| |
Main
Date: 09 Nov 2006 05:59:04
From: S McFarlane
Subject: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
every bit as idiotic as the Republicans. The Republicans just got kicked
in the ass because they have been playing the ball way right of center for a
long time now. They've gotten away with it because of 9/11, but such things
never last forever. At long last, Joe Q. Public always wakes up to realize
that he's been on a boat being steered by ideological nutcases.
My 2 cents is, the American public will let the left nutcases get away with
a lot of silliness because of the way the Republicans have been behaving for
the last 5 years. However, the extreme left will also overplay it's hand,
as extremists are wont to do under such circumstances. For awhile, the
public will be lulled to sleep, but one fine morning, it will realize that
they don't want Nancy for Sunday dinner anymore than George. The question
is, is the Democratic caucus in the House smart enough to not vote Nancy in
as Majority Whip? I think not. I also don't think the public will find her
any more palatable in the long run than the freaks they just kicked out on
the sidewalk.
Scott
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 10:33:05
From: dugjustdug
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
It sounds to me that Scott is trying to take a balanced approach to
this from (what I believe to be) a right-of-middle perspective. I
suspect there are far more Centrists out there than meets the eye
politically. Many have become fed up with choosing one side or the
other and would much rather vote for the individual than the party. So
much for our primary system, eh? Well, in Washington State anyway.
I don't believe in our society that a diet of strict dogma will work.
Currently, neither side acts very flexible.
Scott, if I'm wrong about your political perspective, please accept my
applogy.
-dug -- > who picked up MAT's left over change.
On Nov 9, 9:31 am, multi <m...@asm.org > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:31:03 GMT, "S McFarlane" <s...@nothanks.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1163080493.875704.232750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> She's not running for Majority Whip, she's running for Speaker.
> >> Unopposed.
>
> >Correct. Silly. But while we're at it, she's not running for anything.
> >You don't 'run' for Speaker of the House, and so it's not possible to be
> >either opposed or unopposed in your non-race.Stop embarrassing yourself.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 01:05:59
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"dugjustdug" <prestigerealty@yvn.com > wrote in message
news:1163097184.883039.318920@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It sounds to me that Scott is trying to take a balanced approach to
> this from (what I believe to be) a right-of-middle perspective.
Well, I don't know if it's balanced. I'm very happy to see the Republicans
getting smacked for behaving so badly. I think they were victims of their
own success, and some of them had really begun to believe that the country
was really that far out on the extreme. I don't think the opposition did
their job at all, and so the right ran amock without the necessary
counterbalance.
I suppose I'm saying that I hope the left doesn't now do the exact same
thing, though it would be harder for them right now because of the
President. There is broad support in the US for a change in direction on
civil liberties, national security, etc. I don't think there is much
support at all for an extreme left agenda overall. That's not what the
people voted for. The majority of people don't agree with Pelosi (as an
example) on many issues, even if they do agree with her on the Iraqi
quaqmire. If last Tuesday begins to look like it will lead to a sharp turn
to the left in Washington, it might be a very short-lived trend.
I
> suspect there are far more Centrists out there than meets the eye
> politically. Many have become fed up with choosing one side or the
> other and would much rather vote for the individual than the party. So
> much for our primary system, eh? Well, in Washington State anyway.
>
> I don't believe in our society that a diet of strict dogma will work.
> Currently, neither side acts very flexible.
I believe you are on the money. Our society is not as polarized as watching
the news (or apparently reading newsgroups devoted to golf) might lead me to
believe. Most people still live somewhere near the middle. Many of them
have become fed up with politics altogether, and it takes fairly extreme
issues to get their attention focused on politics again. I suspect this
election was a case in point. I haven't seen any numbers, but I wouldn't be
surprised to learn that voter turnout was extraordinarily high for a
mid-term.
>
> Scott, if I'm wrong about your political perspective, please accept my
> applogy.
None necessary. Personally, I never liked the single dimension left-right
spectrum as a measure of political opinion. There's no point on the line
that describes me. It depends on the issue.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 09:35:56
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
Scott's 2 cents?
Here's your change buddy.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 05:54:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> every bit as idiotic as the Republicans. The Republicans just got kicked
> in the ass because they have been playing the ball way right of center for a
> long time now. They've gotten away with it because of 9/11, but such things
> never last forever. At long last, Joe Q. Public always wakes up to realize
> that he's been on a boat being steered by ideological nutcases.
