A Final Election Assessment

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
Donald Munro wrote:


robet wrote:
I hope the Democrats put pressure on Bush like the Republicans did with
Clinton. I like to see how it feels to harass a President.

Tim Lines wrote:

2. President Bush is a eunuch.

But all he needs is a cigar.


Cuban?


San Francisco.

robet wrote:
You are right... but I have faith in the spirit of the American people.

Why? Over the last 24 years, Dems have held the presidency for 8, Reps
have held Congress since they filched control back in 94. Last week,
nearly every voter on both sides voted (practically speaking), and the
Reps GAINED power nationally.

The people that voted their wallets and thought he would bring them tax
relief and protection from terrorism will be greatly disappointed. The tax
relief only benefits the very rich of this country and not the middle class.
When all their middle class jobs start disappearing like the US maufacturing
and IT jobs are, they will wake up to his crooked greedy evil ways. The
threat of terrorism will always be there as long as he aggressively tries to
invade their land and support tyrants in their countries.

A famous man said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but
not all the people all the time."

They only need to fool 51% of the people for six months every two years.
They're pretty damn good at it.

Bush and his Republican party will fail. The Republicans only gained power
in the past because of the Trickle down policy. Since they have sold out
Patriotism and are trickling the jobs overseas where the CEOs can make
maximum profit with our goverments blessing, only a stupid fool could still
support their trickle down policy BS.

Bush will be impeached..... he wont make it four years. The US people wont
let it or can afford it.

That would be a trick, given that both houses of Congress are solidly in
Republican control. It's not likely that the mid-term elections will
change either. Even if the Dems pull their heads out of their asses and
win back some power, there are just too many seats needed.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

robet wrote:
You are right... but I have faith in the spirit of the American people.

Why? Over the last 24 years, Dems have held the presidency for 8, Reps
have held Congress since they filched control back in 94. Last week,
nearly every voter on both sides voted (practically speaking), and the
Reps GAINED power nationally.

The people that voted their wallets and thought he would bring them tax
relief and protection from terrorism will be greatly disappointed. The tax
relief only benefits the very rich of this country and not the middle class.
When all their middle class jobs start disappearing like the US maufacturing
and IT jobs are, they will wake up to his crooked greedy evil ways. The
threat of terrorism will always be there as long as he aggressively tries to
invade their land and support tyrants in their countries.

A famous man said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but
not all the people all the time."

They only need to fool 51% of the people for six months every two years.
They're pretty damn good at it.

Bush and his Republican party will fail. The Republicans only gained power
in the past because of the Trickle down policy. Since they have sold out
Patriotism and are trickling the jobs overseas where the CEOs can make
maximum profit with our goverments blessing, only a stupid fool could still
support their trickle down policy BS.

Bush will be impeached..... he wont make it four years. The US people wont
let it or can afford it.

That would be a trick, given that both houses of Congress are solidly in
Republican control. It's not likely that the mid-term elections will
change either. Even if the Dems pull their heads out of their asses and
win back some power, there are just too many seats needed.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

Howard Kveck wrote:


That sounded like precisely the kind of behavior you were railing
against liberals for.

....

Anyway, the point of the link was to point out that many (if not all) of
the things you were hammering liberals for are being done (sometimes even
more egregiously) by the "conservatives".

Yes & yes. That's why I've used the difference characterization as "small,
marginal," or other terms of that nature.

Howard Kveck wrote:


That sounded like precisely the kind of behavior you were railing
against liberals for.

....

Anyway, the point of the link was to point out that many (if not all) of
the things you were hammering liberals for are being done (sometimes even
more egregiously) by the "conservatives".

Yes & yes. That's why I've used the difference characterization as "small,
marginal," or other terms of that nature.

gwhite Wrote:
Howard Kveck wrote:


That sounded like precisely the kind of behavior you were railing
against liberals for.

....

Anyway, the point of the link was to point out that many (if not
all) of
the things you were hammering liberals for are being done (sometimes
even
more egregiously) by the "conservatives".

Yes & yes. That's why I've used the difference characterization as
"small,
marginal," or other terms of that nature.
gwhite: why do you think every liberal is a collectivist? Does your
little brain not comprehend that they are two different concepts?

