion himself as an environmentalist is at it again
Moron Trying to Elevate Ignorance to Virtue
A pattern perhaps? Perhaps Hopeless Huckster?
30210. jexster - 6/4/2000 4:41:38 PM
Laugh all you will Wiz....I know one Texas death row con who wouldn't be alive today were it not for The Compassionate One.
30211. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/4/2000 5:37:27 PM
Jexter- I'm having difficulty parsing your post.
A. You think I've been unfair in my image?
B. You think Molly Ivins is distorting the truth?
C. Because you know one person who is alive today because of Bush, you therefore think ALL of the stories about his actions in Texas regarding the executions of men and woman on Death Row are untrue?
D. None of the above?
E. All of the above?
Personally, I think "Bush toe-tags" is a kinda funny and original idea, but hey, you certainly have the right to your opinion.
30212. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:10:12 PM
LEARN ABOUT THE GUT REACTIONS OF GEORGE W. BUSH AND AL GORE.
R. Bruce Dold
June 4, 2000
I wrote up this story a few years ago, but what the heck. Al Gore might be president soon, so it's worth telling again.
It's a true story. Gore tells it himself.
When Gore was a rookie reporter at the Nashville Tennessean, he was assigned to write obituaries. One day, he got a call: The famed Swedish gynecologist, Dr. Trebla Erog, was dead.
So Albert Gore gathered the details on Trebla Erog's life.
By odd coincidence, Trebla Erog lived in Gore's hometown, Carthage, Tenn. Dr. Erog was a very busy man, a member of B'nai Brith and the Knights of Columbus.
As Gore was busy working on Dr. Erog's life, the phone rang again. Dr. Erog's wife had collapsed at the funeral home in grief over losing her husband, and had died. Now Gore had some dramatic story.
The tragedy, though, multiplied. As Gore hammered out the sad story of the late Dr. and Mrs. Erog, the phone rang once again.
The three Erog children, racing to Carthage upon hearing the news of their father's death, had crashed on a Tennessee highway. All were dead.
Now Gore was thinking, this has front page all over it! He wrote the incredible story of the death of Trebla Erog, and Mrs. Erog, and the three young Erogs, and turned it in to the city editor.
A little while later the city editor ambled over to his new reporter. That was a nice writing job Al, he said. Have you figured out what Trebla Erog spells backwards?
Yes, he fell for the whole thing. And Albert Gore is supposed to be the smart candidate for president."
30213. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:11:48 PM
"To paraphrase George W. Bush's description of his own youth, when Al Gore was young and gullible, he was young and gullible.
He may or may not be so gullible now, but he seems to think the rest of the nation is.
The outlines of Gore's fall campaign for president seem pretty clear. He will run on safe, traditional Democratic Party themes, with a subtext that George Bush is not bright enough to run the country.
This comes from the candidate who got his own share of gentlemen's C's at Harvard while Bush struggled at Yale.
Intelligence doesn't guarantee a strong presidency. Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were intelligent.
But the last few weeks in this quiet time in the presidential campaign have told something else about these candidates. Something about how they pick their battles. Something that goes not to intelligence, but to instinct.
It is Al Gore's instinct to assume that voters are as gullible as a rookie reporter at the Nashville Tennessean, that they'll buy any story he feeds them.
He thought Florida voters would buy that he broke ranks with the Clinton administration and ran to the rescue of little Elian Gonzalez out of genuine concern for a 6-year-old, not because Florida has 25 electoral votes. People weren't so gullible. They saw what Gore was doing, begging for Cuban-American votes.
Gore thought he could fool everybody on China trade by siding with Clinton in public and undermining Clinton in private. Publicly, he supported the Clinton administration's bid to push for permanent normal trade relations with China. Privately, he signaled to AFL-CIO leaders that if they could stall the deal, he'd water it down next year, when he was in charge.
But his whispered promise to labor got out. Once caught, Gore retreated, announcing that he backed China trade with every bone in his body."
30214. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:14:34 PM
"Gore complicated the China effort for the Clinton administration, but fortunately he didn't kill it. He couldn't kill it. His word was worthless. He was frozen out of the debate.
Now look at George Bush's instincts, particularly when his instinct is to break with his own party.
When House Republicans last fall put out a budget plan that delayed tax-credit payments to the working poor, Bush protested. The Republicans, he said, "shouldn't balance the budget on the backs of the poor."
The snap judgment was that Bush was following the Clinton campaign model. When Clinton needed to show independence from a core Democratic constituency, African-Americans, he picked a fight with Sister Souljah, a black rapper. Bush, the thinking went, had found his Sister Souljah--the House Republicans. But Clinton's move was a stunt. Bush's decision carried consequences. Republicans listened to him and dropped the delay in payments to the poor.
A couple of weeks ago, Bush broke from his party again. As Senate Republicans got ready to vote on a measure that could have forced Clinton to start a troop withdrawal from Kosovo this summer, Bush protested.
The Senate was infringing on the president's authority to make foreign-policy decisions, Bush said. Several Republicans listened to him again. The measure was defeated.
Another Souljah moment? That doesn't seem likely. Bush wasn't going to score political points by stalling the return of U.S. troops from Kosovo. He wasn't going to score points by supporting Bill Clinton. But Bush was right, the Senate Republicans were wrong, he spoke his mind and his influence won out"
30215. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:17:25 PM
"Polls say nobody is paying much attention to the presidential race right now, and that's too bad. There's a lot to learn from watching Bush and Gore before they get into the hustle of the fall campaign. There's a lot to learn about intelligence and instinct.
A president can hire all kinds of smart people. But he will follow his own instincts."
Dr. Trebla Erog, the gynecologist? Were Pinocchio Bore's co-employees trying to say he was a cunt, by any chance.
Btw, I support GWB, but I disagree that our troops belong in Kosovo, or that they shouldn't be brought back immediately if they are.
30216. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:27:21 PM
Now we find out Pinocchio Bore is a slumlord. Is there no indecency or criminality too gross for Democrats to support?
30217. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:31:28 PM
Re. 30215 -
More precisely, were Bore's co-employees implying he was a dumb cunt?
30218. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/4/2000 7:11:29 PM
30219. jexster - 6/4/2000 8:44:29 PM
WoW -
I still haven't figgered out how to do a tongue in cheek whatever-ya-call it
Here's what I meant - the guy on death row in Texas, is I am sure thankful that the Moron gave him 30 days more to live with a chance for more and thus should be equally thankful that the Moron is running for president or he'd have already visited the Huntsville Death Gurney.
30220. jexster - 6/4/2000 8:54:18 PM
He thought Florida voters would buy that he broke ranks with the
Clinton administration and ran to the rescue of little Elian Gonzalez out of genuine concern for a 6-year-old, not because Florida has 25 electoral votes. People weren't so gullible. They saw what Gore was doing, begging for Cuban-American votes.
I don't know who wrote this and will check it after posting but come on who are you kidding with this crapola?
Gore's position on Elian was consistent from the day Donato fished him out of the water - its a matter for the Fla courts.
The inference that Gore was acting out of some Cuban pander motive is very weak for several other reasons too:
1. Cuban American predictably reacted against Clinton's decision;
2. Cuban Americans can't punish Clinton, they probably will try to do it to his "heir"...same for Clinton-haters generally who also generally opposed the Clinton decision
3. That being the case Gore would not, if he were calculating a position of maximum political advantage, chose to do what he did -oppose his boss and alienate his base without any predictable advantage.
I note that none other than Gore-hating Tucker Carlson of the Weekly Standard also agrees with this in substance.....it was so politically dumb that it had to be based on his own personal views of how the matter should have been handled not what was politically expedient...
BTW - I bet Concerned penned this tripe...Biener my #2 choice.
30221. jexster - 6/4/2000 9:03:59 PM
Intelligence doesn't guarantee a strong presidency. Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were intelligent.
True enough. And so were Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Johnson & to some extent Poppy although his interests as opposed to intellect never really focused on anything within our borders.
Look no further than Ronald Raygun for the exception that proves the rule that a intellectually competent President is more likely to succeed than a self-described ignoramous.
Thing is RR only did 2 important things when he was president - both essentially accomplished in the first 1-2 years of his term...both relatively easy to accomplish given the mood of the electorate
1. Pass the 1978 Kemp-Roth tax bill
2. Raise defense spending dramatically
The rest was cheap theatrics and totally ineffectual - ie cutting discretionary domestic spending or doing anything of significance about business regulation.
In a word, Raygun could have napped 20 of 24 hours every day of his presidency past the first 180 and come to think of it did just that.
Say what you will but on the whole I'd rather not have a fuckin idiot in charge of the government.
30222. jexster - 6/4/2000 9:06:40 PM
Now we find out Pinocchio Bore is a slumlord. Is there no indecency
or criminality too gross for Democrats to support?
Now why do I have trouble with the professed outrage of a wignut Republican on this question?
30223. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/4/2000 11:12:52 PM
Jex- Ahhh -- now i get it -- and you're right of course. It's like a kid suppressing his natural tendencies because "company" is around.
30224. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 9:18:22 AM
Mr. Whimsy--You remind me of my neighbor Herbert Block who draws the same cartoon every day. Of course, he's 86 years old.
30225. LadyChaos - 6/5/2000 9:39:03 AM
Gulf War fallout that's guaranteed to turn your stomach.
30226. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 9:57:52 AM
Mr. Stone - Your posts exhibit the imagination of hardened mineral matter --your conclusions are just as predictable.
30227. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 10:08:00 AM
LC- Pathetic!
...Of course we must have oil for our SUVs and a genocidal war in Kosovo is not in our strategic interest, so what the hell -- is anything on sale at the GAP? 
30228. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 10:15:16 AM
It's become predictable and tiresome, Mr. Whimey. I'm sure I speak for the rest of the readers here.
Maybe you see nothing humorous or human in Al Gore. Maybe, you're right.
30229. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 10:15:56 AM
Wiz:
Rosies conclusions improve when he plagarizes, as he has been known to do.
30230. rubberducky7 - 6/5/2000 10:19:09 AM
hmmm, i'm betting RosettaStone wouldn't like this site then.
oh well, his loss.
30231. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 10:26:08 AM
That's okay, ducky...everyone else does! Not unusual for Rosetta to be a contrarian.
30232. Cellar Door - 6/5/2000 10:28:40 AM
It's true, Rosie. Dubbya's predictable and tiresome.
30233. jexster - 6/5/2000 11:07:37 AM
Its simple Rose. George Bush is a dunce, a moron and Al Gore is boring.
Both images are stylized products of the media age. Highly symbolic and yet somehow true at the same time.
So what's it gonna be - A bore who knows his ass from a hole in the ground or a fuckin Moron pawn of the right wing.
30234. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 11:11:16 AM
With gasoline prices going to $2.30 a gallon by late summer in many parts of the country, I pick babyBush, the man who made money from Texas-panhandle dryholes.
30235. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 11:17:27 AM
Cue Jackson Browne's "After the Deluge"
(NewsMax.com) Speaking publicly for the first time the state of Maryland dropped wiretapping charges against her, Clinton impeachment witness Linda Tripp told a South Carolina gathering Saturday night that most of the criminality she witnessed while working in the White House has yet to be revealed.
"Most of the things that I know that were illegal that happened in the Clinton White House I have not spokes about publicly or under oath," the star witness told members of freerepublic.com, the internet web site that organized the event.
The revelation sent shockwaves through the crowd.
SHOCKWAVES!!!
30236. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 11:21:35 AM
Yeah, sure....her 15 minutes are almost up so suddenly, she feels the need to unburden herself. Narrowly escaping being labeled a criminal herself, she decideds to cleanse the world of all evil doing by the Clintons. What a joke! Call Tony Snow and Lucianne.....
30237. Ronski - 6/5/2000 11:27:53 AM
dusty,
Re: Message # 30208 --
I meant this remark only in the narrow sense of the discussion we were having at the time, that is, the practice of calling prepaid health care "health insurance."
Other forms of insurance, including catastrophic health insurance, I consider good things to have.
30238. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 11:28:17 AM
Spuds - It was pure equivocation: "to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive."
I guess you would know since you are so good at it yourself. Why don't you respond to the sustance instead of picking at the edges.
You claim that Clinton was only standing up to those few people you mentioned. That is bullshit. If he were, why did he refer to "so many loud and angry voices"?
You take Clinton's statement out of context and out of the time in which it occurred. It was April 1995, just months after a bitter election in which the Democrats lost control of the House and Senate. During the preceding year Clinton, Begala, Carville, Davis and others in Clinton's Adminstration appeared regularly on television calling mainstream Republicans and conservative talk-show hosts "far-right extremists", "arch-conservatives", "promoters of hate", "divisive", "paranoid", et al. Now it is April and the President gets on national television and uses some of these same words to describe the people he holds responsible for the tragedy. It should be obvious to even you that he was not talking about the few extreme examples you brought up. He was using the opportunity to condemn his opposition in Congress and on the radio by attributing the cause of the tragedy to their vocal protests of his administration. If you deny this, you are claiming he used those words to mean one thing for over a year and then suddenly decided to mean something completely different in this one instance and he expected everyone who heard it would immediately understand that he now meant something completely different. Are you really going to make this claim? If you do, it is you who are equivocating.
30239. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 11:44:55 AM
Clinton smashes globetrotting record
"Clinton apparently set an all-time record in travel expenses in March during a nine-day trip to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Switzerland. The U.S. Air Force estimated it spent as much as $75 million to provide an armada of 76 transport and support aircraft for the trips, although a final tally has not been released."
30240. jexster - 6/5/2000 11:50:24 AM
With gasoline prices going to $2.30 a gallon by late summer in many
parts of the country, I pick babyBush, the man who made money
from Texas-panhandle dryholes.
Come on Rose your not THAT dense are you?
If oil prices are indeed the hot button issue that will bless us with a Moron president, how do you explain the patent contradiction?
The dumb fuck is nothing more, nothing less than the idiot pawn of Big Oil.
30241. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 11:52:31 AM
Jex - Now why do I have trouble with the professed outrage of a wignut Republican on this question?
Because it would force you to confront you blind, unreasoning partisanship. We can't have you questioning your beliefs, can we?
30242. jexster - 6/5/2000 11:53:33 AM
And Indy, your point is that you'd rather our President stay home and pretend as you apparently do that the rest of the world is somehow irrelevant to the only superpower on the planet?
IMO he's done too little not too much.
30243. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 11:58:57 AM
Pssst,
Don't tell anyone Jex, but Rose is actually a Big-L Liberal posing as a conservative to show us how ridiculous they really are (and I'm not kidding--I really believe that about Rose). Of course with some of the other folks who post here in all sincerity, Rose's efforts are somewhat superfluous.
30244. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 11:59:32 AM
And Bush is stooooooooooopid.
30245. jexster - 6/5/2000 11:59:57 AM
JJB:
It must be me but your comment flew right over the top of my head.
What does some half-assed overblown accusation of being a slumlord because of an overflowing toilet made by a free-market ideologue champion of the rights of slumlords have to do with my political views or partisanship?
What is it you don't understand about the word "innapposite"?
If you want to question my beliefs or my attitude perhaps you should first address them. I candididly admit that I do not suffer fools gladly as Rose will attest.
30246. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 12:01:47 PM
Arky - Rose is actually a Big-L Liberal posing as a conservative to show us how ridiculous they really are
You like how Jex, Cellar, janjon, Spuds, et al do that on the other side.
30247. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:09:27 PM
During the preceding year Clinton, Begala, Carville, Davis and others in Clinton's Adminstration appeared regularly on television calling mainstream Republicans and conservative talk-show hosts "far-right extremists", "arch-conservatives", "promoters of hate", "divisive", "paranoid", et al.
Mmm... now which poor Republican victims of such slander is he referring to?
Newt Gingrich? Tom Delay? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? Jesse Helms? Bob Barr? Rush Limbaugh?
Or perhaps their more politically correct "fellow travelers" the so-called GOP moderates who ride the shit slinging, divisive, hate-filled, intoleratant coat tails of the GOP ring leaders because they are too fucking cowardly to stand up to these freaks?
As the Church Lady might say, how convenient
30248. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:10:54 PM
and Bush is stooooooooooopid too.
30249. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:12:52 PM
At bottom, the GOP is responsible for casting American political discourse into a personalized vendetta of trivial slime and it stands justly accused!
Beiner, J'accuse!!!!
30250. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 12:13:34 PM
Jex - What is it you don't understand about the word "innapposite"?
I understand the word completely. It is just that your use of the word "innapposite" is in itself innapposite. Quite a trick, BTW. The question was Is there no indecency or criminality too gross for Democrats to support? Concerned is not a Democrat so questioning his position is irrelevant. It was obviously a device for you to avoid answering a difficult question that would put your blind loyalty and devotion in a bad light.
My point was to tell you that you aren't fooling anyone, except maybe yourself.
30251. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 12:16:04 PM
Jex - At bottom, the GOP is responsible for casting American political discourse into a personalized vendetta of trivial slime and it stands justly accused!
You have absolutely no recollection of the 80's, do you?
30252. Wombat - 6/5/2000 12:16:06 PM
JJ accusing Jexter of excessive partisanship is the pot calling the kettle black. Jexter's language is usually excessive, but that's hardly confined to this thread.
30253. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 12:19:06 PM
Wombat - I will admit to a certain amount of partisanship as will most people here who choose to be honest. Unlike Jex, I don't feel the need to destroy anyone who disagrees with me. I hope you will agree that that is excessive.
30254. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 12:23:36 PM
More from the whistle-blower Linda:
Some of the still secret misconduct has to do with Vincent Foster's death, trip seemed to suggest, about which she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995.
The onetime White House office manager and last person to see Foster alive admitted to the Free Republic audience that she'd been less than forthright in her previous testimony about the case.
"Bear in mind that during that time Kirby Behre, my White House-appointed private lawyer, was in constant touch with the White House and I was told how to testify. My caveat to that was that I never lied under oath. But I testified very, very narrowly--truthfully but narrowly--and to my regret, not completely."
Asked if she could elaborate now on what she knew about the Foster case, she said: "It's probably not the appropriate time to talk about something as involved as the Vince Foster case...There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed, let's just put it that way."
30255. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 12:24:18 PM
Jexster: That was an article of fact, not opinion. I left it to the individual to form a reaction.
But of course I had an idea of what your reaction would be.
My psychic powers, you know.
30256. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:26:17 PM
And Bush is a fucking stooooooopid dumb person.
In fact, I like to call him Dumbya.
because he is stooooooooopid.
30257. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 12:28:59 PM
Yes, Rosetta....and the issues to be addressed before she bares her soul have to do with how much she can milk out of a publisher for her book.
Her credibility is shot, Rosie. She is old news. If she knew something damning about an alleged murder, for gods sake, and didn't come forward, what sort of person is she? Oh yeah, that's right...the kind who tries to hang a president for a blow job.
30258. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:32:14 PM
What is it about the GOP that impels them to make the ridiculous sublime, the trivial, momentous, the shit, (fill in the blank)
30259. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 12:33:27 PM
Arky: You might be a Republican if....
....you scramble for the remote and change channels when Alex Baldwin's on your TV screen.
....you scrable for the remote and change channels when Al Franken's on your TV screen.
....you pet dog is just a pet.
...you buy cigars with the intention of smoking them.
...you fail to see the connection between a humidor and a vagina.
...you are familiar with the U.S. Constituion and its relevance.
30260. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 12:33:55 PM
"Unlike Jex, I don't feel the need to destroy anyone who disagrees with me. I hope you will agree that that is excessive."
One of the reasons I decided to address a statement of yours the other day was the weariness I'd been feeling over your constant denigrations of Democrats and Liberals. You are simply in no position to castigate others on their approach to political argument. And your inclusion of Spuds and Janjon in your list of Mote partisans, who have consistently met your posts with substantive replies, is laughable.
And Jack, we get your point already. Why don't you give a little to the other side? Like "Clinton is Saaaatan." "Gore's a Booorreee."
30261. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:35:52 PM
I still don't get it JJB. Call me dumb but is the point that shit in a toilet is somehow criminal or indecent? Evidence perhaps of some morally corrupt, profoundly socio-pathic trait inherent in Democrats? Or is it that shit in a toilet somehow gives lie to the efforts of many, mostly Democrat but some Republican who actually give a shit about real slumlords?
I still don't get it but then I don't get very much from the Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge simple shit crowd you seem to find so fuckin profound
30262. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 12:35:55 PM
Hahaha. Yes, Rose, your cover has been blown, you..you...you...Closeted Liberal, YOU!
30263. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:36:13 PM
arky
I always give reasons when I criticize.
But I'm beginning to like this new style.
I feel so unencumbered.
"Bush is stooooooopid! Dumbya is so dumb!"
Ah, liberation.
30264. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 12:38:57 PM
Well then, try my suggestions on for size. Let's see your parody of the conservative one-noters. "Clinton is Saaatan" "Gore's a Boooore."
30265. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:41:29 PM
arky
"Clinton is eeeeeevil! Bush is stoooooooopid!"
It's all good.
30266. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 12:43:59 PM
Tripp also said that she expected other scandal witnesses to come forward by the end of the year, including White House women who had Lewinsky-like relationships with Clinton.
"I know of women who were in the same sort of relationship with the president during the time that Monica was, and it's likely that she was afraid of being killed over her affair with Clinton.
"There's an element of tension and fear in that White House," Tripp insisted. "And it's not there for nothing. We are not imagining this. And when Monica Lewinsky said to me, 'I would not cross these people for fear of my life,' she was not kidding."
"ask all those people who dared disclose the truth about this president about their experiences with Clinton attorney-paid investigators such as Terry Lenzner and Jack Palladino."
Tripp said that the first lady was behind the campaign to neutralize witnesses. "We have all been in the crosshairs of Mrs. Clinton, whose orchestration of the destruction of witnesses is well known in the White House. She calls the shots. She spearheads the strategy. And she is in charge."
30267. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:45:06 PM
Perhaps you'll explain the rules of this fin de siecle silly ass GOP game Gotcha! sometime JJB...until then it looks like Trivial Pursuit to me but if it turns you guys on, have fun
30268. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 12:45:41 PM
Rosetta:
Maybe you can get a date with the revamped Mz Tripp...you seem so fascinated by her.
30269. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:45:52 PM
And Rose, as if on cue.....
30270. janjon - 6/5/2000 12:48:03 PM
Jack. The way you are picking up steam there, I suspect it won't be long before we begin to hear about Gore's sister again.
30271. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:50:24 PM
I am fully prepared to concede that Gore is as boring as the Moron is stupid.
30272. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 12:51:53 PM
???
Yikes! This place disintegrated rapidly... 
30273. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:52:00 PM
Later you Compassionate Conservatives, you Purveyors of Piffle
30274. rubberducky7 - 6/5/2000 12:52:49 PM
WOW:
is that another self-portrait?
haha, just kidding, natch.
30275. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 12:54:42 PM
...inspired by: "fin de siecle silly ass GOP
game Gotcha!," incidentally.
30276. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 12:56:06 PM
ducky- thanks for the support above, btw!
30277. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 12:59:09 PM
Arky - One of the reasons I decided to address a statement of yours the other day was the weariness I'd been feeling over your constant denigrations of Democrats and Liberals.
I am sorry you find it denigrating when I point out the errors and misstatements of Democrats and Liberals and when I expose their hipocrisy in attacking others for behaviors they commit themselves and condone in others.
And your inclusion of Spuds and Janjon in your list of Mote partisans, who have consistently met your posts with substantive replies, is laughable.
The problem is that most of their replies are neither substantive or relevant. The discussion with Spuds is a prime example. He has argued that the President's speech after the OK City bombing was a courageous stand against a few extreme broadcasters. I argued that the appearances by members of his staff on various talk shows where they used to same rhetoric the President used to attack mainstream Republicans and conservatives, showed that the President was not referring only to those few individuals but rather it was aimed at his vocal opposition.
Rather than address that issue he started quoting Liddy. When I pointed out that the President was guilty of the kind of rhetoric, Spuds accused me of equivocating.
So to respond to your statement, no, Spuds and janjon seldom provide substantive replies.
30278. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 1:05:09 PM
Sorry, JJ, I'm laughing again...loudly. Yes, Spuds is short on substance. That describes him to a T. I frankly wonder at his patience to post so much of substance (mind you, saying someone posts substantive material doesn't mean it's necessarily what you might agree with) for the return it gets him.
30279. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:08:32 PM
Jex - I still don't get it JJB.
Color me surprised.
Call me dumb
It is tempting, but I try to avoid saying things like that.
but is the point that shit in a toilet is somehow criminal or indecent?
To refuse to repair faulty plumbing in a building you own even after numerous requests is indecent and depending on local laws may be illegal.
Or is it that shit in a toilet somehow gives lie to the efforts of many, mostly Democrat but some Republican who actually give a shit about real slumlords?
Is Al Gore a pretend slumlord because he is a Democrat? If Al Gore is really as concerned as you seem to think he is, why does he allow his property manager to act so irresponsibly? If Bush was the slumlord you would certainly think that was relevant.
I still don't get it
Keep trying. You'll get it eventually.
but then I don't get very much from the Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge simple shit crowd you seem to find so fuckin profound
You get as much from them as I do, but it is nice to see you resort to gratuitous insults rather than deal with an issue honestly.
30280. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 1:10:36 PM
arky:
Check out the last few posts in Suggestions....
30281. jexster - 6/5/2000 1:11:56 PM
JJB has a problem. He seems conflated and confused. Anything that takes issue with "lacks substance", presto the pointed becomes pointless, the relevant, irrelevant, etc.
Clearly there is a connection between the militia mindset of the OKC bombers and the macho, Wild West, TV Wester pry the gun out of my cold dead hands, Rush Limbaugh anti-government flatulence that issues forth with tiresome regularity from the GOP
30282. robertjayb - 6/5/2000 1:14:19 PM
.
Death-Row Inmate Wins New Hearing
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court set aside a convicted Texas killer's death sentence today after the state's lawyers conceded that the life-or-death decision had been based in part on the fact he is Hispanic.
"The justices told Texas courts to provide a new sentencing hearing for Victor Hugo Saldano, convicted of a murder in Collin County in 1996."
...Will shrub's confidence in the death machine be shaken? Not likely...
30283. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:16:14 PM
Arky - Yes, Spuds is short on substance.
The mere weight of the stuff he produces does not make it relevant to the argument. They might be substantive if were discussing a different issue, but his responses are seldom on issue as my example shows.
I frankly wonder at his patience to post so much of substance (mind you, saying someone posts substantive material doesn't mean it's necessarily what you might agree with) for the return it gets him.
Am I supposed to bow down and concede victory because he can produce tons of irrelevant information? I don't think so.
30284. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 1:19:26 PM
Odd that they don't dispute he is guilty. I suppose GW will cite that as proof...
30285. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:19:35 PM
Jex - He seems conflated and confused.
Obviously, an honest answer is beyond you. If you want to demonstrate how Spuds response was relevant, be my guest.
30286. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:22:46 PM
Judith - Assuming the report is true, Gore is guilty of not paying attention to the operation of his property holdings and relying to much on property managers. Granted he has had other concerns, but does that absolve him of responsibility?
30287. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 1:24:57 PM
"Am I supposed to bow down and concede victory because he can produce tons of irrelevant information? I don't think so."
Of course not. Now you're shifting the debate topic. My criticism was of you putting him in with a list of "Mote Democratic Partisans" of your creation and adding in a subsequent post that his replies to you lack substance.
30288. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 1:30:25 PM
JJ:
I was responding to Roberts link about the court set-aside of the death sentence in some guys case in Texas.
I'm not surprised you read it as supportive of Gore...
I will try to be better about addressing my posts to the proper person.
30289. janjon - 6/5/2000 1:30:41 PM
Arky. As you very well know, you are now on a slippery slope. Frustrating is a mild word for what comes next. I really have found that my new method of addressing JJ (namely, not) works to a T. I'm not suggesting that you or anybody else here emulate it, but...it is really satisfying.
30290. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:47:38 PM
Arky - Now you're shifting the debate topic. My criticism was of you putting him in with a list of "Mote Democratic Partisans" of your creation and adding in a subsequent post that his replies to you lack substance.
Can an argument be irrelevant and still have substance? If so, then Spud's posts have substance. Although it seems to me to be more of a case of substance abuse. (pun intended)
30291. concerned - 6/5/2000 1:47:47 PM
Apparently someone here is assuming that partisanship and reasoned arguments are exclusive. While that is too often the case, well reasoned ideas historically *have* come from both sides of the political spectrum. It's just that Democrats have largely been in the throes of a giant intellectual brain cramp for the last generation or so.
30292. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:50:51 PM
janjon - I really have found that my new method of addressing JJ (namely, not) works to a T.
It is welcome relief from your normal, "I don't believe it. I don't believe it. I don't believe it. I don't care what your source is if I don't agree with it, I don't believe it." Feel free to continue to not address me.
30293. Cellar Door - 6/5/2000 2:08:02 PM
It's just that Democrats have largely been in the throes of a giant intellectual brain cramp for the last generation or so.
A lot easier to deal with than the giant Sequia lodged up Republican butts.
30294. jexster - 6/5/2000 4:21:11 PM
Enuf polemic for me today. There is a limit to the number of Republicans I can or need to "destroy" in one day believe it or not.
On a higher plane, a thought provoking article by Amitai Etzioni, GWU Sociologist on the overblown fears of racial diversity and conflict in the US.
Here
30295. jexster - 6/5/2000 4:26:43 PM
JJB - I think that my Message # 30281 is sufficient proffer of the essential elements WRT the relevance of Spud's comments. We can slice and dice about whether his charges were compelling, convincing, complete or something less but relevant they were.
30296. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 4:27:20 PM
jex - There is a limit to the number of Republicans I can or need to "destroy" in one day believe it or not.
You are indeed a funny man. BTW, we'll let you know when you "destroy" your first.
30297. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 4:33:59 PM
Jex - #30281 is just another example of your penchant for meaningless insults. It isn't a "proffer" of anything. If you think Spuds comments were relevant, you don't understand which subject was under discussion. No one was debating whether there are right-wing extremists on the radio. The debate was on whether Clinton was only attacking them or whether he was attacking critics of his administration in general.
30298. janjon - 6/5/2000 4:34:41 PM
jex - Tiger Woods is indeed a harbinger of our future.
Question - is there anyone here who doesn't have as friends or at least know well enough to know their names a multi-racial couple/family?
30299. jexster - 6/5/2000 4:50:08 PM
and my answer to you is that while you may disagree over whether Clinton's comments were overbroad or not Spud's point is nonetheless well taken.
The GOP has found allies, very staunch allies, and managed to elect persons of influence and power to positions of high responsibility who make comments that feed intolerance, hate, "militia" mentality - case in point, in recent point the NRA antics of Heston & LaPierre and its connection with another GOP theme of hostility to government which leads to government is evil etc etc etc ... Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott are certainly not fully complict "conspirators" if you will but if you cannot see the connection between their rhetoric and conduct and that of the OKC bombers then I cannot help you.
It does not mean that Spud's comments were irrelevant or can be easily dismissed as you seem very inclined to do.
30300. jexster - 6/5/2000 4:50:46 PM
and my answer to you is that while you may disagree over whether Clinton's comments were overbroad or not Spud's point is nonetheless well taken.
The GOP has found allies, very staunch allies, and managed to elect persons of influence and power to positions of high responsibility who make comments that feed intolerance, hate, "militia" mentality - case in point, in recent point the NRA antics of Heston & LaPierre and its connection with another GOP theme of hostility to government which leads to government is evil etc etc etc ... Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott are certainly not fully complict "conspirators" if you will but if you cannot see the connection between their rhetoric and conduct and that of the OKC bombers then I cannot help you.
It does not mean that Spud's comments were irrelevant or can be easily dismissed as you seem very inclined to do.
30301. jexster - 6/5/2000 4:55:01 PM
JJB - the accusation that I search and destroy people who disagree with me is yours not mine so either be prepared to live with your bullshit and the possibility of having it thrown back in your face or don't peddle it either way not my problem
30302. EricCartman - 6/5/2000 4:57:49 PM
It's just that Democrats have largely been in the throes of a giant intellectual brain cramp for the last generation or so.
Spoken like a true "centrist".
30303. janjon - 6/5/2000 4:59:37 PM
Yes. I made a mental note that the Zogby poll will be skewed for a while. (Actually, I suspect they saw right through this "centrist" charade.)
30304. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:01:33 PM
janjon - I agree Tiger Woods is our future and it can't come to soon for my taste. There are probably a dozen or so multi-racial couples/families among my friends and extended family. Technically speaking, my immediate family is multi-racial in more ways than one.
An interesting piece of info: A couple we are good friends with is bi-racial. He's black, and she's white. They had a child who was born with birth defects. When they traced back their family trees, they found they had a common ancester several generations back.
30305. jexster - 6/5/2000 5:03:28 PM
Assuming the report is true, Gore is guilty of not paying
attention to the operation of his property holdings and relying to much on property managers. Granted he has had other concerns, but does that absolve him of responsibility?
No he's not unless you first posit that he should be checking in regularly with his tenants to see whether his agents who have full authority and responsibility to perform their management functions are seeing to it that toilets flush properly.
I daresay that no private property owner of any kind is ever charged with such a duty in such circumstances much less the Vice President of the United States. Of course at the point that he becomes aware of the problem or should become aware of it he should do something about it and apparently he did.
Even if he didn't so fuckin what? Unless you are a GOP whack job the report is, to use your words, "irrelevant", "trivial", "overblown" bullshit.
Once again, an example of the GOP penchant for creating something out of nothing.
30306. jexster - 6/5/2000 5:07:31 PM
Question - is there anyone here who doesn't have as friends or at
least know well enough to know their names a multi-racial
couple/family?
My first cousin married and since divorced a black guy. Part of the kinship chain runs through rural Louisiana albeit the non-white trash heritage if that's meaningful.
I cannot say that the birth of their child was greeted with unrestrained joy but neither can I report that the relatives did not diligently work to overcome their queasiness.
30307. janjon - 6/5/2000 5:07:52 PM
If nothing else good happens out of this election (which promises to be not only verrrrry dirty but invasive as hell since both camps are going to spend money like never before), there will be a lot of positive attention paid to Hispanics. Color will be everywhere.
30308. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:13:27 PM
Jex - the accusation that I search and destroy people who disagree with me is yours not mine
It's not mine. You don't have the power to destroy anyone but yourself.
The GOP has found allies, very staunch allies, and managed to elect persons of influence and power to positions of high responsibility who make comments that feed intolerance, hate, "militia" mentality . . . but if you cannot see the connection between their rhetoric and conduct and that of the OKC bombers then I cannot help you.
If you believe crap like, please do not try to help me. I have no desire to catch whatever it is you have. What you say does support my point. Clinton was attacking any vocal opposition to his Adminstration, and he was blaming them for them for deaths in OK City. As I pointed out to Spuds, this is no different from the things he condemns Liddy and the others for. The difference is that Clinton was doing it from the bully pulpit and not on a syndicated radio show.
30309. spudboy - 6/5/2000 5:13:46 PM
JJ:
Well, Arky is right. You are a deluded, pompous, self-serving shit-for-brains, and my patience has run out with you.
My posts were entirely relevant, you sack of shit. They provided were specific instances of the kinds of extremism Clinton was addressing. And they are only a small sample of it. There's a gigantic pile of it. I could fill this thread for several days with it.
More to the point, not only were your responses irrelevant, they were as vaporous as cotton candy. Let's go over your nonsense:
From Message # 30277:
He has argued that the President's speech after the OK City bombing was a courageous stand against a few extreme broadcasters. I argued that the appearances by members of his staff on various talk shows where they used to same rhetoric the President used to attack mainstream Republicans and conservatives, showed that the President was not referring only to those few individuals but rather it was aimed at his vocal opposition.
Rather than address that issue he started quoting Liddy.
I trust that everyone here can see this a twisted version of events. Look at the posts. I first argued that Clinton's speech was accurate and on the money in Message # 30131. You responded in Message # 30139, briefly mentioning "a campaign by Clinton and his aides attacking Republicans and conservative talk show hosts." But more specifically, you asked for examples of the hate speech.
30310. spudboy - 6/5/2000 5:15:59 PM
I provided them in Message # 30145-Message # 30148. I quoted numerous talk-show hosts, and not merely Liddy. And then I provided more detail in Message # 30171-Message # 30172.
Two full days later, on a day when it's obvious I'm not about, you finally responded with Message # 30238. Now let's take a good look at that.
It is, as usual, full of the good vague Biener claims that he never seems able to back up. I'm particularly taken with this assertion: During the preceding year Clinton, Begala, Carville, Davis and others in Clinton's Adminstration appeared regularly on television calling mainstream Republicans and conservative talk-show hosts "far-right extremists", "arch-conservatives", "promoters of hate", "divisive", "paranoid", et al.
Compare this, Biener, with my previous posts, particularly Message # 30145 and the subsequent material. Unlike you, I provide specific quotes, along with the dates and the places where they were said. There's no vagueness about my posts. They are specific and substantive. Yours, by contrast, are vague and unsubstantiated.
Time to put up or shut up, Biener. You need to come up with some actual quotes, and some specific cites, to demonstrate that Clinton's little minions were using the same kind of language in the year preceding Oklahoma City to demonize conservatives that Clinton used in the Minneapolis speech. This is your claim. You've done nothing to substantiate it.
I'm calling your bluff, you chickenshit weenie. I can demonstrate that my posts both are substantive and are obviously relevant. Let's see you do the same.
30311. concerned - 6/5/2000 5:23:41 PM
Re. 30302 -
EC -
You misunderstand. Being a centrist means I can slam both political parties, not that I'm obligated to give "equal time" or not criticize at all. Notice how I recently questioned GWB's putative stance on Kosovo.
30312. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:24:39 PM
Jex - No he's not unless you first posit that he should be checking in regularly with his tenants to see whether his agents who have full authority and responsibility to perform their management functions are seeing to it that toilets flush properly.
If it is his property, it is his responsibility.
I daresay that no private property owner of any kind is ever charged with such a duty in such circumstances
Then you would be wrong.
Even if he didn't so fuckin what?
The point has been made. No matter what Gore is guilty of, you will be a loyal partisan following blindly. The only time you care about a person's legal or moral failings is when it can be exploited for political purposes.
Once again, an example of the GOP penchant for creating something out of nothing.
Something out of nothing? You mean like when Democrats tried to claim the Bush's were anti-Semitic because W broke off an engagement with a "Jewish" girl in college? Your hypocrisy is truly astonishing. It is only exceeded by your arrogance.
30313. jexster - 6/5/2000 5:24:52 PM
JJB - you are a dissembling, cowardly, little fuck wad. You in fact did make the statement that I seek to destroy etc etc etc.
I won't bother to find the post and watch one more tired episode of you trying to squirm like some pathetic slug away from your own statements.
The evidence is becoming pathetically cumulative.
30314. jexster - 6/5/2000 5:26:08 PM
Either lie in your shit Beiner or don't dish it in the first place.
30315. jexster - 6/5/2000 5:30:45 PM
If it is his property it is his responsibility to pay for fixing the fucking toilet but that is not what you said
You said that he was further responsible for failing to supervise his agent.
That is what you said and that is a crock of horseshit.
What's even more pathetic is your effort to make this out to be a matter of any significance.
30316. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 5:33:28 PM
Jex- FWIW, I often enjoy your turns of phrase. You reach a point of utter disgust with JJ's bromidic blather and then you relax and let loose -- great fun, what!!
30317. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:50:16 PM
Spud - Jesus-Fucking-Christ!! You pull this bullshit and you are upset with me for calling you on it? Un-fucking-believable.
My posts were entirely relevant, you sack of shit. They provided were specific instances of the kinds of extremism Clinton was addressing.
I never disputed that there were people on the radio saying those things, you moron. That was never the fucking point.
I first argued that Clinton's speech was accurate and on the money in Message # 30131.
It was only "accurate and on the money" if we assume your narrow interpretation of his words is accurate. The problem is your interpretation is bullshit.
You responded in Message # 30139, briefly mentioning "a campaign by Clinton and his aides attacking Republicans and conservative talk show hosts."
That was the whole fucking point. There is no way you can claim Clinton meant one thing when the history to that point shows he meant something else.
Two full days later, on a day when it's obvious I'm not about, you finally responded with Message # 30238.
It was obvious? LOL! I didn't post for two days, because I wasn't online for two days. If I didn't respond you would accuse me of running away. When I do respond, that is not good enough for you either.
30318. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:50:26 PM
Unlike you, I provide specific quotes, along with the dates and the places where they were said.
Where the fuck were you in '94 and '95? You don't remember the hundreds of times Republicans and conservatives were attacked on national television by Clinton's henchmen? We aren't talking about syndicated radio shows. We are talking national television, and you don't remember? No. Not possible. This is just one more example of your bullshit. You know how hard it to track down transcripts of television shows that are 5-6 years old, so this is just a dodge so you don't have to admit your wrong. You want transcripts? Give me some time and I will find some.
30319. janjon - 6/5/2000 5:53:44 PM
Time is priceless, but abundant. So they say.
30320. EricCartman - 6/5/2000 5:54:58 PM
Concerned:
Being a centrist means I can slam both political parties, not that I'm obligated to give "equal time" or not criticize at all. Notice how I recently questioned GWB's putative stance on Kosovo.
Well, I certainly agree with that definition, since that is my MO as well. However, the only recent times you have "slammed" Republicans, that I can recall, were the disagreement w/Bush on Kosovo (as you pointed out), and what seemed to be a rather inexplicably heated series of attacks on "McKeating".
IOW, nothing remotely comparable to your regular diatribes against the "WH Rapist" and "Pinocchio Bore". I get a cheap grin out your use of such names, personally, but let's be honest -- you'd rather vote for a bad Republican than a good Democrat, were such a choice to actually face you.
Wizard:
If you enjoy Jexster's current level of invective, you should check out the Serbia thread in the Frárchive, wherever that is these days. Jex is only lately beginning to appraoch his level of goose-stepping he hit last year in full Waffen stride.
BTW, I keep meaning to tell you this -- I dig the pics. Not necessarily on a partisan basis, they're just funny to begin with.
30321. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:59:23 PM
Jex - You in fact did make the statement that I seek to destroy etc etc etc. 30322. spudboy - 6/5/2000 6:00:14 PM JJ: 30323. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 6:18:45 PM Eric- Thanks for your response; I appreciate it. Actually, I'm not as partisan as I am a rascal -- the right take themselves sooo seriously -- I feel like the court jester who keeps the King mindful of his humanity [...and ultimate demise of course]. 30324. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:29:18 PM Perhaps the conversation has moved on. 30325. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 6:30:17 PM How about something of Albore as a slumlord then, Mr. Whimey. 30326. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:31:33 PM Have you proof of this statement, Rosie? 30327. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:31:39 PM If there is one thing that I do NOT think is true it is that the Vice President would have ANGRILY called the tenant today. No way. 30328. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:32:07 PM Judith. We really do think alike a lot, don't we. 30329. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 6:33:35 PM Vice President Al Gore called Tracy Mayberry Monday afternoon to say he was mad at her for speaking to the press about his failure to make repairs on the house she rents on Gore's Carthage, Tenn., farm. The call left Mayberry's family in tears. 30330. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:34:19 PM Was this call taped? I hope so. 30331. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:35:35 PM Lucianne Goldberg is probably already on her way to Carthage. This Mayberry lady sounds like a real candidate for a makeover, ala Paula and/or Linda. 30332. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:35:48 PM Tracy doesn't need to talk bad about Gore...she can depend on people like Rosetta to do that. 30333. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:36:58 PM janjon: 30334. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:38:01 PM judith. Just the opposite. 30335. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:38:27 PM except for that silly Survivor, of course. 30336. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:42:12 PM Okay...you can have that point! 30337. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:43:25 PM I never go to TT. Where do people from here hang out there? 30338. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:48:59 PM Different place...I like the TV folder and Arts. Also, I am in one thread in Health. I'm not sure where everyone else hangs, though I usually run into CalGal in the TV threads. We like many of the same shows. 30339. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:49:40 PM Make that "different placeS". 30340. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 7:06:08 PM Spuds - You dishonest, puling little smidge of smegma. I'm not "pulling bullshit." 30341. spudboy - 6/5/2000 7:11:58 PM Have at it, big boy. We'll be waiting. 30342. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 7:13:10 PM janjon - Perhaps the conversation has moved on. 30343. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 7:14:50 PM Spuds - Though I won't exactly be holding my breath. 30344. spudboy - 6/5/2000 7:20:35 PM JJ -- 30345. concerned - 6/5/2000 7:23:08 PM Re. 30327 - 30346. Cellar Door - 6/5/2000 8:52:05 PM Dubbya is Eddie Haskell. Buchanan is Snidely Whiplash. Gore is Dudley Do-Right and Hillary is Nell Fenwick. 30347. Cellar Door - 6/5/2000 8:52:45 PM concerned is Rhoda Penmark. 30348. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 9:06:20 PM I was at Lackland Air Force Base in 1967 and Jerry Mathers was in the adjacent barracks to mine then. Whenever his flight would march by, our drill instructor gave us permission to whistle the theme toLeave It To Beaver. It really steamed his DI. Mathers was in the California Air National Guard and there for basic training. The Shrub must have been there around that time also. They onlyshowedthe obstacle course to the Air Guard pilot trainees then -- they didn't have to run it. Not much has changed I guess. 30349. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 11:51:55 PM 30350. robertjayb - 6/6/2000 12:22:54 AM . 30351. janjon - 6/6/2000 11:18:00 AM I see that trapped mice occasionally turn fiesty instead of just running around to and fro trying to escape the glare. 30352. janjon - 6/6/2000 11:20:42 AM robertj - one of the (several) significant reasons why those laws haven't been modified is the now quite significant prisons-mean-good-jobs lobby. This not only includes the companies that build and supply prisons, but also the various communities around the state that have discovered what a boost a prison is for the local economy. All that good money flowing in and the bad guys and girls are still out of sight/out of mind. Especially if those prisons are built extra strong etc etc. 30353. bubbaette - 6/6/2000 11:48:08 AM Prisons can be seen as an economic development tool in very depressed areas. Other than that, they're NIMBY's to most areas. 30354. Ronski - 6/6/2000 11:54:01 AM janjon, 30355. janjon - 6/6/2000 12:06:05 PM Ronski - I never said that the prison building boom was THE reason our drug laws haven't been changed. They are certainly A reason, however. Those builders lobby and they spend $$$$. 30356. Ronski - 6/6/2000 12:48:48 PM 30357. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/6/2000 1:53:59 PM No, only pinheads do... 30358. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:13:58 PM Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer, concluded that §26.10.160(3), as applied to Granville and her family, violates her due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters. Pp. 5-17. 30359. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:16:39 PM Indy - you might as well use a hat with little pieces of paper this early but here goes my WildAssGuess 30360. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:21:10 PM Item from yesterday's news: 30361. bubbaette - 6/6/2000 2:28:30 PM Today's Richmond Times-Disgrace carries two editorials decrying the decision to return Elian to his dad. So much for the republican committment to family values and the importance of fathers in their children's lives. Something of a surprise from the party that just last year was championing a constitutional amendment in my state to protect parents' rights. 30362. Cellar Door - 6/6/2000 4:23:04 PM When you're a Republican you can say anything you like. It doesn't have to make sense. The press and the judiciary are in your pocket. 30363. JJBiener - 6/6/2000 5:26:58 PM Spuds - Here are a few quotes that demonstrate my point. I would provide more but there aren't many archives that go back that far. I don't have the benefit of working for a news station. 30364. JJBiener - 6/6/2000 5:31:51 PM Bubbaette - So much for the republican committment to family values and the importance of fathers in their children's lives. 30365. JJBiener - 6/6/2000 5:32:45 PM Cellar - When you're a Republican you can say anything you like. It doesn't have to make sense. 30366. JudithAtHome - 6/6/2000 5:53:33 PM So, JJ...if I understand your last comment, you admit some Republicans don't make sense? Well, I don't think Cellar IS a Republican but I certainly think you are. 30367. Cellar Door - 6/6/2000 6:00:16 PM Just because I fucked Republicans doesn't make me one of them. 30368. spudboy - 6/6/2000 6:00:57 PM JJ: 30369. spudboy - 6/6/2000 6:01:30 PM And, just in case you or anyone else here missed his ultimate point, let's repeat it: 30370. JJBiener - 6/6/2000 6:04:30 PM Spud - I knew nothing I could come up with would convince you. 30371. spudboy - 6/6/2000 6:17:16 PM While you're here, JJ, I'd also like to respond to your earlier Message # 30160 particularly: You did your typical, "He says X, but I know he really believes Y because I am the great and powerful Spud and I know what evil lurks in hearts of men. And some women, too, but their [sic] tougher." 30372. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:02:07 AM In the race for the White House, George Bush leads Gore in the popular vote 44.3% to 34.0%. Nader has 2.5%, Buchanan has 2.1%, Browne 1.1%, and Phillips 0.4%. These results from a nightly Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll reflect interviews conducted June 3, 4, and 5. 30373. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:11:11 AM Re. 30362 - 30374. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:16:50 AM According to cllrdr's own 'reasoning' in 30362, he's a Republican. 30375. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:22:06 AM Clinton refers to "abject hatred" and "bitter words" and "promoters of paranoia" and "loud and angry voices" -- "whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable." 30376. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:27:30 AM Re. 30374 - 30377. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:29:44 AM Spuds - This was the essay in which you noted that you had little objection to Duke's positions 30378. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:30:34 AM Spuds - (Cont) A couple of times in the recent past you have wondered aloud who I would have voted for in 1992. This yet another example of why you are a lying sack of shit. You already know the answer because I told you several times. You will probably claim I never answered, but it would be just one more lie on the pile. 30379. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:35:14 AM Re. 30377 - 30380. Cellar Door - 6/7/2000 12:54:48 AM And your position re the Republicans, Connie, is with your legs over your head. The oft-cited notion that the press voted for Clinton, and therefor consists entirely of Communists, has been disproved time and time again. They're all Republicans now. Don't you watch TV? 30381. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 8:37:18 AM Re: Message # 30367, Cellar Door. 30382. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 8:44:59 AM "Not everyone holds an absolutist position like you do. Most people 30383. iiibbb - 6/7/2000 9:46:41 AM Re: Spuds/JJ's back and forth action. 30384. iiibbb - 6/7/2000 9:55:37 AM The republican party should have disowned Duke. He was too fringe. 30385. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 10:15:22 AM 30386. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 10:31:22 AM Bubbaette - the principle of hating communism and sticking it to Castro is more important than a father's right to his son. Real rational 30387. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 10:37:02 AM iiibbb - Does the fact that a racist supports some policy (for whatever whacked out reason) automatically make that policy stand undesirable? 30388. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 11:11:28 AM I wasn't sure where to post this little tidbit, but I figured we could stand to lighten the mood around here. 30389. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 11:14:35 AM JJ even most of the Republicans have abandoned you in your belief that the child should be kept from his father because Cuba is evil. Eighty percent of the population doesn't agree that ideology is more important than paternity. 30390. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 11:42:20 AM JJ- "The principle is whether a father's right to his son allows him to sacrifice his son's freedom. 30391. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 11:42:31 AM Bubbaette - Republicans have abandoned you in your belief that the child should be kept from his father because Cuba is evil. 30392. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 11:51:06 AM Wiz - It's YOUR opinion that he would be sacrificing the child's freedom because of what YOU believe, JJ. 30393. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 11:56:04 AM JJ: 30394. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:01:41 PM Judith - Yes, but their blood pressure is higher. On occasion even I have to blow off steam, and this is the best forum to do that. Besides, it seems like there are some people here who do not understand anything else. 30395. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:02:53 PM Judith - BTW, what do you think of the NRA sponsoring a Mastercard? 30396. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 12:13:29 PM #30392 JJ- Your avoidance of my point is revealing. When you address my point directly, without evasive questions or fictitious rumors about "hoses." 30397. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 12:13:42 PM Evidently, pointing out inconsistancy in stated positions of Republicans, or insulting the Miami Cubans is a personal insult in JJ's eyes. 30398. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 12:19:29 PM My last post should have read: our avoidance of my point is revealing. When you address my point directly, without evasive questions or fictitious rumors about "hoses," I'll address your questions. 30399. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 12:20:18 PM Nuts! our =your 30400. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 12:24:58 PM JJ: 30401. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 12:32:31 PM J@H: 30402. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:34:01 PM Wiz - Your avoidance of my point is revealing. 30403. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:48:53 PM Bubbaette - Evidently, pointing out inconsistancy in stated positions of Republicans, or insulting the Miami Cubans is a personal insult in JJ's eyes. 30404. Cellar Door - 6/7/2000 12:52:51 PM The question is, J.J. would you? Were American blacks justified in demanding an end to Jim Crow or were they merely "playing the victim card" in an effort to win "special rights"? 30405. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 12:54:13 PM Ducky: 30406. Cellar Door - 6/7/2000 12:56:26 PM 30407. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 12:56:28 PM JJ-"Unless I am misreading your post, you are claiming that the lack of freedom in Cuba is only my opinion. To which I inquired about your beliefs. Do you believe there is freedom in Cuba? " 30408. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:57:24 PM Judith - A KKK Mastercard? I never thought of that. I can see it now. 30409. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 12:58:27 PM Most times? 51%? JJ...you would allow gubmint interference in the raising of your family if some "official(s)" determined that someone else with more money, better health, correct politics, state-popularly approved religion, more accepted legal/criminal record etc would be a better parent(s)? How "liberal" you have become...imagine the power that would join the gov if such legalized actions could trump our family/personal structure. 30410. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:04:24 PM Cellar - The question is, J.J. would you? Were American blacks justified in demanding an end to Jim Crow or were they merely "playing the victim card" in an effort to win "special rights"? 30411. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 1:07:59 PM "If he has other opinions, he will be in great danger." 30412. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 1:09:07 PM Re: Message # 30405, JudithAtHome. 30413. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 1:11:10 PM They don't get much smarmier than Noonan. She can make a pit viper's skin crawl! 30414. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 1:12:35 PM PP- EGGGZACKLY! 30415. OhioSTOPAS - 6/7/2000 1:12:49 PM I agree with Psychprof's Message # 30409. 30416. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:17:33 PM Wiz - try to focus on the father's love and his desire to have his son with him; then you may see MY point and how it must trump any other "principle". 30417. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 1:18:46 PM "you would allow gubmint interference in the raising of your family if some "official(s)" determined that someone else with more money, better health, correct politics, state-popularly approved religion, more accepted legal/criminal record etc would be a better parent(s)? 30418. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 1:22:58 PM JJ...indeed parents are not allowed carte blanche in the treatment of their child. However...you seem to not realize the implications of child removal from a fam
I may have said you seek to destroy. I don't remember saying it, but it could be true. I never said you
You said that he was further responsible for failing to supervise his agent
A person is responsible for the actions taken on his behalf by his agent. Gore is responsible for the conditions of the buildings he owns and your trying to pass off responsibility to someone else is really pathetic.
What's even more pathetic is your effort to make this out to be a matter of any significance.
It is what it is. If it isn't significant why are you so desperate to dismiss it? Why are so passionate to absove him?
You dishonest, puling little smidge of smegma. I'm not "pulling bullshit." I'm giving you specific facts and cited material and letting you try to counter it with similar facts. All you've been able to come up with so far is an imaginary scenario wherein you manage to mind-read the motives behind what Clinton actually said -- claiming that in fact he meant precisely the opposite -- by referring to things his aides supposedly said, but which you can't cite. If anyone's pulling bullshit here, Bucky, it's that fellow in your mirror. You know, the person who "seldom provides substantive replies."
I provided transcripts from talk shows. You should be able to do the same. Cry me a fucking river if you have to work at it. I did too.
The angry Vice President called the tenant today to yell at her for the "leaks."
"I talked to Al Gore earlier and he really had me upset," Mayberry told WABC-TV radio talk host Sean Hannity. "He said that I was talking really bad about him and I haven't been. I just told the truth."
Yes, we do think along the same lines quite often. That's fine by me...hope you aren't worried!
Seriously, I got into some deep in-fighting over that show in TT today.
It is exactly what you are doing, you lying sack of water buffalo spit.
I'm giving you specific facts and cited material
That are completely irrelevant. I have never disputed that those people exist. The issue is whether Clinton was only referring to those people or if his statement was intended to accuse his opposition.
All you've been able to come up with so far is an imaginary scenario wherein you manage to mind-read the motives behind what Clinton actually said -- claiming that in fact he meant precisely the opposite -- by referring to things his aides supposedly said, but which you can't cite.
This is more of your bullshit. You are the one doing the mind reading tricks claiming he was referring to a small, specific group of people when he was using broad, non-specific language. Are you really claiming you don't remember the constant barrage from Carville, Begala, Davis as well as Clinton and Gore where they called Congressional Republicans and conservatives things like "right-wing extremists" and accused them of "promoting hate"? You really don't remember it? Where the fuck were you? Mars? I don't see how you could have missed unless you had your head up you ass that year. They were on every fucking show for over a year.
I provided transcripts from talk shows. You should be able to do the same
If you would read instead of being such a dickhead, you would have seen that I said I would do so in my last post to you.
Though I won't exactly be holding my breath.
Fuck you, too.
Was this call taped? I hope so.
What difference would it make? You would just claim it was a fake. You have shown that no amount of evidence will cause you to change your mind. Why even bother. Whenever something damaging to your beliefs is brought up, we will just assume you don't believe it, so you don't even have to participate. Think of all the time that will free up for you.
Good. Your brain has been starved for oxygen far too often.
Better save your wit, such as it is, for your responses to Janjon. You need it.
Perhaps not outright anger. Pinocchio Bore's style is probably more Eddie Haskell with some Snidely Whiplash thrown in.
Bill Clinton, needless to say, is Dudley's horse.
Enter your predictions now:
1. Percentage of popular vote for Gore (of votes cast for either him or Bush)
2. Electoral votes for Gore
3. Democratic House members in the next Congress
4. Democratic Senators in the next Congress
Each answer above will receive as many points for that question as entries that made worse guesses. (So if you say Gore gets 52 percent of the popular vote, and he gets 53, you score 1 for each person who missed it by more than 1 point).
5. Single point question: Hillary or Lazio?
The deadline for entry is midnight Labor Day. Until then, you may enter as often as you like, but only your last entry will count.
In the event of a tie between two Motiers, the earlier entry wins.
Email your entries to IndianaJones@resourceful.com. Winner and prize announced when election results are final.
Drug Laws That Misfired
"For more than a quarter-century, New York has imposed some of the toughest, most rigid prison sentences on drug offenders. But there is now ample proof that these laws, enacted under Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, have not cut drug trafficking or addiction. Instead, their main effect has been to fill state prisons with thousands of low-level drug users at enormous public cost. Even some of the original sponsors of these laws have come to agree that it is time to find a better approach." (NYTimes)
Nah. The drug laws are not changed because politicians fear opponents will demogogue them on the issue.
As important as prisons have become to the upstate economy, the two are not related.
The political fallout is of course a potent reason as well. I thought we were close to having a "bipartisan" deal on all of this a couple of years ago, but that for whatever his reasons Pataki then pulled the plug.
I've never heard of any builders lobbying in favor of tough drug laws.
(a) The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720, including parents' fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651. Pp. 5-8.
Does anyone know when the GOP clowns have set hearings on Janet Reno's violation of Elian's "fundamental rights"?
Enter your predictions now:
1. Percentage of popular vote for Gore (of votes cast for either him or Bush) Gore 49 Bush 45
2. Electoral votes for Gore 300
3. Democratic House members in the next Congress 216
4. Democratic Senators in the next Congress 48
Each answer above will receive as many points for that question as entries that made worse guesses. (So if you say Gore gets 52 percent of the popular vote, and he gets 53, you score 1 for each person who missed it by more than 1 point).
5. Single point question: Hillary or Lazio? Charlemagne's consort
According to the WHO, the US, which spends more per capita on health care than any other country, is 27th in life expectancy. The lowest income brackets in the US have a life expectancy lower than that of West Africa in the 1950's. But the top income brackets in the US have the highest life expectancy of any nation.
So the next time you hear the Moron prattle on about health care remember "trickle down" economics (aka "voodoo econ 101") - trickle down = tinkled on
Begala
"hate sheet, full of lies." (referring to a five-page document by Republicans detail their objections to ClintonCare, Jan 1994)
"Republican's running for Congress represent the voices of hatred in our society." (Sept 1994)
Schumer
"Its best accomplishments were stopping the Republican extreme majority " (CNN, Sept 1996)
"Republicans have presented an extreme agenda." (Oct 1994)
Clinton
"But this week the Republican Congress voted to enact an extreme budget that violates our values" (1996 Radio Address)
"[Newt Gingrich is] dangerous and extreme" (Bill Clinton fundraising letter, written by the president mid-1995)
"There were a lot of angry voices who spoke out in this election." (Comments after the election, 1994)
Panetta
"[The Republican Party] basically takes the attitude that you have to harm children in order to save them," (Oct 24, 1995)
"Republicans had declared a contract on America and took over Congress with the intent to attack Medicare, Children, and the Environment. (1997)
Carville
"The Contract on America is a far right-wing agenda" (Jan 1995)
"The Republicans are trying to divide this country into rich and poor." (Jan 1995)
Not everyone holds an absolutist position like you do. Most people are able to understand that principles must be applied to the situation and on occasion exceptions must be made to serve other principles. I guess it is just more fun for you to make idiotic comments rather than apply a little thought to the situation.
I guess that makes you a Republican.
(They're ALL sleazy, manipulative bottoms, BTW)
Good work. However, it has some severe shortcomings.
Calling the other side of an issue "extremist" is hardly anything new. The GOP, after all, has made the word go virtually hand in glove with "environmental" for the past 10 years. And they have applied it liberally to anyone opposing them -- homosexuals, most notably. And don't forget that Bob Dole labeled Clinton an "extremist" in the 1996 campaign.
However, this is not what Clinton did in that speech. Read it again. The word "extremist" does not appear. Clinton refers to "abject hatred" and "bitter words" and "promoters of paranoia" and "loud and angry voices" -- "whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."
Only a single one of your examples -- Begala's "loud and angry voices" remark -- bears even the slightest resemblance to anything Clinton said later in that speech.
While both sides trade the typical charges of "extremism," no one in any of your examples accuses anyone, particularly not the administration's mainstream critics, of promoting paranoia or suggesting that violence is an acceptable solution. However, in the several examples I provided in Message # 30145-Message # 30148, the voices I cite there obviously do just that.
If they insist on being irresponsible with our common liberties, then we must be all the more responsible with our liberties. When they talk of hatred, we must stand against them. When they talk of violence, we must stand against them. When they say things that are irresponsible, that may have egregious consequences, we must call them on it. The exercise of their freedom of speech makes our silence all the more unforgivable. So exercise yours, my fellow Americans. Our country, our future, our way of life is at stake. I never want to look into the faces of another set of family members like I saw yesterday -- and you can help to stop it.
I have to tell you that I am flummoxed that you or anyone from the mainstream could object to this. Unless you happen to have been one of those voices that promoted violence -- in which case, you should be on the defensive.
Well, I could go back through the post and provide supporting evidence for everything I said. David Duke, as most people who have studied him can tell you, has made a high art out of mainstreaming his radicalism. He can present himself and his agenda couched in such a way as to appear perfectly reasonable and mainstream. And if you track his words back to other writings and speeches where he is less vague and more overtly revolutionary, the actual intent becomes quite clear.
I find it hilarious, pathetic and more than a little disturbing that you, a Jewish man, refuse either to understand this or believe it. But let's just use one instance as a stark example.
Go back to the essay in question: 10 Policies David Duke Supports
This was the essay in which you noted that you had little objection to Duke's positions, until I began pointing out what he really means in them.
Go to No. 7: Stop Forced Integration!
Please explain to me how this position jibes with yours.
The Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Survey has been updated to include six Presidential candidates including George W. Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, and Howard Phillips. Earlier surveys had simply asked about “some other candidate.”
This change in methodology had little impact on support for Democratic candidate Al Gore. However, it did lead to a modest increase in support for Republican candidate George W. Bush. It is possible that this reflects the fact that some people were still thinking of John McCain as a possible “other” candidate. When confronted with a list of candidates, these voters may have selected Bush.
Can you say "landslide"? I knew you could.
But, look at the bright side for Pinocchio Bore. 34% is pretty damned good for a slumlord.
Gee whiz, cllrdr. You're trying to say that the 91% of the press which voted for the WH Rapist is in the Republicans' pocket?
Sheesh.
Talk about self-referential statements. But divisive drivel like this is SOP for psychopathic personalities such as the WH Rapist.
I just noticed that JJ made this same point. Cllrdr certainly left himself wide open for it, though.
Your bullshit get's so tiresome. That is never what I said and you know it. My objections have been well established. The only comment I made about the Duke Top Ten list is that he was promoting mainstream ideas in an attempt to gain some respectability. Obviously that didn't work and he has returned to his old tricks, but for a time he was trying to pass himself off as a conservative/populist.
You were in your "He says this, but he really means that" mode. To which I respond, "Who the fuck cares?" It is David Duke. The man is a lizard. I don't give a flying fuck what he says.
His support for an issue is irrelevant to the worthiness of issue. His support for campaign finance reform and opposition to affirmative action says nothing about either issue. It doesn't matter what he really believes about either one. In other words your little attempts to discredit my positions by claiming they are the same as a racist's are nothing but bullshit. By that criteria, Gore's position on Campaign Finance is the same as Duke's so it must be discredited as well. Funny that you never make that comparison.
I find it hilarious, pathetic and more than a little disturbing that you, a Jewish man, refuse either to understand this or believe it.
I find it unbelievable that a mainstream news organization would hire such a twisted, lying, little fuck like you. You know the truth because we have discussed it on numerous occasions, and you can still post crap like this.
I am glad you are a Democrat. You deserve each other.
Pinocchio Bore has a 'position' on campaign finance reform? It looks from here that, in practice, any position he has has always amounted to grabbing all the cash, legal and illegal, that he can. What a hypocrite.
Love your "statistics," Connie. Where'd you get 'em from -- Brit Hume?
Tell me now -- should we even bother having an election? It's all so tiresome. Why don;t we just skip the whole thing and have Dubbya declared Emperor for Life?
After all, isn;t that what's supposed to happen?
"(They're ALL sleazy, manipulative bottoms, BTW)"
were i still a republican, i'd have to disagree.
somewhat.
i was never that manipulative ;)
are able to understand that principles must be applied to the situation and on occasion exceptions must be made to serve other principles. I guess it is just more fun for you to make idiotic comments rather than apply a little thought to the situation."
Yeah, I get it -- the principle of hating communism and sticking it to Castro is more important than a father's right to his son. Real rational, JJ. Speaking of making "idiotic comments instead of applying a little thought to the situation", I think you might try to build an argument instead of foaming.
A simple hypothetical model
John and Rob's view on National Health Care (NHC)
John - doesn't believe in NHC because his view is that in light of how they've handled things like Social Security. John feels that the overhead renders SS one of the absolute poorest investments a person can make, but does not even have the option. He does not have confidence that NHC could be provided in such a way that it would be able to provide what proponents promiss.
Rob - doesn't believe in NHC because poor people are mostly black and minorities who don't deserve to even be in this country.
Does Rob's belief make John's viewpoint racist, or his reasoning invalid?
Does the fact that a racist supports some policy (for whatever whacked out reason) automatically make that policy stand undesirable?
I think you'd get yourself in a lot of trouble telling John his view on NHC meant he supported a racist belief.
If that was the principle at work, you would be right. But you know as well as I do that is not the principle involved. The principle is whether a father's right to his son allows him to sacrifice his son's freedom.
Speaking of making "idiotic comments instead of applying a little thought to the situation", I think you might try to build an argument instead of foaming.
Why don't you address the arguments being made instead of setting up strawmen?
Of course it doesn't, but that doesn't stop Spud from making that implication. It is just another aspect of the guily-by-association game he likes to play.
The republican party should have disowned Duke. He was too fringe
The GOP has disowned him. The party actively campaigned against him when he ran for Governor even though his opponent (a Democrat, natch) was a criminal. The last I heard, Duke doesn't even claim to be a Republican any more. He has moved his support to the Reform Party. Of course someone like Spud would never let the facts get in the way of a good smear campaign.
Several times a year I get the standard mailing from the NRA asking me to join and send them money. While I support the right of individuals to own guns, I choose not to. As such I see no reason for me to support the NRA financially.
Yesterday, I received a mailing from them that was a bit different. It was an application for an NRA Mastercard. It was the best laugh I've had in weeks. I figured it gave new meaning to "Don't leave home without it." I started coming up with promotional and marketing gimmicks.
"NRA Mastercard. Accepted by more illegal arms merchants worldwide."
".45 caliber handgun with extra clips and ammunition: $479
Semi-automatic rifle with conversion kit for full automatic: $1750
10 lbs C4 explosives with detonators: $8375
Being heavily armed when the revolution comes: Priceless"
"Every transaction earns points toward the purchase of weapons of mass destruction. Items capable of delivering deadly force earn double points."
"Trying to buy illegal weapons in the Middle East? Better take your NRA Mastercard. Because Ossama Bin Laden doesn't suffer fools lightly, and he doesn't take American Express."
My argument is that that the Republicans who are still making a cause out of this are being inconsistant with their other espoused beliefs w/respect to the importance of family. You say that there's an exception when a principle is at stake. I don't think that the "principle" you describe amounts to much more than the hysteria of an angry mob of Cuban expatriots willing to tear a child from his father in order to score points against Castro.
Resonable people can disagree reasonably. But if you wish to conduct debate in the terms you seem to prefer these days -- every response is a knee-jerk attempt to blame the evils of the world on Democrats in as insulting language as you think others will tolerate -- I'd just as soon not participate.
That's not theprinciple at issue here. It's YOUR opinion that he would be sacrificing the child's freedom because of what YOU believe, JJ. The real issue is a father's right to do what HE believes is best for his son. It's youreither/ormind set at work again. The boy may very well be better off with his father, in poverty and restrictive realities, if genuine love and a paternal bonds are shared. And who is to know what harm may come from a rapacious culture of vindictive Castro-hating extremists? You certainly can't say!
I don't believe Cuba is evil. It is a repressive totalitarian regime. There is a difference.
Eighty percent of the population doesn't agree that ideology is more important than paternity.
First I don't base my beliefs on what is popular. Second, this isn't about ideology. It is about freedom vs slavery.
My argument is that that the Republicans who are still making a cause out of this are being inconsistant with their other espoused beliefs w/respect to the importance of family.
Then you don't understand Republican's beliefs. In most cases keeping the family together is in the best interests of the child. Sometimes it is not. Republicans do not advocate keeping a family together when it is harmful to the child.
I don't think that the "principle" you describe amounts to much more than the hysteria of an angry mob of Cuban expatriots willing to tear a child from his father in order to score points against Castro.
Resonable people can disagree reasonably.
Can you see the irony of having these statements in the same post? How can you claim to be reasonable when you use language like this and simply dismiss their position?
But if you wish to conduct debate in the terms you seem to prefer these days -- every response is a knee-jerk attempt to blame the evils of the world on Democrats in as insulting language as you think others will tolerate -- I'd just as soon not participate.
I haven't blamed Democrats for conditions in Cuba. I do blame them for wanting to subject an innocent child to those conditions. As far as being insulting, I am not going to be insulted and not respond in kind. If you don't want to be insulted, don't engage in insults.
Do you believe there is freedom in Cuba?
The real issue is a father's right to do what HE believes is best for his son.
If a father believes it is best for his son to be beaten with a hose to teach him a lesson, we certainly wouldn't stand for that.
The boy may very well be better off with his father, in poverty and restrictive realities, if genuine love and a paternal bonds are shared.
Obviously, I place a much higher value on freedom than you do. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. However, using language like:
And who is to know what harm may come from a rapacious culture of vindictive Castro-hating extremists?
Doesn't help your case and it contradicts any claim you may make of being reasonable.
You say you are not going to be insulted and not respond in kind...why not? Isn't that the sign of the better person? To take what is heaped on you and not stoop to that level? Don't the people who refuse to be drawn into slinging mud come off looking much better than the ones who do?
The Miami-Cubans are filled with extreme hatred for Castro and my description of them was in no way unreasonble -- just galling to your zeal.
Okey dokey JJ, please ignore me from here on out and I'll do you the favor of scrolling past your posts as well.
I don't care if the NRA has a Mastercard. So long as I don't have to have one, that's fine. Wonder if people would like it if the KKK got their own card? That would be interesting.
If a thief steals an NRA credit card and runs up a big bill, at least he knows up front that the owner is armed and angry...
are you actually comparing the KKK with the NRA?
jesus, that's sad.
Which point did I avoid?
When you address my point directly, without evasive questions or fictitious rumors about "hoses."
The questions were not evasive, they respond to the substance of your post. From the original post:
It's YOUR opinion that he would be sacrificing the child's freedom because of what YOU believe, JJ.
Unless I am misreading your post, you are claiming that the lack of freedom in Cuba is only my opinion. To which I inquired about your beliefs. Do you believe there is freedom in Cuba?
The comment about hoses was a hypothetical, not a rumor.
The Miami-Cubans are filled with extreme hatred for Castro and my description of them was in no way unreasonble -- just galling to your zeal.
Were blacks justified in hating their slaveowners? Hatred of Castro by those he once enslaved is a completely reasonable response. However refering to them as "a rapacious culture of vindictive Castro-hating extremists" is not. Would you have referred to Blacks in America in the 50's and 60's in similar terms?
The position of Republicans is not inconsistent. You just fail to understand it. The Republicans believe that the best interests of the child prevail. They believe that most times preserving the family is in the child's best interests. They do not believe family must be preserved against the interests of the child. This is hardly inconsistent. It is your characterization their position as "family at all costs" is the one that is in error.
The insulting of Cubans in Miami while calling for a reasonable discussion was too priceless to pass up. Apparently you don't feel constrained to follow your own advice.
Do I find either of these personally insulting? No. But I do recognize this statement from an earlier post of your as an attempt at a personal insult:
I think you might try to build an argument instead of foaming.
Granted it is a rather weak and ineffectual insult, but I think it still qualifies nonetheless. If you don't like receiving them, don't make them. Or at least make them good enough so we can laugh at them.
I have no illusions whatsoever about Castro -- especially after reading Reinaldo Areinas' "The Doorman" and "Before Night Falls." But that doesn't translate itself into support for the scummy publisexuals in Miami -- or any of the inane posturing done on the matter by, among many others, Al Gore. And don't get me started on the certifiable Peggy Noonan.
Elian will go home to a trouble-free existence. he's a prime propaganda tool for Castro. And the best way to make such a tool work to your best advantage is to leave him be. Had the Miami mafia not gone into hysterics with visions of the Virgin and the like, and instant demos for the evening news, this whole circus might not have happened.
NO, I wasn't comparing the NRA to the KKK. How old are you?
I meant that while some people might not mind the NRA having a card, they might mind some other group that sparks heated debate having a card. Not too long ago, the KKK wanted permission to Adopt A Highway and there was all sorts of debate over it. There might be the same thing if they wanted to sponsor a credit card.
BINGO -- you ARE misreading the post and overlooking my meaning to suit your intransigence.
I'm not saying anything of the sort regarding the lack of freedom in Cuba --try to focus on the father's love and his desire to have his son with him; then you may see MY point and how it must trump any other "principle."
Were blacks justified in hating their slaveowners?
[This kind of thought is what compels me to label the right as fear and hate based dogmatists.]
There is no justification for hate whatsoever -- it destroys the hater as much as the hated. Your hypotheticals aren't very compelling. Lots of slaves still managed to love and share that love while being oppressed for centuries now.
You can be exasperating, JJ. I understand better why people give up debating you -- it's like Charlie Brown hoping Lucy will abandon her basic nature and allow him to kick the football. I keep thinking you'll awaken and realize that if your only tool is a hammer -- every problem will look like a nail!
"1 dozen torches: $3.75
2 cases of Pabst Blue Ribbon in cans: $8.00
White sheet and hood: $9.50
Burning a cross with your son, your nephew and your grandson, and they are all the same person: Priceless."
Of course they were justified.
But that doesn't translate itself into support for the scummy publisexuals in Miami -- or any of the inane posturing done on the matter by, among many others, Al Gore.
The validity of an argument is not dependent on those make it. Opposing a position because you don't like the person who advocates it is silly.
Elian will go home to a trouble-free existence. he's a prime propaganda tool for Castro.
I wish I could be as sure as you. He is only a propaganda tool if he spouts the party line. If he has other opinions, he will be in great danger.
Thefearpart of the rightist motivational coefficient!
"NO, I wasn't comparing the NRA to the KKK. How old are you?"
old enough.
"I meant that while some people might not mind the NRA having a card, they might mind some other group that sparks heated debate having a card. Not too long ago, the KKK wanted permission to Adopt A Highway and there was all sorts of debate over it. There might be the same thing if they wanted to sponsor a credit card."
right. and, somehow, you're not relating the 2 organizations to the same level. riiiiight.
Furthermore, as a matter of international relations, one country should not be able to take a child away from his foreigner parent on the grounds that it is a superior country to the foreign country, even if true.
Yes, of course, the United States is better than Cuba. In fact, because of U.S. freedom and prosperity, a child would likely have a better life in the United States without his father than in Cuba with his father. But I don't think any country, even the United States, should be making that decision.
The problem is that IRL it doesn't trump all other principles. The best interests of the child trumps the love of the parents. You didn't like the hose hypothetical, here is another one. A father's religious beliefs prevent him from seeking medical help for his son. If the son's life is in danger, the government can and does step in. The father's love for his son does not allow him to act outside of the child's best interest.
[This kind of thought is what compels me to label the right as fear and hate based dogmatists.]
And as usual you would be wrong.
There is no justification for hate whatsoever -- it destroys the hater as much as the hated.
Simple platitudes are no substitute for real thought.
You can be exasperating, JJ.
Thank you.
I keep thinking you'll awaken and realize that if your only tool is a hammer -- every problem will look like a nail!
When people have their opinions encased in granite, sometimes a hammer is the only way to reach them. The right tool for the right job.
In the case in point, PP, it's not a government official making the determination, but a street mob. But I'm guessing that the gubmint should then sanction the view of whichever mob howls the loudest.