>
> My 2 cents is, the American public will let the left nutcases get away with
> a lot of silliness because of the way the Republicans have been behaving for
> the last 5 years. However, the extreme left will also overplay it's hand,
> as extremists are wont to do under such circumstances. For awhile, the
> public will be lulled to sleep, but one fine morning, it will realize that
> they don't want Nancy for Sunday dinner anymore than George. The question
> is, is the Democratic caucus in the House smart enough to not vote Nancy in
> as Majority Whip? I think not.
She's not running for Majority Whip, she's running for Speaker.
Unopposed.
I also don't think the public will find her any more palatable in the
long run than the freaks they just kicked out on the sidewalk.
>
> Scott
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 14:31:03
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1163080493.875704.232750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> She's not running for Majority Whip, she's running for Speaker.
> Unopposed.
Correct. Silly. But while we're at it, she's not running for anything.
You don't 'run' for Speaker of the House, and so it's not possible to be
either opposed or unopposed in your non-race. I presume she was nominated
by the Democratic Congressional Conference pre-election, but that does not
mean she will automatically become Speaker. She almost certainly will, and
maybe I'll be surprised by the job she'll do. I hope so.
I think it's a very poor choice politically. Nancy Pelosi is very far away
politically from the average person who voted for Democratic candidates this
year. She's miles away from the person who was right on the edge but not
quite convinced to switch. If she comes out with all guns blazing,
populates the Committees with mostly like-minded colleagues, and appears to
represent a victory for the far-left (as opposed to one for a more centrist
Democratic party opposed to the wacky policies of the Republicans), then I
believe the Democratic party will be paying for her nomination down the
road.
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 09:31:53
From: multi
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:31:03 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com >
wrote:
>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1163080493.875704.232750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> She's not running for Majority Whip, she's running for Speaker.
>> Unopposed.
>
>Correct. Silly. But while we're at it, she's not running for anything.
>You don't 'run' for Speaker of the House, and so it's not possible to be
>either opposed or unopposed in your non-race.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 00:37:07
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:dvo6l214210q61knave3djjos7ejd7jmkh@4ax.com...
>>Correct. Silly. But while we're at it, she's not running for anything.
>>You don't 'run' for Speaker of the House, and so it's not possible to be
>>either opposed or unopposed in your non-race.
>
> Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm too stupid to feel embarassed. I'm to stupid to see why what I wrote
was even wrong. I'm not too stupid to see when a conversation is not worth
having. So, maybe in some other thread, multi.
Scott
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:07:10
From: multi
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:37:07 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com >
wrote:
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:dvo6l214210q61knave3djjos7ejd7jmkh@4ax.com...
>
>>>Correct. Silly. But while we're at it, she's not running for anything.
>>>You don't 'run' for Speaker of the House, and so it's not possible to be
>>>either opposed or unopposed in your non-race.
>>
>> Stop embarrassing yourself.
>
>I'm too stupid to feel embarassed. I'm to stupid to see why what I wrote
>was even wrong.
Correct. Nobody can know everything, so I didn't hold it against you
that you didn't know that the Speaker is elected. That's not
stupidity, it's just ignorance, since most educated Americans do know
that. Therefore, I gave you a friendly heads up.
As you say, however, you don't know why what you wrote is wrong.
Since you clearly have access to the internet, and since it would have
only taken a second to look it up, your ignorance has indeed completed
the journey into full-blown stupidity. If you're not a registered
Republican, you are henceforth an honorary Republican, since you would
rather insist you're right, than check your facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_House#Election
"At the beginning of each new term of Congress (January in each
odd-numbered year), the Clerk of the House of Representatives presides
over the election of a Speaker. Before the election, the congressional
conference of each major party (Democratic or Republican) nominates a
candidate; the conference chairman delivers a nomination speech on the
day of the election. Thereafter, the Clerk calls the roll of the
House; when a member's name is called, he verbally announces his vote.
(Originally, the Speaker was elected by secret ballot; in 1839,
however, it was decided to adopt the voice vote.) Members are not
required to vote for one of the nominees; they may vote for an
individual who was not previously nominated, if they please. However,
a member who does not vote for his or her party's nominee may be
punished by the party leadership, possibly losing committee
assignments. Therefore, members very rarely fail to vote for the
candidates nominated by their parties.