Or do you just like to rant and rave a lot, like a good CONVERSATIVE?
Do you and Bill O'Reilly engage in phone sex befor you start yelling at
the TV?

Are you a Big Red Dog Dick like Tom Kunich? "Red in the vote like the
dick on a dog."


--
antoineg

gwhite Wrote:
Howard Kveck wrote:


That sounded like precisely the kind of behavior you were railing
against liberals for.

....

Anyway, the point of the link was to point out that many (if not
all) of
the things you were hammering liberals for are being done (sometimes
even
more egregiously) by the "conservatives".

Yes & yes. That's why I've used the difference characterization as
"small,
marginal," or other terms of that nature.
gwhite: why do you think every liberal is a collectivist? Does your
little brain not comprehend that they are two different concepts?

Or do you just like to rant and rave a lot, like a good CONVERSATIVE?
Do you and Bill O'Reilly engage in phone sex befor you start yelling at
the TV?

Are you a Big Red Dog Dick like Tom Kunich? "Red in the vote like the
dick on a dog."


--
antoineg

antoineg wrote:

gwhite Wrote:
Howard Kveck wrote:


That sounded like precisely the kind of behavior you were railing
against liberals for.

....

Anyway, the point of the link was to point out that many (if not
all) of
the things you were hammering liberals for are being done (sometimes
even
more egregiously) by the "conservatives".

Of course, Howard is using "liberal" in a way I believe is corrupted. I let it
go, because I knew what he meant, and I've never from my perspective sensed any
mutual acrimony between us as individuals. I don't know if I've ever -- at
least in the past few years -- used "liberal" in the corrupted modern sense
without putting quotations around it. That this sense of "liberal" has become
commonplace in modern language, is not sufficient a reason for me to engage it.
I don't do it because I consider myself a liberal.

Yes & yes. That's why I've used the difference characterization as
"small,
marginal," or other terms of that nature.


gwhite: why do you think every liberal is a collectivist?
Does your
little brain not comprehend that they are two different concepts?

Dumbass,

That's exactly what I've been saying and pointing out for quite some time. True
liberals are decidely not collectivists. "Modern liberals" most often are.
Dumbass, it is *relative*.

If von Mises can call Friedman a socialist, I can feel comfortable calling the
faux liberals socialists (socialism is collectivism). I'm entirely comfortable
with calling a spade a spade.

http://reason.com/9506/FRIEDMAN.jun.shtml
Reason: But you knew Mises personally. Did you see the intolerance that you find
in his method also in his personal behavior?

Friedman: No question. The story I remember best happened at the initial Mont
Pelerin meeting when he got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists." We
were discussing the distribution of income, and whether you should have
progressive income taxes. Some of the people there were expressing the view that
there could be a justification for it.


Bernie Ward, KGO host and probably a "liberal" hero of your's, a couple of
nights ago was *explicitly* referring to Marx and the class warfare ideology of
Marx. Ward said that was *exactly* where he was coming from. Edwards gave his
"Two Americas" marxist class warfare speech and the "left" didn't blink an eye
or come down on him in any way. The socialist/marxist underpinnings of the
democrat party are scarcely disguised. Not one person needs to take my word for
it: listen to *them*. Ward is not a progressive as far as I'm concerned.




"The difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I
want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss
changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction. So
while I'd like to abolish the Fed, I've written many pages on how the Fed, if it
does exist, should be run." -- Milton Friedman



Extreme left and right are indistinguishable when carried to extremes. Both
retrograde to tyranny/unfreedom and become the same thing. The political
polarization that matters is not progressivism-traditionalism, it is up-down or
freedom-unfreedom. Freedom is built upon the razors edge foundation of *both*
progression and tradition. Freedom is not a "moderate" balance of right-left.
It is above either. Freedom is a *radical* concept, just as its dark
anti-matter cousin of unfreedom is radical. A schematic:


Liberty
Freedom
++
||
||
||
/\
/||\
Progressive +-------------------+ Tradition
("Left") \ / ("Right")
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
+
Unfreedom
Tyranny


http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreti...itherleft.html
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreti...eftright.shtml

antoineg wrote:

gwhite Wrote:
Howard Kveck wrote:


That sounded like precisely the kind of behavior you were railing
against liberals for.

