I thought they were joking

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:05:32 -0600, Raptor
wrote:


The problem's not Kerry, it's Rove.


The problem is Kerry. Whether or not you place him ahead of Bush as
your choice as President is not the point - the Democratic nomination
process has not picked a particularly good nominee. The nomination
process is broken and the Democratic process is more broken than the
Republican one.

Who would've been better than Kerry? Why?

If we look at the performance of the current president, a ham sandwich
could beat him. But Shrub has Karl Rove on his side.

--
--
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"

gwhite wrote:

Matt Cahill wrote:
Step 1 - Turn on Fox News
Step 2 - Turn off brain.
It must be true.

With respect, I think you have steps 1 and 2 backwards.

Stewart Fleming wrote:
gwhite wrote:

Matt Cahill wrote:
Step 1 - Turn on Fox News
Step 2 - Turn off brain.
It must be true.

With respect, I think you have steps 1 and 2 backwards.

I think Pom made that point back in April:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0sbcglobal.net

I see that a slightly more detailed version was in Political Science
Quarterly:
http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_...&f ormat=view

From: (Matt Cahill)

I'm not sure exactly who coined the phrase. It refers to the
relatively 'new' ultra right of the Republican party which is now in
power. I put Bush and Cheney into that group. I was putting TK into
that group as well. Not that he is new to conservatism...but that he
is a part of this 'new' power group.

The Republican party has made quite a shift in the last twenty years.
Nixon would probably be branded a bleeding heart liberal by this
group.



I think that you could make the converse argument that the New Left would have
condemned JFK as a right wing war monger for his Cuba and Vietnam policies.
Both parties have handed control over to the vocal nutcase fringes. If we could
put 10% of each party in rocket together and ship them off, we might get back
to some civility and something that most Americans could support. All that is
happening now is the country is being even more polarized by BOTH sides.
Just my $.02
Bill C

(TritonRider) wrote in message ...
From: (Matt Cahill)

I'm not sure exactly who coined the phrase. It refers to the
relatively 'new' ultra right of the Republican party which is now in
power. I put Bush and Cheney into that group. I was putting TK into
that group as well. Not that he is new to conservatism...but that he
is a part of this 'new' power group.

The Republican party has made quite a shift in the last twenty years.
Nixon would probably be branded a bleeding heart liberal by this
group.



I think that you could make the converse argument that the New Left would have
condemned JFK as a right wing war monger for his Cuba and Vietnam policies.
Both parties have handed control over to the vocal nutcase fringes. If we could
put 10% of each party in rocket together and ship them off, we might get back
to some civility and something that most Americans could support. All that is
happening now is the country is being even more polarized by BOTH sides.
Just my $.02
Bill C

I remember seeing a movie (I think it was 'Hitchikers Guide to the
Galaxy') in which a planet told all their bureaucrats that the planet
was dying and they where sending them off in the first evacuationship
to get the new planet set up. The bureaucrats arrived at there new
planet but nobody showed up after them...It was a trick !

The new planets name ... Earth.

Matt Cahill wrote:

I remember seeing a movie (I think it was 'Hitchikers Guide to the
Galaxy') in which a planet told all their bureaucrats that the planet
was dying and they where sending them off in the first evacuationship
to get the new planet set up. The bureaucrats arrived at there new
planet but nobody showed up after them...It was a trick !

The new planets name ... Earth.

At least we have clean phones.

On 16 Sep 2004 12:36:20 -0700, (Matt Cahill)
wrote:



I remember seeing a movie (I think it was 'Hitchikers Guide to the
Galaxy') in which a planet told all their bureaucrats that the planet
was dying and they where sending them off in the first evacuationship
to get the new planet set up. The bureaucrats arrived at there new
planet but nobody showed up after them...It was a trick !

In comparison to the bureacrats in Washington, the current political
leadership is far worse.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:47:35 -0600, Raptor wrote:

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:05:32 -0600, Raptor
wrote:


The problem's not Kerry, it's Rove.


The problem is Kerry. Whether or not you place him ahead of Bush as
your choice as President is not the point - the Democratic nomination
process has not picked a particularly good nominee. The nomination
process is broken and the Democratic process is more broken than the
Republican one.

Who would've been better than Kerry? Why?

Joe Leiberman.

Principled, honest, has noticed that a truly ugly enemy has declared war on us.
Has never lied under oath about the character and conduct of America's military.

Dick Gephardt.

Understands business and labor issues; honest; wrong about the war, but at least
takes a clear stand on the issue. Has never lied under oath about the character
and conduct of America's military.

Hilary Clinton.

Solid gold brass plated phoney, but understands the war and knows enough about
politics to let herself be pushed in the necessary direction while keeping the
votes of her loony-tunes base. Has never lied under oath about the character and
conduct of America's military.

I disagree with all three on any number of issues, but all are superior to
Kerry.

Ron

From: RonSonic
Date: 9/16/2004 7:08 PM Easte

Joe Leiberman.

Principled, honest, has noticed that a truly ugly enemy has declared war on
us.
Has never lied under oath about the character and conduct of America's
military.

Dick Gephardt.

Understands business and labor issues; honest; wrong about the war, but at
least
takes a clear stand on the issue. Has never lied under oath about the
character
and conduct of America's military.

Hilary Clinton.

Solid gold brass plated phoney, but understands the war and knows enough
about
politics to let herself be pushed in the necessary direction while keeping
the
votes of her loony-tunes base. Has never lied under oath about the character
and
conduct of America's military.

I disagree with all three on any number of issues, but all are superior to
Kerry.

Ron


If I had to pick one of the above group, and I would've. I'd pick Leiberman
hands down. If he was the nominee he'd have my vote despite some serious
differences. He makes some of my friends involved in the 1st amendment movement
froth at the mouth though.
http://unquietmind.com/galileo.html
Overall he'd be huge improvement over both the options we have now.
Bill C

Matt Cahill wrote:


I remember seeing a movie (I think it was 'Hitchikers Guide to the
Galaxy') in which a planet told all their bureaucrats that the planet
was dying and they where sending them off in the first evacuationship
to get the new planet set up. The bureaucrats arrived at there new
planet but nobody showed up after them...It was a trick !


Government exists to solve our personal problems. Thus we need bureaucrats. I
know because the bureaucrats told me so.