"Once all members have cast their votes, the Clerk announces the
result. In order to be elected, a candidate must receive a simple
majority of those voting (not necessarily a simple majority of the
total membership of the House). If no candidate receives the requisite
majority, the House repeats the procedure until a Speaker is elected.
Normally, a single call of the roll suffices, and the election is
completed on the first day of the session. After announcing the
result, the Clerk appoints a committee of members to formally escort
the Speaker to the presiding officer's chair. The Speaker is then
sworn in by the Dean of the House (the most senior member). The same
procedure for election is used if a Speaker dies or resigns."
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 01:57:15
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:htl9l21tqf5u4j3fnv58v39uaivnqj9ea1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:37:07 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com>
>
> Correct. Nobody can know everything, so I didn't hold it against you
> that you didn't know that the Speaker is elected. That's not
> stupidity, it's just ignorance, since most educated Americans do know
> that. Therefore, I gave you a friendly heads up.
Did you really mean it to be a friendly heads up? It didn't come across as
friendly, but maybe that's just the internet.
>
> As you say, however, you don't know why what you wrote is wrong.
> Since you clearly have access to the internet, and since it would have
> only taken a second to look it up, your ignorance has indeed completed
> the journey into full-blown stupidity. If you're not a registered
> Republican, you are henceforth an honorary Republican, since you would
> rather insist you're right, than check your facts.
Whatever you say, multi. For the record, that's not very friendly in any
part of the world. Also for the record, up to this point none of my posts
to you have been uncivil or insulting to anyone but myself.
You picked one of the citations that I read before posting in the first
place. Your assumption that you are so certainly right that someone with a
different opinion must be stupid is about as arrogant as it gets. Are you
by chance a liberal? If not, you henceforth are one.
The citation you make reflects exactly what I wrote in the first place:
"The question is, is the Democratic caucus in the House smart enough to not
vote Nancy in as Majority Whip (sic)."
I was happy for John B. to point out my mistake. When he said Pelosi is
running unopposed, that was factually incorrect and I said so. It's obvious
that she will be Speaker, but the election of leadership positions in
Congress does not work like elections for office. You don't declare your
candidacy; you don't campaign in the traditional sense of the word; that is
to say, you don't run. And you can't be unopposed, since you don't declare
your candidacy and any member of Congress can be elected.
I never said the Speaker was not elected, in fact the first frigging post
states pretty clearly just the opposite. So I guess you're not quite to
full-blown stupidity yet, but by your own standards you're one small step
away. Oh, wait. You apparently don't understand the process as well as you
think, you've posted twice on the subject without checking your facts, and
you have read a fairly simple explanation of the process but still don't
understand the point. Maybe you have crossed the threshold. I personally
don't think you are a stupid person, but if we use your standards for
judging, it doesn't look so good for you.
My response to you was just trying to be polite. I found your initial
response to be a bit on the asinine side (and if you wish to call it
'friendly', you're either disingenous, an ass, a moron, or some combination
of the three), but I'd have rather ignored that sort of thing than get into
a ridiculous pissing match with someone I'll likely never meet. I still
feel that way, so you can consider this conversation closed. Please feel
free to flame away. If you want to talk golf sometime, I'm happy to do so.
Scott
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 11:01:51
From: multi
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:57:15 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com >
wrote:
>I was happy for John B. to point out my mistake. When he said Pelosi is
>running unopposed, that was factually incorrect and I said so. It's obvious
>that she will be Speaker, but the election of leadership positions in
>Congress does not work like elections for office. You don't declare your
>candidacy; you don't campaign in the traditional sense of the word; that is
>to say, you don't run. And you can't be unopposed, since you don't declare
>your candidacy and any member of Congress can be elected.
You're about six feet deep already, but keep digging.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/09/murtha.leadership/index.html
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. John Murtha, an outspoken opponent of the
war in Iraq, announced Friday that he would run for majority leader if
the Democrats take over the House in the fall elections....
"...'I would appreciate your consideration and vote and look forward
to speaking to you personally about my decision.'"
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 01:25:03
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:r07cl2t4nefmk3tr0acrikacjger6gp3m7@4ax.com...
>
> You're about six feet deep already, but keep digging.
>
The only question in my mind is whether you are purposely misunderstanding
or are just simply slow. Either way, I'd really not prefer to pursue it
with you any further (or for that matter, any other conversations.)
Scott.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:03:41
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
In article <HYG4h.1607$Es5.1508@trnddc07 >,
"S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
> Correct. Silly. But while we're at it, she's not running for anything.
> You don't 'run' for Speaker of the House, and so it's not possible to be
> either opposed or unopposed in your non-race.
Please, display your ignorancee elsewhere.
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 00:31:42
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"The World Wide Wade" <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote in message
news:waderameyxiii-5FC788.15034109112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <HYG4h.1607$Es5.1508@trnddc07>,
> "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com> wrote:
>
>> Correct. Silly. But while we're at it, she's not running for anything.
>> You don't 'run' for Speaker of the House, and so it's not possible to be
>> either opposed or unopposed in your non-race.
>
> Please, display your ignorancee elsewhere.
Please learn how to spell, asshole (by the way, that's a _really_ bad word
to not be able to spell correctly. I'd start my tutoring with that one.).
Just remember, if we were all geniuses like you, you wouldn't have any one
to mock, would you?
Scott
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 14:25:56
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
In article <OLP4h.1426$L35.1360@trnddc02 >,
"S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
> "The World Wide Wade" <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote in message
> news:waderameyxiii-5FC788.15034109112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <HYG4h.1607$Es5.1508@trnddc07>,
> > "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Correct. Silly. But while we're at it, she's not running for anything.
> >> You don't 'run' for Speaker of the House, and so it's not possible to be
> >> either opposed or unopposed in your non-race.
> >
> > Please, display your ignorancee elsewhere.
>
> Please learn how to spell, asshole (by the way, that's a _really_ bad word
> to not be able to spell correctly. I'd start my tutoring with that one.).
That was a typo dude. But your bad punctuation wasn't. Neither
were your false pontifications/predictions, delivered from on
high like the friggin' Oracle of Delphi.
> Just remember, if we were all geniuses like you, you wouldn't have any one
> to mock, would you?
Not mocking, just calling you on it.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 02:16:19
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"The World Wide Wade" <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote in message
news:waderameyxiii-350067.14255610112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> That was a typo dude. But your bad punctuation wasn't. Neither
> were your false pontifications/predictions, delivered from on
> high like the friggin' Oracle of Delphi.
>
>> Just remember, if we were all geniuses like you, you wouldn't have any
>> one
>> to mock, would you?
>
> Not mocking, just calling you on it.
'Please display your ignorancee (sic) elsewhere' is not mocking? Please.
It was no less insulting than the reply it received. I notice how well you
took that.
In any case, I do want to apologize for my last two posts. I was pissed
about an unrelated thing at the time, and your posts rubbed me wrong. I
suppose people who discuss politics on usenet should just expect behavior
that could get you punched out on the streets. I wish I could rewind, but I
can't and so the apology will have to do.
You haven't made any false predictions or pontificated, have you?
Hypocrisy sucks worse than haughtiness.
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 01:49:14
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
S McFarlane <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
: I think it's a very poor choice politically. Nancy Pelosi is very far away
: politically from the average person who voted for Democratic candidates this
: year.
Ronald Reagan was very far away politically from the average person
who voted for him in 1980, too, but over the course of his first
term he was able to use use position to persuade people to his point
of view. That's called leadership, and it's one of a very few things
I respected Reagan for.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 02:59:59
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:2T3k8jecI6mdN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> : I think it's a very poor choice politically. Nancy Pelosi is very far
> away
> : politically from the average person who voted for Democratic candidates
> this
> : year.
>
> Ronald Reagan was very far away politically from the average person
> who voted for him in 1980, too, but over the course of his first
> term he was able to use use position to persuade people to his point
> of view. That's called leadership, and it's one of a very few things
> I respected Reagan for.
>
I agree with you on Reagan. It may will be that the American public is
ready for a swing to the far left, but I think today is quite different from
1980. In 1980, there had been big changes in our society occuring over the
previous 20 years. In some people's minds, those changes had turned very
sour and had produced very excessive and negative results. Rightly or
wrongly, many of those changes became associated with liberal politics in
general and the Democratic party in particular. This was no different than
the reaction to the late '40's and '50's that ushered in a radical change in
society in the '60s. Ronald Reagan was to Jerry Garcia what Jerry Garcia
was to Ike, if you follow the imperfect symbolism.
I don't think we have a Jerry Garcia in the house. I could be wrong, but I
don't think the past election represents the beginnings of a sea change like
Reagan or Kennedy did. It seems like a more narrow and specific reaction to
one very bad Presidency. A lot of people were on board because of 9/11.
Now they are simply beginning to return from the hysterical state 9/11
induced. They aren't willing to put up with the shenannigans now that the
scare tactics have worn off.
In any case, I hope the Democrats are successful, but not too successful.
The best case from my perspective is that the Democrats don't completely
consolidate their hold on power, and the Republican party wakes up and
starts acting like Republicans again. We need both parties to be
functional. Without that, crazy shit happens.
Scott
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 04:25:52
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
S McFarlane <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
: I agree with you on Reagan. It may will be that the American public is
: ready for a swing to the far left, but I think today is quite different from
: 1980.
<remainder of cogent post snipped for space >
What remains of any disagreement I have with you is one of
opinion. I don't think Pelosi is nearly as hard-left as you
do. For instance, she already has ruled out impeachment --
something that I doubt John Conyers, for one, would do. She
has been a pretty savvy partisan operator, but that's more
a matter of style than of (policy) substance.
The big change with this election, though, is that for the
first time since the Civil War, the Democrats control the
House without the preponderance of senior positions going to
conservative Southerners. There may be some things that come
out of this Congress that could never have come out of earlier
ones. We'll see, I guess.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 04:40:51
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3k8s8lI8p0N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
> What remains of any disagreement I have with you is one of
> opinion. I don't think Pelosi is nearly as hard-left as you
> do. For instance, she already has ruled out impeachment --
> something that I doubt John Conyers, for one, would do. She
> has been a pretty savvy partisan operator, but that's more
> a matter of style than of (policy) substance.
I am pleasantly surprised at how the Democratic leadership is talking in the
direct wake of the elections. Things like Pelosi's repudation of
impeachment proceedings is in particular a good sign. I personally believe
that Pelosi is quite far to the left, but that does not mean her political
beliefs will rule her behavior as Speaker. I'll reserve opinion. I imagine
it will be a very bad thing for the Democrats if she does try to steer
things into more extreme waters.
>
> The big change with this election, though, is that for the
> first time since the Civil War, the Democrats control the
> House without the preponderance of senior positions going to
> conservative Southerners. There may be some things that come
> out of this Congress that could never have come out of earlier
> ones. We'll see, I guess.
>
Indeed. Who knows? Maybe a more reasonable tone will return to Congress
now that some balance has been restored. It sucks to have to work with your
enemies, doesn't it?
Scott
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 04:59:52
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
S McFarlane <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
: Indeed. Who knows? Maybe a more reasonable tone will return to Congress
: now that some balance has been restored. It sucks to have to work with your
: enemies, doesn't it?
The Republicans aren't our (Democrats') enemies, they're merely
the opposition. If only they would regard us the same way. I guess
that's ultimately up to the voters to dictate, though.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 05:20:30
From:
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
> The Republicans just got kicked
> in the ass because they have been playing the ball way right of center fo=
r a
> long time now. =A0
And besides, the country needed a change of direction. The stock
market is way too high and there are far, far too many people employed
these days.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 13:07:46
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
In article <Isz4h.2074$9t4.1073@trnddc03 >
"S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
>
> every bit as idiotic as the Republicans. The Republicans just got kicked
> in the ass because they have been playing the ball way right of center for a
> long time now. They've gotten away with it because of 9/11, but such things
> never last forever. At long last, Joe Q. Public always wakes up to realize
> that he's been on a boat being steered by ideological nutcases.
>
> My 2 cents is, the American public will let the left nutcases get away with
> a lot of silliness because of the way the Republicans have been behaving for
> the last 5 years. However, the extreme left will also overplay it's hand,
> as extremists are wont to do under such circumstances. For awhile, the
> public will be lulled to sleep, but one fine morning, it will realize that
> they don't want Nancy for Sunday dinner anymore than George. The question
> is, is the Democratic caucus in the House smart enough to not vote Nancy in
> as Majority Whip? I think not. I also don't think the public will find her
> any more palatable in the long run than the freaks they just kicked out on
> the sidewalk.
>
> Scott
Gee. Looks like you're doomed. Might try Canada.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 14:12:23
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"tiggerspalewife" <anon@comments.header > wrote in message
news:KTUE73CT39030.3387268518@twistycreek.com...
>
> Gee. Looks like you're doomed. Might try Canada.
>
Nah, think I'll stay here. However, I won't be silly enough to believe the
cavalry has just ridden into town and now all will be well with our
wonderful little country now that the good guys are in charge....
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 12:40:42
From: JJK
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"S McFarlane" wrote:
> every bit as idiotic as the Republicans. The Republicans just got kicked
> in the ass because they have been playing the ball way right of center for
a
> long time now. They've gotten away with it because of 9/11, but such
things
> never last forever. At long last, Joe Q. Public always wakes up to
realize
> that he's been on a boat being steered by ideological nutcases.
<snip >
If all they do is keep the man in check, they will have done the Nation a
good service. Judging from Rum's immediate departure, their job is now 1/3
done - and many weren't even on the payroll yet.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 14:13:14
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:elF4h.1496$Es5.893@trnddc07...
>
>
> If all they do is keep the man in check, they will have done the Nation a
> good service. Judging from Rum's immediate departure, their job is now 1/3
> done - and many weren't even on the payroll yet.
Amen to that. However, the jury is still out on his replacement...
Scott
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:05:30
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
By the way, great call.
In article <PKg3h.362$Es5.173@trnddc07 >,
"S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162677058.279499.18400@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > I think Rumsfeld will be gone by the end of the year. Either he'll quit
> > on his own, or Bush will tell him to quit and to say he was doing it on
> > his own.
>
> No hope of that, and rightly so.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 00:32:31
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"The World Wide Wade" <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote in message
news:waderameyxiii-EAF80E.15053009112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> By the way, great call.
Thanks, asshole.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 11:43:11
From: Dene
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
dugjustdug wrote:
> It sounds to me that Scott is trying to take a balanced approach to
> this from (what I believe to be) a right-of-middle perspective. I
> suspect there are far more Centrists out there than meets the eye
> politically. Many have become fed up with choosing one side or the
> other and would much rather vote for the individual than the party. So
> much for our primary system, eh? Well, in Washington State anyway.
>
> I don't believe in our society that a diet of strict dogma will work.
> Currently, neither side acts very flexible.
I think you nailed it, Doug.
Perhaps this situation will lead to some real progress. Reagan got a
lot done with both houses being Dem'd. Same was true for Clinton after
the Newt revolution. Gridlock may achieve less polarization, because
legislators realize they need the other's sides cooperation to get
something done.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 01:08:21
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163101391.080109.24950@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Perhaps this situation will lead to some real progress. Reagan got a
> lot done with both houses being Dem'd. Same was true for Clinton after
> the Newt revolution. Gridlock may achieve less polarization, because
> legislators realize they need the other's sides cooperation to get
> something done.
>
That's my hope. Opposing parties in Congress and the White House pretty
much rules out any actions on either extreme. Having either party in
control of the whole shooting match just leads to trouble.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:27:54
From: John B.
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:r07cl2t4nefmk3tr0acrikacjger6gp3m7@4ax.com...
>
> >
> > You're about six feet deep already, but keep digging.
> >
>
> The only question in my mind is whether you are purposely misunderstanding
> or are just simply slow. Either way, I'd really not prefer to pursue it
> with you any further (or for that matter, any other conversations.)
>
> Scott.
You tell 'em, Scott! I bet multi knows better than to mess with you
anymore!
|
| | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:34:22
From: multi
Subject: Re: 10 cents says the Democrats are about to prove that they are
|
On 11 Nov 2006 19:27:54 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>S McFarlane wrote:
>> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>> news:r07cl2t4nefmk3tr0acrikacjger6gp3m7@4ax.com...
>>
>> >
>> > You're about six feet deep already, but keep digging.
>> >
>>
>> The only question in my mind is whether you are purposely misunderstanding
>> or are just simply slow. Either way, I'd really not prefer to pursue it
>> with you any further (or for that matter, any other conversations.)
>>
>> Scott.
>
>You tell 'em, Scott! I bet multi knows better than to mess with you
>anymore!
As a matter of fact, I do. He has proven beyond doubt that he is
totally immune to facts. I wish we could duplicate whatever surrounds
his brain, and ship it to the troops in Iraq for body armor.
|
|