....

Anyway, the point of the link was to point out that many (if not
all) of
the things you were hammering liberals for are being done (sometimes
even
more egregiously) by the "conservatives".

Of course, Howard is using "liberal" in a way I believe is corrupted. I let it
go, because I knew what he meant, and I've never from my perspective sensed any
mutual acrimony between us as individuals. I don't know if I've ever -- at
least in the past few years -- used "liberal" in the corrupted modern sense
without putting quotations around it. That this sense of "liberal" has become
commonplace in modern language, is not sufficient a reason for me to engage it.
I don't do it because I consider myself a liberal.

Yes & yes. That's why I've used the difference characterization as
"small,
marginal," or other terms of that nature.


gwhite: why do you think every liberal is a collectivist?
Does your
little brain not comprehend that they are two different concepts?

Dumbass,

That's exactly what I've been saying and pointing out for quite some time. True
liberals are decidely not collectivists. "Modern liberals" most often are.
Dumbass, it is *relative*.

If von Mises can call Friedman a socialist, I can feel comfortable calling the
faux liberals socialists (socialism is collectivism). I'm entirely comfortable
with calling a spade a spade.

http://reason.com/9506/FRIEDMAN.jun.shtml
Reason: But you knew Mises personally. Did you see the intolerance that you find
in his method also in his personal behavior?

Friedman: No question. The story I remember best happened at the initial Mont
Pelerin meeting when he got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists." We
were discussing the distribution of income, and whether you should have
progressive income taxes. Some of the people there were expressing the view that
there could be a justification for it.


Bernie Ward, KGO host and probably a "liberal" hero of your's, a couple of
nights ago was *explicitly* referring to Marx and the class warfare ideology of
Marx. Ward said that was *exactly* where he was coming from. Edwards gave his
"Two Americas" marxist class warfare speech and the "left" didn't blink an eye
or come down on him in any way. The socialist/marxist underpinnings of the
democrat party are scarcely disguised. Not one person needs to take my word for
it: listen to *them*. Ward is not a progressive as far as I'm concerned.




"The difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I
want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss
changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction. So
while I'd like to abolish the Fed, I've written many pages on how the Fed, if it
does exist, should be run." -- Milton Friedman



Extreme left and right are indistinguishable when carried to extremes. Both
retrograde to tyranny/unfreedom and become the same thing. The political
polarization that matters is not progressivism-traditionalism, it is up-down or
freedom-unfreedom. Freedom is built upon the razors edge foundation of *both*
progression and tradition. Freedom is not a "moderate" balance of right-left.
It is above either. Freedom is a *radical* concept, just as its dark
anti-matter cousin of unfreedom is radical. A schematic:


Liberty
Freedom
++
||
||
||
/\
/||\
Progressive +-------------------+ Tradition
("Left") \ / ("Right")
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
+
Unfreedom
Tyranny


http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreti...itherleft.html
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreti...eftright.shtml

You are right... but I have faith in the spirit of the American people.

The people that voted their wallets and thought he would bring them tax
relief and protection from terrorism will be greatly disappointed. The tax
relief only benefits the very rich of this country and not the middle class.
When all their middle class jobs start disappearing like the US maufacturing
and IT jobs are, they will wake up to his crooked greedy evil ways. The
threat of terrorism will always be there as long as he aggressively tries to
invade their land and support tyrants in their countries.

A famous man said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but
not all the people all the time."

Bush and his Republican party will fail. The Republicans only gained power
in the past because of the Trickle down policy. Since they have sold out
Patriotism and are trickling the jobs overseas where the CEOs can make
maximum profit with our goverments blessing, only a stupid fool could still
support their trickle down policy BS.

Bush will be impeached..... he wont make it four years. The US people wont
let it or can afford it.




"Tim Lines" wrote in message
news:EVekd.21858$5K2.20728@attbi_s03...
robet wrote:

I hope the Democrats put pressure on Bush like the Republicans did with
Clinton. I like to see how it feels to harass a President.


It will not happen for 2 reasons:

1. The Republicans control both the Senate and the House.
2. President Bush is a eunuch.
--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply