On Aug 27, 5:58*pm, Country wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:56*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:









Higgs Boson wrote:
=================

But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not
behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,
someone who cares about the welfare of the people --their health,
their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and
their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the
stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that
is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a
"Liberal."

But if by a "Conservative" they mean someone who looks at traditional
solutions that have proven to have worked for, sometimes, thousands of years
instead of rallying at the latest "feel good" notion or pseudo-scientific
hypothesis, someone who thinks a helping hand is superior to a handout,
someone who hold that "civil rights" means equal opportunity instead of
equal outcome, someone who unashamedly stands on the international stage
promoting American values, then I'm proud to say I'm a "Conservative."

Too bad Republicans don't see it that way. Of course, they say they
do... but they don't.

Republicans want to try old ways that never worked and keep beating us
over the head with it. They pretend they are "fiscally conservative"
but proved otherwise during the Bush Jr. years.

Republicans hate welfare unless it profits the rich. They love war
because getting our young folk killed profits their rich friends.

Republicans hate terrorists but have proven themselves to be
terrorists themselves.

Republicans pretend to hate Gays while hiding plenty of their own back
door adventures. Has your Republican Law Maker been outed yet?

Republicans pretend to Love Jesus Christ but act more like the
Pharisee that had Christ killed. Republicans are the evil money
changers that Christ railed about.

I will never say the Democrats or Liberals in general are perfect.
They are far from it. But Republicans are the the most extreme
examples of hypocrites you can find on the planet.

-C-

Man, I wish I'd come up with that! As an Independent, standing aloof
and looking at both (sob) Parties, I'd say you call it pretty close.

Point is, the Mad Dogs that have taken over the Republican Party are
not your father's Republicans. THEY were able to work across the aisle
for the good of the country. Look back at the record -- sorry to
confuse you with facts -- and you will see that the ""old""
Republicans DID care about the country.

The current Mad Dog Reps. have only one objective: Get rid of Obama
and put in place one of the Big Business stooges that are running on
the Rep. ticket. The ones that aren't out & out crazy are
prostituting themselves in hopes of obtaining the votes of the Yahoos
(look it up - Jonathan Swift). A recent magazine article had the
names of the few non-crazy ones, the positions they took on [issue] a
year or more ago, and the positions they suddenly take now. If I can
find, I'll post.

Frank Rich has a powerful article indicting the Mad Dogs as anti-
science. Which they are. If the flow of pure research is interrupted
or diminished, the consequences for great discoveries/inventions not
made will be hurting our children and grandchildren. Look at the
White House and see which Party had an active science advisor to the
President, and which either ignored the advisor or outright did away
with the office.

If the SEC,albeit minimally reformed post-Madoff, continues to be
underfunded and unable to recruit the best, the goniffs on Wall Street
will continue merrily on their unethical way. The revolving door
between the SEC and those they are supposed to be regulating is about
the saddest joke in Washington

As to the major Parties -- the Democrats exhibit all the failings of
the Menshevik Party in Russia after the Revolution. No wonder the
Bolsheviks took over, and the rest is history.
Same with Weimar in Germany, followed by Hitler, and the rest is
history. Being human and fallible, the Dems squabble among themselves,
jockey for position, and nothing much gets done -- unless there's a
powerful leader or unless the people are so fed up, they actually
bestir themselves to demand action. Rarely.

As a general observation, however, the Dems are about people and the
Reps are about money.

Nothing will change in this rotten political institution until THE
MONEY IS TAKEN OUT OF POLITICS! And who has to pass the laws to make
that happen?
Yup, you guessed it. The best little whorehouse in Washington. So
don't hold your breath. And listen to the faint sounds of the
Founders whirling in their graves,
as the great institutions they created are perverted, soiled,
debauched -- all for the good of our real masters, -- Big Oil, Wall
Street, the too-big-to-fail Banks, and the rest of the international
robbers that operate smoothly and mostly off the radar, unless some
muckraking journalist or whistleblower happens to get brief publicity
for his/her expose of the latest economic crime. While the Yahoos who
are getting ****ed up the *** just bend over and beg for more.

Oh, what a falling-off is there...(Shakespeare)

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
news:e4cf0692-a511-4761-b5ad-

Oh, what a falling-off is there...(Shakespeare)

Actually it was:

O Hamlet, what a falling-off was there! From me, whose love was of that
dignity. Hamlet by William Shakespea Act 1. Scene V

I'm only correcting you because my prof. dinged me for writing "there was"
instead of "was there" in an exam. Now you get to look for the next
misquoter, the way we had to look for the next safety violation in shop
class when we made a mistake and had to stop work to become the floor safety
officer. Until we caught a new one.

I can recite the pieces in which I once made errors more accurately now than
quotes that I knew stone cold 30 years ago. A falling off, indeed.

I remember those moments as clearly as each moment that drove me further and
further away from being a Republican. One such moment was when Sen. Frist
(R) stopped the world to intervene in the tragic enough death of Terri
Schiavo by passing a bill for her parents special benefit. Lots of heat and
light but very little real effect.

Mark Foley and his predilection for young pages was another such moment.
After nearly bringing the nation to its knees over a presidential hummer
from an intern, it became apparent Clinton wasn't the only one abusing
interns.

Nixon, resigning the Presidency after it became clear he would have been
forced out of office by impeachment.

McCain picking Sarah Palin.

This latest fiasco about the debt where the Republicans ended up dinging out
credit rating in a bitch fight. What really astounds me is how Mr. Cantor
showed no interest in paying for the Bush administration's huge unfunded
initiatives like the Iraq war is now claiming to help with Irene by slashing
elsewhere. More interestingly, when his home state of Virginia was struck
by Tropical Storm Gaston, Mr. Cantor voted against a bill that would have
required the same pay-as-you-go rule that he now advocates.

All those moments and many more forced me from Republicanism to the other
side of the aisle. Oddly enough, the oh-so-quick-to-insult representatives
of Republicanism here remind me daily that I am more comfortable leaning to
the left than to the right. If things are every going to improve, civility
has to be restored to the debates . . . everywhere. There are people here,
like HeyBub and Kurt, who never resort to name-calling to make their points.
Others (you know who you are) can't discuss anything with someone "from the
other side" without making it an insult fest.

I still have plenty of ultraconservative leanings, but it's apparent that
today's Republican club is so exclusive that if you're not in synch on any
part of the agenda, you're branded a lib loon. I admire the balls of a
party that lost the Presidency in 2008 yet doesn't feel the need to win back
fence-sitters, independents and others that might be tempted to join them.
They don't even feel the need to appear sociable in front of people, hence
the clear foul with "old hag." Every time a Republican insults someone,
another Democratic voter is born.

Someone once called my late mother that as she was sitting in her car, not
moving fast enough for the twit behind her. She was a very attractive woman
before passing into her late seventies and that thoughtless remark bothered
her for weeks and maybe even for the rest of her life.

So when someone slings that sort of shi+ around here I see it as a sign of
weakness and perhaps even despair. We're already seeing the Republican
candidates start to sling mud at each other. Judging by what we see here,
it's going to be fun because they apparently lack both impulse control AND
good judgement. At least one of them is going to have a "macacca moment"
and get run out of the race before it. Count on it.

So, here are the confessions of a former Republican and a list of some of
the definitely UN-liberal leanings I have:

1) Kids should be taken away very young from people who can't afford them or
who abuse and adopted out to parents who can, PERMANENTLY. None of these
situations where a foster parent cares for a kids through infancy only to
have it ripped away by the idiots in the juvenile services of many states
who dogmatically believe "birth parents are always better!"

2) Out-of-work people don't get a dime in unemployment benefits unless they
show up for training, work or job interviews EVERY DAY at a government
office, dressed for work and sober just like they were going to their old
job. Studies *repeatedly* show that once someone gets money for sitting on
the couch all day, getting them back in the workforce becomes substantially
harder. The welfare system allows people the luxury of not having to pick
apples or clean bathrooms when they don't have jobs. That, in turn, leads
to the illegal immigration problem amplifying because some businesses
couldn't survive without them. Neither presents a good outcome in the long
term.

3) Once you have two kids, you have to pick up any welfare $ at the state
office where you will be a) **** tested to make sure welfare isn't being
shot up your arm and b) you drink an oral contraceptive good for a month or
agree to have an implant for birth control. If you test positive, you get
one more chance to keep your kids, otherwise, item 1 kicks in.

4) No "early release" for overcrowding. A tent camp with minimum security
is a much better idea than just turning people loose. Convicts should be
sent to clear out underbrush in fire-prone areas to help prevent forest
fires or sent to areas like riverbanks and rail-road rights of way that are
covered in trash.

5) The Feds should put the tax screws to big business and use the proceeds
to seed small businesses. It's been shown time and time again that large
companies spend lots of money to reduce their tax bill. A newly released
study concludes: ". . . ample evidence suggests that C.E.O.'s and their
corporations are expending considerably more energy on avoiding taxes than
perhaps ever before - at a time when the federal government desperately
needs more revenue to maintain basic services for the American people." I
am a champion of businesses - but only of small businesses - the ones that
generate jobs HERE instead of shipping them overseas.

Sadly, the IRS is the number one killer of small business start ups. I'd
approve of a tax holiday for the first year or two of a startup's taxes
(true small businesses only, please!) and other measures to insure business
seedlings aren't killed because they haven't yielded any fruit since they
began - a year ago. It makes NO sense in agriculture to expect returns
right after planting - but the IRS does.

6) I believe EVERYONE should take a gun training course and believe there
should be some standardization in gun carry laws - i.e. if you have a permit
in one state, it should be good enough for all 50 states, just like a
driver's license is.

That's barely scratching the surface. Am I a perfect Rush Limbaugh
Republican? Hell no. But I'm no Al Gore Democrat, either. It makes me an
independent, registered as a Republican but slowly converting to being a
Democrat. One more major Foley or Schiavo moment and I will probably have
to realize that the Republicans are on their way to extinction and it's time
to register as a Democrat.

--
Bobby G.

On Sep 2, 6:47*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Higgs Boson" wrote in message

news:e4cf0692-a511-4761-b5ad-

Oh, what a falling-off is there...(Shakespeare)

Actually it was:

O Hamlet, what a falling-off was there! From me, whose love was of that
dignity. * Hamlet by William Shakespea Act 1. Scene V

I'm only correcting you because my prof. dinged me for writing "there was"
instead of "was there" in an exam. *Now you get to look for the next
misquoter, the way we had to look for the next safety violation in shop
class when we made a mistake and had to stop work to become the floor safety
officer. *Until we caught a new one.

Damn! I had a feeling... I was going to look up that puppy, but
didn't take the time...

[...]

That's barely scratching the surface. *Am I a perfect Rush Limbaugh
Republican? *Hell no. *But I'm no Al Gore Democrat, either. *It makes me an
independent, registered as a Republican but slowly converting to being a
Democrat. *One more major Foley or Schiavo moment and I will probably have
to realize that the Republicans are on their way to extinction and it's time
to register as a Democrat.

Well, Bobby, looks like you & I are the only real Independents in this
whole blanking NG. Unless someone else comes forward g

Problem with registering as an Independent -- correct me if I'm behind
the times -- is that you don't get to vote in the primaries.

Even if there were a Republican candidate one could tolerate, it is
too dangerous these days to add one more vote to that side, given that
under the Mad Dog's lash, they march in lockstep --even those two New
England Senators who sometimes verge on the nearly-human.

The Mad Dogs' undeviating mission is to undermine the President -- not
difficult with such a wuss! -- but that extends to sabotaging his
nominees to the Federal Bench, such that many jurisdictions have been
lacking enough judges since the Bush era. The Mad Dogs also sabotage
Obama's nominees to important Administration posts. Upon which
President Wuss caves and throws perfectly good nominees under the
bus. Latest: Elizabeth Warren, who would have made something of the
hard-won Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

(Note to self: Look up a REALLY good quote from Shakespeare to
illuminate this situation...)

HB

Robert Green wrote:

I still have plenty of ultraconservative leanings, but it's apparent
that today's Republican club is so exclusive that if you're not in
synch on any part of the agenda, you're branded a lib loon. I admire
the balls of a party that lost the Presidency in 2008 yet doesn't
feel the need to win back fence-sitters, independents and others that
might be tempted to join them.

In the current environment, regrettably, there is no need to make the effort
to win back anyone. The Republicans could nominate a dead cat for president
plus a sack of hammers as a running mate and probably win.

Higgs Boson wrote:

Well, Bobby, looks like you & I are the only real Independents in this
whole blanking NG. Unless someone else comes forward g

Problem with registering as an Independent -- correct me if I'm behind
the times -- is that you don't get to vote in the primaries.


Actually, the "independent" voter is the most dependent of all. Come
election day, he gets to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. He has,
as you point out, no say in who the candidates will be. He has no input in
the policies, platforms, or promises of the candidate.

And, after the election, he has no influence with the office holder.

No, better is to affiliate with the party closest to your leanings. Raise or
contribute money, knock on doors, attend meetings and rallies, get elected
as a convention delegate, and so on.

Volunteers are essential to a successful political campaign. Consider the
immense logistical effort by a political party on election day. In a large
urban county, there may be 1,000 polling places. Each one needs two to ten
yard signs erected the night before. On election day, each polling place
will need two or more card-pushers. These polling place workers have to be
fed and relieved. Drivers and babysitters are needed to help get people to
the polls. Bomb threats need to be called in at polling places favorable to
the opposition.

The effort is not only rewarding, but it's kind of fun.

On 9/3/2011 7:39 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Robert Green wrote:
I still have plenty of ultraconservative leanings, but it's apparent
that today's Republican club is so exclusive that if you're not in
synch on any part of the agenda, you're branded a lib loon. I admire
the balls of a party that lost the Presidency in 2008 yet doesn't
feel the need to win back fence-sitters, independents and others that
might be tempted to join them.
In the current environment, regrettably, there is no need to make the effort
to win back anyone. The Republicans could nominate a dead cat for president
plus a sack of hammers as a running mate and probably win.



They'd have my vote.

On 9/2/2011 9:47 PM, Robert Green wrote:


I still have plenty of ultraconservative leanings, but it's apparent that
today's Republican club is so exclusive that if you're not in synch on any
part of the agenda, you're branded a lib loon. I admire the balls of a
party that lost the Presidency in 2008 yet doesn't feel the need to win back
fence-sitters, independents and others that might be tempted to join them.
They don't even feel the need to appear sociable in front of people, hence
the clear foul with "old hag." Every time a Republican insults someone,
another Democratic voter is born.


I seriously doubt more Democrats are born because of the offensive
nature of the Republican party.

Most folks are to the right of center. One of the reasons the very grass
roots non centrally organized Tea party movement attracts folks is that
they are tired of the full bore do it my way or die rush limbagh
Republicans insulting everyone.

Becoming an independent is largely a waste of time because we have a two
party system. So you just disenfranchise yourself.

What is needed is to clean house in the Republican party.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Higgs Boson wrote:

Well, Bobby, looks like you & I are the only real Independents in this
whole blanking NG. Unless someone else comes forward g

Problem with registering as an Independent -- correct me if I'm behind
the times -- is that you don't get to vote in the primaries.


Actually, the "independent" voter is the most dependent of all. Come
election day, he gets to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. He has,
as you point out, no say in who the candidates will be. He has no input in
the policies, platforms, or promises of the candidate.

That's not totally true but it is why I maintain a party affiliation. I can
vote *against* a Republican of my choice in the primaries. Besides, anyone
who's able to write more or less cogently about the various candidates can
be extremely effective in helping to "line up" the candidates. Heck, a guy
with a pocket video camera can change an entire election if they're lucky
enough to catch a "macacca" moment.

And, after the election, he has no influence with the office holder.

And yet I've gotten help from Democratic representatives without much
trouble. In the House and Senate independents (who sometimes represent a
tie-breaking vote) are often treated with great deference because they're
the tie-breakers. While I'd rather be registered with the same party that's
in power, I can live with being a registered Republican.

No, better is to affiliate with the party closest to your leanings. Raise
or
contribute money, knock on doors, attend meetings and rallies, get elected
as a convention delegate, and so on.

There are many ways to have input into a political campaign. Back before
the internet, reporters basically did the selection function based on who
*they* decided to track. The Tea Party, the Swiftboaters and a number of
other highly effective political organizations have been born on the
Internet and are a tribute to new ways of doing things.

It seems that quite a few people "help" as we do: writing Usenet posts to
explain their POV. The standard doorknocking and rallying techniques are
falling by the wayside with the Internet generation. We can express
opinions, posit possible solutions, examine a candidate's past history and
more without being part of any formal organization. The old ways of doing
things seems to just boil down to barrages of thirty second attack ads that
get more sleazy and less informative with every new election.

Volunteers are essential to a successful political campaign. Consider the
immense logistical effort by a political party on election day. In a large
urban county, there may be 1,000 polling places. Each one needs two to ten
yard signs erected the night before. On election day, each polling place
will need two or more card-pushers. These polling place workers have to be
fed and relieved. Drivers and babysitters are needed to help get people to
the polls. Bomb threats need to be called in at polling places favorable
to
the opposition.

I am sure that last comment gets you a place on some Homeland Security list
or another. (-:

The effort is not only rewarding, but it's kind of fun.

My experience is that I don't want to be in the same room or on the same
team as "true believers" in either party. They're just too hard over for
their candidate to be very interesting. -Even realistic talk about a
candidate's shortcomings are seen as high treason, and it's why so many of
candidates get so deep in a hole - they are surrounded by "yes men".

So instead I try to focus on discussing what I believe are solutions to the
nation's pressing problems. I also work to try to debunk beliefs that I
know to be untrue or that don't make sense to me. The net is famous for
alternate realities.

Some of us, like you Heybub, demonstrate a remarkable and admirable habit of
not attacking the poster, even if attacked yourself. I try, but it's hard
to keep from getting provoked into a ****ing match when faced with a high
wattage provocateur. That kind of behavior often just spirals downwards and
out of control. Most of the political postings here are dedicated to
proving all the horrible things the *other* side did.

There's very little in the way of positive suggestions and ways to improve
things for the future. I find that sad in a group dedicating to fixing and
improving things. While a bright light shines from time to time, I had
hoped there would be lots more brilliant suggestions for improving the US
and the world economies.

--
Bobby G.

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
news:4ef2ef2d-3cdf-40cf-87a8-

stuff snipped

The Mad Dogs' undeviating mission is to undermine the President -- not
difficult with such a wuss! -- but that extends to sabotaging his
nominees to the Federal Bench, such that many jurisdictions have been
lacking enough judges since the Bush era. The Mad Dogs also sabotage
Obama's nominees to important Administration posts. Upon which
President Wuss caves and throws perfectly good nominees under the
bus. Latest: Elizabeth Warren, who would have made something of the
hard-won Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

(Note to self: Look up a REALLY good quote from Shakespeare to
illuminate this situation...)

I think the line from Richard III is appropriate, at least for how I feel
about Obama these days and his dogged but damned and ineffectual attempts at
bi-partisanship:

Richard III - Act 4. Scene II

Made I him king for this?"

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

I still have plenty of ultraconservative leanings, but it's apparent
that today's Republican club is so exclusive that if you're not in
synch on any part of the agenda, you're branded a lib loon. I admire
the balls of a party that lost the Presidency in 2008 yet doesn't
feel the need to win back fence-sitters, independents and others that
might be tempted to join them.

In the current environment, regrettably, there is no need to make the
effort
to win back anyone. The Republicans could nominate a dead cat for
president
plus a sack of hammers as a running mate and probably win.

Doubtful. You're forgetting that there's a very likely third party problem
facing the Republicans with the Tea Party and half in/half out Sarah Palin.
Think Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. Internal party squabbles often end up
putting the other side in power, or in this case retaining the incumbent.
Perry's making inroads with the already won-over ultra-conservative base.
But the "choir" doesn't determine election outcomes. It's middle of the
roaders that lean one way or the other that decide races these days. Read
about the serious problems Perry will face trying to win not the party
faithful, but the independents who are really the "deciders" in elections:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2086...mpaign-2012-mi
chele-bachmann-republican-nomination-primaries.htm

10. He called Social Security anti-American.
He vacillates between rhetoric that implies he wants to dismantle Social
Security and rhetoric that implies he wants to reform and fix it, and it has
never been clear exactly what he would do as president.

9. He opposed raising the debt ceiling.

Republican politicians demanded huge spending cuts in exchange for raising
the debt ceiling, but most understood that it did ultimately need to be
raised. Perry, however -- like fellow presidential candidate Michele
Bachmann -- said flat-out while the debate was raging that he did not
believe it was necessary to raise the ceiling to avoid economic damage.

8. He doesn't believe in evolution or climate change.

He told a child at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month that
evolution was "a theory that's out there. It's got some gaps in it. In Texas
we teach both creationism and evolution." He did not specify . . . what
gaps he saw in the theory of evolution.

7. He has suggested repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Perry supports several changes to the Constitution, some of which -- like an
amendment banning same-sex marriage -- are fairly common among
conservatives. But others are extreme from any angle. He said in his book
that he wanted to repeal the 16th Amendment, which permits a federal income
tax, calling it "a milestone on the road to serfdom." Tax cuts are standard
Republican fare, but it is unusual to hear a front-running candidate for a
major office advocate eliminating the income tax entirely. He also opposes
the 17th Amendment, which provides for the popular election of senators.

6. He wants to set judicial term limits and let Congress override
Supreme Court decisions.

Another constitutional amendment Perry has suggested would set term limits
for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices . . . Even more
controversially, Perry suggested allowing Congress to override Supreme Court
decisions by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate.

5. He is the most anti-abortion governor in Texas history.

Perry believes abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape or
incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. After all, Perry said in
January, "We can't afford to give up the good fight until the day Roe v.
Wade is nothing but a shameful footnote in our nation's history books."

4. He supports nullification and once suggested that Texas secede from
the Union.

The doctrine of nullification, in which a state claims the right to reject
and refuse to enforce a federal law, was discredited a long time ago -- in
1832, specifically, when South Carolina declared the federal tariffs of 1828
and 1832 unconstitutional. Congress responded by authorizing President
Andrew Jackson to deploy the military, and after a new tariff was
negotiated, South Carolina abandoned its nullification attempt in March
1833.

But in June, more than 170 years after the Nullification Crisis, the Texas
legislature passed a bill to let "any incandescent light bulb manufactured
in Texas and sold in this state avoid the authority of the federal
government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts
phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year," the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram reported -- and Perry signed it into law. With this bill, the
state is outright refusing to enforce a federal law.

In 2009, he also implied that Texas would consider seceding if the Obama
administration kept pursuing policies he found objectionable. . . Many
commentators and voters have noted how incongruous it seems for Perry to be
running for president of a nation from which he suggested, even in passing,
that his state might secede.

3. He questions the patriotism of top government officials.

"If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know
what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down
in Texas," Perry said of the possibility that Ben Bernanke, the Federal
Reserve chairman, would order the purchase of trillions of dollars of bonds
in order to boost the economy. "Printing more money to play politics at this
particular time in American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous in
my opinion." (Look, Chet! He's playing the "treason card!") Even Karl
Rove, Republican strategist extraordinaire, called Perry's remarks
"unpresidential." Perry also appeared to question President Obama's
patriotism in a remark he made to Danny Yadron of The Wall Street Journal.
Asked whether a previous comment meant that he thought Obama didn't love the
country, Perry said, "I don't know, you need to ask him."

2. He mixes religion and politics openly and unapologetically.

In April, as Texas suffered through a drought more severe than anything it
had seen since the Dust Bowl, Perry officially designated three days as
"Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas." His proclamation read in
part, "Whereas throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals,
Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it
seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in
prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous
wildfires." The three days of prayer did not bring rain -- more than four
months later, the drought continues -- but they did bring public ridicule
from Perry's critics, and they will likely be even more of a problem when it
comes time to win over the general electorate, rather than just Republicans.

1. He contradicts himself.

At first glance, Perry's positions seem rock-solidly consistent, if extreme.
He is a staunch supporter of states' rights, for example, and in July, he
told reporters in Houston, "You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment
or you don't. You can't believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and
then something that doesn't suit you, say, 'We'd rather not have states
decide that.'" An admirable principle -- except he hasn't followed it.

After New York legalized gay marriage in June, he stood by his words for a
while. "You know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and
that's fine with me. That is their call," he said. "If you believe in the
10th Amendment, stay out of their business." But he soon changed his mind.
"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a
different tack, if you will. California did that," he said in August. "I
respect that right, but our Founding Fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all
in the future think things are so important that you need to change the
Constitution, here's the way you do it.'" It is rather difficult to
reconcile that last statement -- that some things are "so important" that
the federal government should override the states -- with his previous
statement that a 10th Amendment advocate cannot just make an exception for
"something that doesn't suit you."

Then there is his unwavering commitment to small government -- except when
it comes to "homosexual sodomy," which Texas once banned. The Supreme Court
found the ban unconstitutional in its landmark Lawrence v. Texas ruling in
2003, and Perry was infuriated, even though the ruling was consistent with
his own stated belief that the government should not interfere in
individuals' personal lives. As these and other inconsistencies come into
the open, many supporters will stick with Perry regardless, but others will
almost certainly walk away.



--

Bobby G.

On Sep 8, 6:43*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Higgs Boson" wrote in message

news:4ef2ef2d-3cdf-40cf-87a8-

stuff snipped

The Mad Dogs' undeviating mission is to undermine the President -- not
difficult with such a wuss! -- but that extends to sabotaging his
nominees to the Federal Bench, such that many jurisdictions have been
lacking enough judges since the Bush era. *The Mad Dogs also sabotage
Obama's nominees to important Administration posts. * Upon which
President Wuss caves and throws perfectly good nominees under the
bus. *Latest: Elizabeth Warren, who would have made something of the
hard-won Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

(Note to self: *Look up a REALLY good quote from Shakespeare to
illuminate this situation...)

I think the line from Richard III is appropriate, at least for how I feel
about Obama these days and his dogged but damned and ineffectual attempts at
bi-partisanship:

Richard III - Act 4. Scene II

Made I him king for this?"

--
Bobby G.

You still bitchin about how tough it's been for
Obama? He had 2 years where his party
had control of the Senate and the House.
Reagan got what he wanted when he never
had the House and only had the Senate for
part of the time. Same with Clinton.
Every other president in modern times would
have thought it a dream come true to have
their party in control of the House and Senate.
For Obama, well it was just one more handicap
that kept him from doing his job.....

On Sep 8, 7:02*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...

Robert Green wrote:

I still have plenty of ultraconservative leanings, but it's apparent
that today's Republican club is so exclusive that if you're not in
synch on any part of the agenda, you're branded a lib loon. *I admire
the balls of a party that lost the Presidency in 2008 yet doesn't
feel the need to win back fence-sitters, independents and others that
might be tempted to join them.

In the current environment, regrettably, there is no need to make the
effort
to win back anyone. The Republicans could nominate a dead cat for
president
plus a sack of hammers as a running mate and probably win.

Doubtful. *You're forgetting that there's a very likely third party problem
facing the Republicans with the Tea Party and half in/half out Sarah Palin.

On Sep 8, 3:43*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Higgs Boson" wrote in message

news:4ef2ef2d-3cdf-40cf-87a8-

stuff snipped

The Mad Dogs' undeviating mission is to undermine the President -- not
difficult with such a wuss! -- but that extends to sabotaging his
nominees to the Federal Bench, such that many jurisdictions have been
lacking enough judges since the Bush era. *The Mad Dogs also sabotage
Obama's nominees to important Administration posts. * Upon which
President Wuss caves and throws perfectly good nominees under the
bus. *Latest: Elizabeth Warren, who would have made something of the
hard-won Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

(Note to self: *Look up a REALLY good quote from Shakespeare to
illuminate this situation...)

I think the line from Richard III is appropriate, at least for how I feel
about Obama these days and his dogged but damned and ineffectual attempts at
bi-partisanship:

Richard III - Act 4. Scene II

Made I him king for this?"

--
Bobby G.

Hey, not bad man! Complimenti

HB

"George" wrote in message
...
On 9/2/2011 9:47 PM, Robert Green wrote:


I still have plenty of ultraconservative leanings, but it's apparent
that
today's Republican club is so exclusive that if you're not in synch on
any
part of the agenda, you're branded a lib loon. I admire the balls of a
party that lost the Presidency in 2008 yet doesn't feel the need to win
back
fence-sitters, independents and others that might be tempted to join
them.
They don't even feel the need to appear sociable in front of people,
hence
the clear foul with "old hag." Every time a Republican insults someone,
another Democratic voter is born.

I seriously doubt more Democrats are born because of the offensive
nature of the Republican party.

I should have been more clear. Every time I see a Republican call someone
he disagrees with a "hag" or some other uncalled for insult, I move a little
bit more to the left. It reminds me of what Justice Potter Stewart once
said: "There's a difference between what you have a right to do and what is
right to do."

I don't think I am alone. I think a lot of people also find the rancor
pushes them away. That's true for me based on conversations I've had with
some of my ex-military friends who have voted the straight Republican party
line since they got the right to vote. A fair number are now convinced that
the Republican leaders hold their party's interests to be above those of the
country's.

http://thecenterforthestudyofthepres...ss.com/2010/07
/02/politics-by-the-numbers-proving-the-partisan-divide/

asks some interesting questions about the clear increase in party-line
votes:

First, is allegiance to parties increasing or is the American public merely
electing increasingly ideological politicians? Secondly, does the American
public actually possess the same party allegiance or ideology that
politicians possess?

What irks me the most is that when there was a Republican president, there
was no talk of "how are we going to pay for this?" when we created Homeland
Security, the TSA, the enhanced elint and humint resources or the two wars.
Money was spent largely because people believed it needed to be spent. Now
those same people who spent it are clamoring for other programs to take the
hit for the money misspent in AfRaq. It's hypocritical to ask now where
every dollar is going when the IG says that perhaps 80 billion dollars was
lost to fraud and waste alone. It's political maneuver that makes us look
weak and indecisive in the eyes of the many who would wish us harm.

The worst part? There's not one new idea on the horizon anywhere. I
believe that if the Fed boosted interest rates, it would start a landslide
of people buying houses and other items because they feared a further rate
increase. There would be a perception that the economy has finally bottomed
out and things were returning to normal.

Keeping the rate near zero doesn't seem to be working anymore, at least in
terms of stimulating the economy. It's almost like it's keeping the nation
in a prolonged economic coma. But too many people would howl and claim the
sky would fall if interest rates were restored to the levels they were at in
a naturally healthy economy. That is, not one pumped up with a flood of
cheap money invested poorly in real estate and other vehicles.

What bothers me is that people think this ideological purity (on both sides)
is somehow going to work *someday* if they only stay the course. But it
almost never has. People forget a time when Nixon created the EPA, Clinton
tightened up welfare and Congress could work together without obvious
partisan rancor. We used to be a much less divided country, doing what's
best for the country.

Sadly, I think this all began with Newt Gingrich, and that was about when I
started leaning left because I really dislike party-line voting. I want my
reps to stand for me and the district, not their party. When it became
clear the RNC was willing to pull support for anyone who didn't vote the way
they were told to vote, I really began to worry. Once people polarize, it's
hard to get them back together. I sadly don't see what's going to stop the
train now that it's gained so much steam.

Both sides seem now to want revenge first and what's good for the country
later. Sadly only disaster seems able to get both sides to temporarily bury
their hatchets. But each one of those hatchets is bagged, geo-tagged and
treasure-mapped so that when the brotherhood dies down, they can be dug up
again. By both sides.

Most folks are to the right of center. One of the reasons the very grass
roots non centrally organized Tea party movement attracts folks is that
they are tired of the full bore do it my way or die rush limbagh

I don't know where the Tea Party came from. My suspicion is that is was a
reaction to giving the banks, who created this current financial mess,
boatloads of taxpayer money. Hell, it infuriated me although I realize that
both Bush and Obama made huge payments and that tells me it's a bi-partisan
mess. Now that the sting of those huge payouts to banks has faded, so has
the Tea Party's influence. As for the future, their last rally here drew
more reporters than Tea Partiers.

Republicans insulting everyone.

Both sides do it now, but I still feel R's seem more likely to condescend as
in "the reason that you libs believe that the government should regulate the
stock market is because you're stupid" instead of something that has meaning
like "government regulations often create artificial conditions that allow
some people to profit unfairly."

Becoming an independent is largely a waste of time because we have a two
party system. So you just disenfranchise yourself.

Not if you retain a party affiliation, as I do as a registered Republican.
I can vote for the least likely to succeed. (-: That's empowerment, not
disenfranchisement. I'd never *register* as an independent because it's
stupid to reduce one's own options.

What is needed is to clean house in the Republican party.

I don't know if that's possible. First, they sold out to the religious
right and that's a deal with the Devil that's haunted them ever since. Now
they're splitting themselves into two distinct factions with the Tea Party.
Republicans appear to have become so bellicose that their infighting before
the election could do more damage to their cause than any 10,000 Democrats.
It's happened before.

If someone like Sarah joins the race but fails to get nominated, it's not
unthinkable that she would form her own party. That would drain votes away
from a Republican candidate, especially a moderate one. Perry's got a taint
from Bush that may hurt him since they were/are both Texas governors.

People didn't so much vote for Obama as they voted against the ghost of
Bush. People voted for Bush over Gore because they were voting against the
ghost of Clinton. Hell, Hillary lost the primary in part because of the
ghost of Bill leaving such a bad taste in people's mouths. When you ****
off enough people, they make it a point to get registered and get even at
the voting booth, even if only through a proxy candidate. The Tea Party was
an angry group, IIRC. People get motivated when the get angry in a way they
just don't when they merely "like" something.

In the long run, it's important to remember that promises and platforms
don't mean much. FDR promised to reduce the size and role of the Federal
Government during his first campaign. (-:

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

I still have plenty of ultraconservative leanings, but it's apparent
that today's Republican club is so exclusive that if you're not in
synch on any part of the agenda, you're branded a lib loon. I
admire the balls of a party that lost the Presidency in 2008 yet
doesn't feel the need to win back fence-sitters, independents and
others that might be tempted to join them.

In the current environment, regrettably, there is no need to make
the effort to win back anyone. The Republicans could nominate a dead
cat for president plus a sack of hammers as a running mate and
probably win.

Doubtful. You're forgetting that there's a very likely third party
problem facing the Republicans with the Tea Party and half in/half
out Sarah Palin. Think Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. Internal party
squabbles often end up putting the other side in power, or in this
case retaining the incumbent. Perry's making inroads with the already
won-over ultra-conservative base. But the "choir" doesn't determine
election outcomes. It's middle of the roaders that lean one way or
the other that decide races these days. Read about the serious
problems Perry will face trying to win not the party faithful, but
the independents who are really the "deciders" in elections:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2086...mpaign-2012-mi
chele-bachmann-republican-nomination-primaries.htm

10. He called Social Security anti-American.
He vacillates between rhetoric that implies he wants to dismantle
Social Security and rhetoric that implies he wants to reform and fix
it, and it has never been clear exactly what he would do as president.

9. He opposed raising the debt ceiling.

Republican politicians demanded huge spending cuts in exchange for
raising the debt ceiling, but most understood that it did ultimately
need to be raised. Perry, however -- like fellow presidential
candidate Michele Bachmann -- said flat-out while the debate was
raging that he did not believe it was necessary to raise the ceiling
to avoid economic damage.

8. He doesn't believe in evolution or climate change.

He told a child at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month that
evolution was "a theory that's out there. It's got some gaps in it.
In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution." He did not
specify . . . what gaps he saw in the theory of evolution.

7. He has suggested repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Perry supports several changes to the Constitution, some of which --
like an amendment banning same-sex marriage -- are fairly common among
conservatives. But others are extreme from any angle. He said in his
book that he wanted to repeal the 16th Amendment, which permits a
federal income tax, calling it "a milestone on the road to serfdom."
Tax cuts are standard Republican fare, but it is unusual to hear a
front-running candidate for a major office advocate eliminating the
income tax entirely. He also opposes the 17th Amendment, which
provides for the popular election of senators.

6. He wants to set judicial term limits and let Congress override
Supreme Court decisions.

Another constitutional amendment Perry has suggested would set term
limits for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices . . .
Even more controversially, Perry suggested allowing Congress to
override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote in both the
House and the Senate.

5. He is the most anti-abortion governor in Texas history.

Perry believes abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape
or incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. After all, Perry
said in January, "We can't afford to give up the good fight until the
day Roe v. Wade is nothing but a shameful footnote in our nation's
history books."

4. He supports nullification and once suggested that Texas
secede from the Union.

The doctrine of nullification, in which a state claims the right to
reject and refuse to enforce a federal law, was discredited a long
time ago -- in 1832, specifically, when South Carolina declared the
federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional. Congress responded
by authorizing President Andrew Jackson to deploy the military, and
after a new tariff was negotiated, South Carolina abandoned its
nullification attempt in March 1833.

But in June, more than 170 years after the Nullification Crisis, the
Texas legislature passed a bill to let "any incandescent light bulb
manufactured in Texas and sold in this state avoid the authority of
the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence
act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year,"
the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported -- and Perry signed it into
law. With this bill, the state is outright refusing to enforce a
federal law.

In 2009, he also implied that Texas would consider seceding if the
Obama administration kept pursuing policies he found objectionable. .
. Many commentators and voters have noted how incongruous it seems
for Perry to be running for president of a nation from which he
suggested, even in passing, that his state might secede.

3. He questions the patriotism of top government officials.

"If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't
know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him
pretty ugly down in Texas," Perry said of the possibility that Ben
Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, would order the purchase of
trillions of dollars of bonds in order to boost the economy.
"Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in
American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous in my opinion."
(Look, Chet! He's playing the "treason card!") Even Karl Rove,
Republican strategist extraordinaire, called Perry's remarks
"unpresidential." Perry also appeared to question President Obama's
patriotism in a remark he made to Danny Yadron of The Wall Street
Journal. Asked whether a previous comment meant that he thought Obama
didn't love the country, Perry said, "I don't know, you need to ask
him."

2. He mixes religion and politics openly and unapologetically.

In April, as Texas suffered through a drought more severe than
anything it had seen since the Dust Bowl, Perry officially designated
three days as "Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas." His
proclamation read in part, "Whereas throughout our history, both as a
state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and
lifted up through prayer; it seems right and fitting that the people
of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this
devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires." The three days of
prayer did not bring rain -- more than four months later, the drought
continues -- but they did bring public ridicule from Perry's critics,
and they will likely be even more of a problem when it comes time to
win over the general electorate, rather than just Republicans.

1. He contradicts himself.

At first glance, Perry's positions seem rock-solidly consistent, if
extreme. He is a staunch supporter of states' rights, for example,
and in July, he told reporters in Houston, "You either have to
believe in the 10th Amendment or you don't. You can't believe in the
10th Amendment for a few issues and then something that doesn't suit
you, say, 'We'd rather not have states decide that.'" An admirable
principle -- except he hasn't followed it.

After New York legalized gay marriage in June, he stood by his words
for a while. "You know what? That's New York, and that's their
business, and that's fine with me. That is their call," he said. "If
you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business." But
he soon changed his mind. "I do respect a state's right to have a
different opinion and take a different tack, if you will. California
did that," he said in August. "I respect that right, but our Founding
Fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are
so important that you need to change the Constitution, here's the way
you do it.'" It is rather difficult to reconcile that last statement
-- that some things are "so important" that the federal government
should override the states -- with his previous statement that a 10th
Amendment advocate cannot just make an exception for "something that
doesn't suit you."

Then there is his unwavering commitment to small government -- except
when it comes to "homosexual sodomy," which Texas once banned. The
Supreme Court found the ban unconstitutional in its landmark Lawrence
v. Texas ruling in 2003, and Perry was infuriated, even though the
ruling was consistent with his own stated belief that the government
should not interfere in individuals' personal lives. As these and
other inconsistencies come into the open, many supporters will stick
with Perry regardless, but others will almost certainly walk away.

Thank you for posting all of the above and illustrating Perry's mindset.

But I thought you didn't like him?

wrote in message news:fdc22e72-2885-4f05-ad4f-
On Sep 8, 6:43 pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Higgs Boson" wrote in message

stuff snipped

The Mad Dogs' undeviating mission is to undermine the President -- not
difficult with such a wuss! -- but that extends to sabotaging his
nominees to the Federal Bench, such that many jurisdictions have been
lacking enough judges since the Bush era. The Mad Dogs also sabotage
Obama's nominees to important Administration posts. Upon which
President Wuss caves and throws perfectly good nominees under the
bus. Latest: Elizabeth Warren, who would have made something of the
hard-won Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

(Note to self: Look up a REALLY good quote from Shakespeare to
illuminate this situation...)

I think the line from Richard III is appropriate, at least for how I feel
about Obama these days and his dogged but damned and ineffectual attempts
at
bi-partisanship:

Richard III - Act 4. Scene II

Made I him king for this?"

--
Bobby G.

You still bitchin about how tough it's been for
Obama?

Obviously you didn't understand a word I said. sigh You really do see
the world in an odd way and extremely partisan and defensive way. I am
bitchin' *precisely* because he made it deliberately tougher for himself by
not seizing the advantage when he had it and ramming through an agenda
quickly without trying to fruitlessly draw the Republicans into the process.

Sadly, a part of me thinks it was the right thing to do but ONLY if both
sides are truly interested in discussion and not policy statement spewing.
If we don't return the days where the Capitol is not a warzone and our
representatives no longer even share meals with their counterparts across
the aisle, we're in trouble.

I'm mostly mad at Obama for not ending the AfRaq wars a few billion dollars
ago. The Shakespeare quote is made by one of Richard's co-conspirators who
complains, when Richard fails to reward him as promised, saying, in effect,
"I helped make this guy king, but what good has it done me?" (made I him
king for this?). Capiche?

He had 2 years where his party had control of the Senate and the House.

That's an illusion. People crossed party lines, went "independent", went
"rogue" and even switched parties. There were naked bribery offers made to
get people to switch their votes. That's the irony of all this partisan
crap. It's soooo
rare these days for supermajorities to emerge and I believe that when they
do it's the ONLY time politicians can claim a "mandate" from the people.
Yet they claim they are annointed by the people and God to do some very
partisan things when the margin of victory is laughably small.

This will surprise you Chet, since you feel you know everything about me. I
believe Obamacare is unfortunately one of those things where Obama seized on
a mandate that wasn't there. Ironically, socialized medicine is already
here, and it's been here for quite some time with Medicare. Why Obama
insisted on a whole new system eludes me. Extending Medicare to people in
their 50's would have solved much of the insurance problem. People in that
age bracket, especially out-of-work ones, just can't afford the premiums
private insurers demand.

Reagan got what he wanted when he never had the House and only had the
Senate for part of the time. Same with Clinton. Every other president in
modern times would have thought it a dream come true to have their party in
control of the House and Senate.

Modern times have changed greatly in just the last 20 years. Congress is
now a war zone, a result of Newt's plan to punish
anyone who crossed party lines to vote with the Dems. The atmosphere that
Obama and probably every president after him will face is going to be a lot
different than the cooperation that both Reagan and Clinton got from
Congress when times were flush.

One thing you've overlooked. There was that pesky little added bonus of an
economy that had frozen solid and took a lot of gummint money to loosen
(badly) again. It tends to put a damper on what Congress is willing to do
for any President. Obama took office with about the worst hand ever dealt
an incoming president.

For Obama, well it was just one more handicap that kept him from doing
his job.....

For once, I'd like to hear one of you true Republicans acknowledge that
Obama took over the reins of a very sick economy with a lot of deep,
systemic problems in the regulatory agencies, the tax codes and the job
market. Add to that a Congress that's voting more and more along pure party
lines rather than what's good for the country as a whole and it turns into a
very bad time to be elected President.

Despite all the criticisms lodged against him, so far, all I hear from the
right is "cut taxes" and "starve government" as if throwing more people out
of work is going to help reboot a frozen economy with over a trillion
dollars of assets that no one really knows how to price (mortgage based
toxins).

We sold our living wage manufacturing jobs to China. Then we sold them all
the equity in our vast housing and real estate inventory. Wall St., like a
swarm of hungry termites, has eaten away the meat of the United States and
left mostly an empty shell. What's left to sell? Our natural resources?
Our armed forces? What are we going to make? Who will we sell it to?

The vast economic convulsion of 2008 reset a lot of norms. Neither the
Republicans nor the Democrats have any
realistic plan to recapture the jobs we rolled up and shipped overseas.
They are gone, baby, gone. But I get the strong sense that the Republicans
would gladly rain down another year of economic woe so they can position
themselves as potential saviors in 2012. Cutting government spending will
certainly cause the unemployment rate to skyrocket and consumer demand to
slack off even more. I think more and more people understand that may be
precisely what Republicans want to do to set the stage for 2012.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

I should have been more clear. Every time I see a Republican call someone
he disagrees with a "hag" or some other uncalled for insult, I move a little
bit more to the left. It reminds me of what Justice Potter Stewart once
said: "There's a difference between what you have a right to do and what is
right to do."

Do you feel the same way when a Dem Senator suggests that the TP can
go to Hell? How about when a Rep from Indiana says that the TP really
wants to see Blacks hanging from trees?
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62396.html)



Both sides seem now to want revenge first and what's good for the country
later. Sadly only disaster seems able to get both sides to temporarily bury
their hatchets. But each one of those hatchets is bagged, geo-tagged and
treasure-mapped so that when the brotherhood dies down, they can be dug up
again. By both sides.


I am of the opinion that politicians largely REFLECT the electorate.
I think the main problem is that electorate is scared, doesn't know what
to do and so they can't lead the politicians, whose main goal is and
always has been to stay in power.


Republicans insulting everyone.

Both sides do it now, but I still feel R's seem more likely to condescend as
in "the reason that you libs believe that the government should regulate the
stock market is because you're stupid" instead of something that has meaning
like "government regulations often create artificial conditions that allow
some people to profit unfairly."

Probably pretty much the outlook on the GOP, about the D's.
Selective perception had always been bipartisan in nature (grin).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sep 9, 7:24*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message news:fdc22e72-2885-4f05-ad4f-

On Sep 8, 6:43 pm, "Robert Green" wrote:





"Higgs Boson" wrote in message

stuff snipped

The Mad Dogs' undeviating mission is to undermine the President -- not
difficult with such a wuss! -- but that extends to sabotaging his
nominees to the Federal Bench, such that many jurisdictions have been
lacking enough judges since the Bush era. The Mad Dogs also sabotage
Obama's nominees to important Administration posts. Upon which
President Wuss caves and throws perfectly good nominees under the
bus. Latest: Elizabeth Warren, who would have made something of the
hard-won Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

(Note to self: Look up a REALLY good quote from Shakespeare to
illuminate this situation...)

I think the line from Richard III is appropriate, at least for how I feel
about Obama these days and his dogged but damned and ineffectual attempts
at
bi-partisanship:

Richard III - Act 4. Scene II

Made I him king for this?"

--
Bobby G.

You still bitchin about how tough it's been for
Obama?

Obviously you didn't understand a word I said. *sigh *You really do see
the world in an odd way and extremely partisan and defensive way. *I am
bitchin' *precisely* because he made it deliberately tougher for himself by
not seizing the advantage when he had it and ramming through an agenda
quickly without trying to fruitlessly draw the Republicans into the process.


Where were you when he rammed through his $1 tril
stimulus and Obamacare? Since you think it's a good
idea to seize the advantage and ram things through
you won't be here bitching if the Republicans do that
in 2013, right?



Sadly, a part of me thinks it was the right thing to do but ONLY if both
sides are truly interested in discussion and not policy statement spewing..
If we don't return the days where the Capitol is not a warzone and our
representatives no longer even share meals with their counterparts across
the aisle, we're in trouble.

I'm mostly mad at Obama for not ending the AfRaq wars a few billion dollars
ago. *The Shakespeare quote is made by one of Richard's co-conspirators who
complains, when Richard fails to reward him as promised, saying, in effect,
"I helped make this guy king, but what good has it done me?" (made I him
king for this?). *Capiche?

He had 2 years where his party had control of the Senate and the House.

That's an illusion. *People crossed party lines, went "independent", went
"rogue" and even switched parties. *There were naked bribery offers made to
get people to switch their votes.

More excuses. He did get what he wanted and that
was Obamacare and his $1 tril stimulus.



*That's the irony of all this partisan
crap. *It's soooo
rare these days for supermajorities to emerge and I believe that when they
do it's the ONLY time politicians can claim a "mandate" from the people.
Yet they claim they are annointed by the people and God to do some very
partisan things when the margin of victory is laughably small.

The ass whooping the Dems got last election occurs
about once every 75 years.




This will surprise you Chet, since you feel you know everything about me. *I
believe Obamacare is unfortunately one of those things where Obama seized on
a mandate that wasn't there. Ironically, socialized medicine is already
here, and it's been here for quite some time with Medicare. *Why Obama
insisted on a whole new system eludes me.

It's because no matter what the issue, he thinks the
solution is more govt, bigger govt, more control of
people and more spending.


*Extending Medicare to people in
their 50's would have solved much of the insurance problem. *People in that
age bracket, especially out-of-work ones, just can't afford the premiums
private insurers demand.


Reagan got what he wanted when he never had the House and only had the
Senate for part of the time. * Same with Clinton. Every other president in
modern times would have thought it a dream come true to have their party in
control of the House and Senate.

Modern times have changed greatly in just the last 20 years. *Congress is
now a war zone, a result of *Newt's plan to punish
anyone who crossed party lines to vote with the Dems. *The atmosphere that
Obama and probably every president after him will face is going to be a lot
different than the cooperation that both Reagan and Clinton got from
Congress when times were flush.

Oh please. More excuses. Just like you claim poor
Obama couldn't get things rammed through when
he did precisely that with both Obamacare and
the stimulus, you ignore the fact that Bush was
vilified from the very start. The libs refused to
accept that his election was legitimate. Then
they went on to accuse him of being a liar and
war criminal. I also don't recall Clinton getting
along so well with the Republicans. Remember
White Water for example? Yet, Clinton was
an effective president.




One thing you've overlooked. *There was that pesky little added bonus of an
economy that had frozen solid and took a lot of gummint money to loosen
(badly) again. *It tends to put a damper on what Congress is willing to do
for any President. *Obama took office with about the worst hand ever dealt
an incoming president.

Yes, Obama got an economy that was a mess. But
actually, the conditions gave him an extraordinary
opportunity where Congress gave him almost
everything he wanted. Unfortunately, what he
wanted was Obamacare and a govt stimulus
plan that was ineffective. Reagan was handled
an economy that was in bad shape as well.
The handling and recovery were totally different.
Oh, and he didn't have control of the House the
entire duration of his presidency. No excuses
there, yet poor Obama is nothing but excuses.




For Obama, well it was just one more handicap that kept him from doing
his job.....

For once, I'd like to hear one of you true Republicans acknowledge that
Obama took over the reins of a very sick economy with a lot of deep,
systemic problems in the regulatory agencies, the tax codes and the job
market. *Add to that a Congress that's voting more and more along pure party
lines rather than what's good for the country as a whole and it turns into a
very bad time to be elected President.

As was Reagan. No excuses there.




Despite all the criticisms lodged against him, so far, all I hear from the
right is "cut taxes" and "starve government" as if throwing more people out
of work is going to help reboot a frozen economy with over a trillion
dollars of assets that no one really knows how to price (mortgage based
toxins).

All I hear from the left is more govt programs, more
spending, when the freaking federal budget has
already increased 40% in just the last 4 years.





We sold our living wage manufacturing jobs to China.

Then why is Obama's job's and competiveness czar
Jeffrey Imelt? He was sitting next to Michelle Obama
last night in Congress. GE has shipped boat loads
of jobs overseas, the latest being helping the Chinese
with building aviation systems that the defense dept
has objected to on national security grounds.





*Then we sold them all
the equity in our vast housing and real estate inventory. *Wall St., like a
swarm of hungry termites, has eaten away the meat of the United States and
left mostly an empty shell. *What's left to sell? *Our natural resources?
Our armed forces? *What are we going to make? *Who will we sell it to?

Where is Obama's solution to any of the above?
Ask him.





The vast economic convulsion of 2008 reset a lot of norms. *Neither the
Republicans nor the Democrats have any
realistic plan to recapture the jobs we rolled up and shipped overseas.
They are gone, baby, gone. *But I get the strong sense that the Republicans
would gladly rain down another year of economic woe so they can position
themselves as potential saviors in 2012. *Cutting government spending will
certainly cause the unemployment rate to skyrocket and consumer demand to
slack off even more.

It won't cause this consumer's demand to slack off
because I'm not receiving govt payments, I'm sending
them money. How about cutting govt spending
starting with waste? Or is that stimulus money too?
The GAO has a report that's been sitting around
for a year that a foot thick with waste, yet this
administration has done nothing to act on it. Or
how about cutting govt spending and at the same
time cutting taxes? Who says that will cause
unemployment to rise and demand to slacken?



*I think more and more people understand that may be
precisely what Republicans want to do to set the stage for 2012.


Uh huh. Now the failure of the economy despite
Obama getting pretty much what he wanted for
2 years gets spun into the Republicans are the
ones who are responsible and did it. Somehow
I don't think that's gonna fly.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


Obviously you didn't understand a word I said. sigh You really do see
the world in an odd way and extremely partisan and defensive way. I am
bitchin' *precisely* because he made it deliberately tougher for himself by
not seizing the advantage when he had it and ramming through an agenda
quickly without trying to fruitlessly draw the Republicans into the process.

You are in error in assuming he had a choice. With most of this
stuff, especially the HC Reform bill, he HAD to at least try because of
problems he was having in his own party, especially in the Senate. He
had a filibuster proof majority (before MA intervened) but couldn't get
the votes. So he had to at least take a stab at getting a few GOP'ers on
board to offset the Dems he couldn't move. (And a couple of GOP'er might
have given some of the Dems political cover to go along).
I always got a little ****ed when it was said the GOP was standing
in the way of HCReform. It is NOT the responsibility of the GOP to get a
Dem President's agenda through. It was the recalcitrant Dems who were
standing in the way.
Also, I find it interesting that you decry the atmosphere of
partisanship, yet suggest above that O missed an opportunity to "ram
through the agenda".


That's an illusion. People crossed party lines, went "independent", went
"rogue" and even switched parties. There were naked bribery offers made to
get people to switch their votes. That's the irony of all this partisan
crap.
And yet the GOP (at least this time) did not do any of this.

It's soooo
rare these days for supermajorities to emerge and I believe that when they
do it's the ONLY time politicians can claim a "mandate" from the people.
Yet they claim they are annointed by the people and God to do some very
partisan things when the margin of victory is laughably small.

Mandate is now catch phrase. It lost all legitimacy to me after one
GOP Pres and one Dem Pres said they had one despite (d/t 3rd part
candidates) not winning even half the vote.


Modern times have changed greatly in just the last 20 years. Congress is
now a war zone, a result of Newt's plan to punish
anyone who crossed party lines to vote with the Dems. The atmosphere that
Obama and probably every president after him will face is going to be a lot
different than the cooperation that both Reagan and Clinton got from
Congress when times were flush.

Nonsense. This is nothing new. It is just a swing in the pendulum.
You aren't really trying to make the case that Newt scares people more,
than say, LBJ. Also Newt was tossed by the Caucus, after an earlier
failed coup attempt.


One thing you've overlooked. There was that pesky little added bonus of an
economy that had frozen solid and took a lot of gummint money to loosen
(badly) again. It tends to put a damper on what Congress is willing to do
for any President. Obama took office with about the worst hand ever dealt
an incoming president.

And then played it badly.


We sold our living wage manufacturing jobs to China. Then we sold them all
the equity in our vast housing and real estate inventory. Wall St., like a
swarm of hungry termites, has eaten away the meat of the United States and
left mostly an empty shell. What's left to sell? Our natural resources?
Our armed forces? What are we going to make? Who will we sell it to?
Gee. If you take out China and substitute Japan, you could be
talking about the 70s and 80 (and Tiawan for the 60s).


The vast economic convulsion of 2008 reset a lot of norms. Neither the
Republicans nor the Democrats have any
realistic plan to recapture the jobs we rolled up and shipped overseas.
Of course you are largely looking at the wrong thing. Adjusted for
inflation, the output of our manufacturing sector is twice big as it was
in the 70s. It has been the area where we have had great productivity
gains so the jobs are gone (averaging 3.3% since 1979 and much faster
than the 2.0 overall growth in productitvity-- from a 2004 CBO report).
China has had less of an impact than robots, etc.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sep 9, 1:54*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"George" wrote in message

...





On 9/2/2011 9:47 PM, Robert Green wrote:

I still have plenty of ultraconservative leanings, but it's apparent
that
today's Republican club is so exclusive that if you're not in synch on
any
part of the agenda, you're branded a lib loon. *I admire the balls of a
party that lost the Presidency in 2008 yet doesn't feel the need to win
back
fence-sitters, independents and others that might be tempted to join
them.
They don't even feel the need to appear sociable in front of people,
hence
the clear foul with "old hag." *Every time a Republican insults someone,
another Democratic voter is born.
I seriously doubt more Democrats are born because of the offensive
nature of the Republican party.

I should have been more clear. *Every time I see a Republican call someone
he disagrees with a "hag" or some other uncalled for insult, I move a little
bit more to the left.

Tell us exactly when and where a Republican elected official, party
official or candidate
called someone a hag. I did see Congresswoman Maxine Waters saying
the Tea Party should go straight to hell last week. Did you miss
that?




*It reminds me of what Justice Potter Stewart once
said: *"There's a difference between what you have a right to do and what is
right to do."

I don't think I am alone. I think a lot of people also find the rancor
pushes them away. *That's true for me based on conversations I've had with
some of my ex-military friends who have voted the straight Republican party
line since they got the right to vote. *A fair number are now convinced that
the Republican leaders hold their party's interests to be above those of the
country's.

And that's why less than a year ago the voters gave
the dems the ass whopping of the century at all levels
of govt and put the Republicans in control of the
House, right?

As for holding their party's interests above those of the
country, polls show they think that of both parties.




http://thecenterforthestudyofthepresidencyandcongress.wor dpress.com/2...

asks some interesting questions about the clear increase in party-line
votes:

First, is allegiance to parties increasing or is the American public merely
electing increasingly ideological politicians? Secondly, does the American
public actually possess the same party allegiance or ideology that
politicians possess?

What irks me the most is that when there was a Republican president, there
was no talk of "how are we going to pay for this?" when we created Homeland
Security, the TSA, the enhanced elint and humint resources or the two wars.
Money was spent largely because people believed it needed to be spent. *Now
those same people who spent it are clamoring for other programs to take the
hit for the money misspent in AfRaq. *It's hypocritical to ask now where
every dollar is going when the IG says that perhaps 80 billion dollars was
lost to fraud and waste alone. *It's political maneuver that makes us look
weak and indecisive in the eyes of the many who would wish us harm.

Do you think just maybe that was because now the
spending has been taken several quantum levels higher
in just 2 1/2 years? That the budget is now 40% higher
than it was just 4 years ago? That Obama has already
added as much debt as Bush did in eight years and that
by the end of his term he will have added more debt than
all the other presidents in history?





The worst part? *There's not one new idea on the horizon anywhere. *I
believe that if the Fed boosted interest rates, it would start a landslide
of people buying houses and other items because they feared a further rate
increase. *There would be a perception that the economy has finally bottomed
out and things were returning to normal.

Keeping the rate near zero doesn't seem to be working anymore, at least in
terms of stimulating the economy. *It's almost like it's keeping the nation
in a prolonged economic coma. *But too many people would howl and claim the
sky would fall if interest rates were restored to the levels they were at in
a naturally healthy economy. *That is, not one pumped up with a flood of
cheap money invested poorly in real estate and other vehicles.

Maybe Obama should suggest that. Sounds like it would
fit in with most of the other wrong economic ideas. I
don't know of a single economist who thinks raising
interest rates in a sick economy will do anything but
weaken it further. Everyone from Keynes and Krugman
to Milton Freidman would tell you that you're nuts.





What bothers me is that people think this ideological purity (on both sides)
is somehow going to work *someday* *if they only stay the course. *But it
almost never has. *People forget a time when Nixon created the EPA, Clinton
tightened up welfare and Congress could work together without obvious
partisan rancor. *We used to be a much less divided country, doing what's
best for the country.

Sadly, I think this all began with Newt Gingrich, and that was about when I
started leaning left because I really dislike party-line voting.

Why am I not surprised that you place the starting point
at a Republican? I also suspect that you've been leaning
left so long you've lost all perspective of where this
country really is. Where they really are was demonstrated
last Nov and will be again in 2012.




*I want my
reps to stand for me and the district, not their party.

*When it became
clear the RNC was willing to pull support for anyone who didn't vote the way
they were told to vote, I really began to worry.

Again, funny how you focus on the Republicans. What
exactly was it that the Dems did to Joe Liberman because
he held some views that were conservative?




*Once people polarize, it's
hard to get them back together. *I sadly don't see what's going to stop the
train now that it's gained so much steam.

Both sides seem now to want revenge first and what's good for the country
later. *Sadly only disaster seems able to get both sides to temporarily bury
their hatchets. *But each one of those hatchets is bagged, geo-tagged and
treasure-mapped so that when the brotherhood dies down, they can be dug up
again. *By both sides.

Most folks are to the right of center. One of the reasons the very grass
roots non centrally organized Tea party movement attracts folks is that
they are tired of the full bore do it my way or die rush limbagh

I don't know where the Tea Party came from. *My suspicion is that is was a
reaction to giving the banks, who created this current financial mess,
boatloads of taxpayer money. *

There you go again. It was not, for the most part a gift.
Most of that money has now been paid back. The last
estimate I saw from treasury on TARP was that of
$700bil only about $70bil was still considered at risk.

Now for a true gift you need to look at Obama's $830bil
stimulus program. How much of that is going to be
paid back? Zero TARP is recognized as preventing
a total collapse of the financial system. What did
Obama's stimulus do?




Hell, it infuriated me although I realize that
both Bush and Obama made huge payments and that tells me it's a bi-partisan
mess. *Now that the sting of those huge payouts to banks has faded, so has
the Tea Party's influence. *As for the future, their last rally here drew
more reporters than Tea Partiers.

Republicans insulting everyone.

Both sides do it now, but I still feel R's seem more likely to condescend as
in "the reason that you libs believe that the government should regulate the
stock market is because you're stupid" instead of something that has meaning
like "government regulations often create artificial conditions that allow
some people to profit unfairly."

More total bias. Just last week Maxine Waters said the
Tea Party should go straight to hell. And Obama followed
on stage after AFLCIO pres Hoffa called the Tea Party
SOB's and called for them to be taken out. Coming
from a guy who's father was apparently taken out by
the mob, that;s special, isn't it?

Now show us some recent examples of Republicans
doing that.





Becoming an independent is largely a waste of time because we have a two
party system. So you just disenfranchise yourself.

Not if you retain a party affiliation, as I do as a registered Republican..
I can vote for the least likely to succeed. *(-: *That's empowerment, not
disenfranchisement. *I'd never *register* as an independent because it's
stupid to reduce one's own options.

Of course if a Republican conservative dared to try
to screw up the Democrat's primary doing what you're
doin, why that would
be another example of Republican evil, right?




What is needed is to clean house in the Republican party.

I don't know if that's possible. *First, they sold out to the religious
right and that's a deal with the Devil that's haunted them ever since. *Now
they're splitting themselves into two distinct factions with the Tea Party.
Republicans appear to have become so bellicose that their infighting before
the election could do more damage to their cause than any 10,000 Democrats.
It's happened before.

Why don't you focus on how to clean up the Democratic
paryt, since your views are about 99% in alignment
with them?

wrote:

The ass whooping the Dems got last election occurs
about once every 75 years.



Heh! What are the chances for two election cycles in a row?

Next Tuesday a special election will be held to replace Anthony Weiner. The
district comprises most of the Bronx and went for Obama by over 60%. It
holds a 3-1 Democratic registration advantage.

As of last night, the Republican was polling six percent ahead of the
Democrat.


Modern times have changed greatly in just the last 20 years.
Congress is now a war zone, a result of Newt's plan to punish
anyone who crossed party lines to vote with the Dems. The atmosphere
that Obama and probably every president after him will face is going
to be a lot different than the cooperation that both Reagan and
Clinton got from Congress when times were flush.





Despite all the criticisms lodged against him, so far, all I hear
from the right is "cut taxes" and "starve government" as if throwing
more people out of work is going to help reboot a frozen economy
with over a trillion dollars of assets that no one really knows how
to price (mortgage based toxins).

All I hear from the left is more govt programs, more
spending, when the freaking federal budget has
already increased 40% in just the last 4 years.

Plus, every dollar spent by the government, even for the salaries of the
drudges in the sub-basement, is a dollar of wealth destroyed.


It won't cause this consumer's demand to slack off
because I'm not receiving govt payments, I'm sending
them money. How about cutting govt spending
starting with waste? Or is that stimulus money too?

There will always be waste. You can't build a house without making sawdust.
The REAL solution is for the government to quit making metaphorical houses!
That's the only way to eliminate waste.

On Sep 9, 5:15*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

The ass whooping the Dems got last election occurs
about once every 75 years.

Heh! What are the chances for two election cycles in a row?

Next Tuesday a special election will be held to replace Anthony Weiner. The
district comprises most of the Bronx and went for Obama by over 60%. It
holds a 3-1 Democratic registration advantage.

As of last night, the Republican was polling six percent ahead of the
Democrat.



Thanks for making my day! I was totally unaware
of that. It's really remarkable. I wonder what the
newgroup libs who say the whole Tea Party and
Republican thing is over have to say about that?

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:42:40 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 9, 5:15*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

The ass whooping the Dems got last election occurs
about once every 75 years.

Heh! What are the chances for two election cycles in a row?

Next Tuesday a special election will be held to replace Anthony Weiner. The
district comprises most of the Bronx and went for Obama by over 60%. It
holds a 3-1 Democratic registration advantage.

As of last night, the Republican was polling six percent ahead of the
Democrat.



Thanks for making my day! I was totally unaware
of that. It's really remarkable. I wonder what the
newgroup libs who say the whole Tea Party and
Republican thing is over have to say about that?


Watch the coming NV race. We have a new district. The R is ahead of
the D.

That should button up the matter in Nevada :-/ Harry Reid is another
battle, for another day.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:42:40 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Thanks for making my day!

You may like this one in Texas.

"Meet Roger Williams, Rick Perry's former Secretary of State, who's
running for Congress in Texas' newly-created 33rd Congressional
District."

(must watch) 'The Donkey Whisperer'

Video:

http://nation.foxnews.com/roger-williams/2011/09/07/you-have-see-political-ad-donkey-whisperer

"HeyBub" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Next Tuesday a special election will be held to replace Anthony Weiner.
The
district comprises most of the Bronx and went for Obama by over 60%. It
holds a 3-1 Democratic registration advantage.

As of last night, the Republican was polling six percent ahead of the
Democrat.

I ran down that poll, via Google and it turned out to be a Siena College
poll. Who and what is Siena College and what is their background in
polling? I'll let them say:

http://www.siena.edu/pages/1180.asp

Siena College is a learning community advancing the ideals of a liberal
arts education, rooted in its identity as a Franciscan and Catholic
institution.

Hmmm. Do you think Catholics might have an agenda? Do you
think they might not be the most experienced pollsters?

Even if Gallup rose from the dead to do the poll personally, the win or loss
is not the end of the world or an indication of an overwhelming mandate from
anyone. It is a special election where there was serious misconduct.

Voters will typically vote against the party of the miscreant because they
can no longer vote against the man. That's how Bush Jr. won. People wanted
to vote against Clinton, but he was not running, so they voted against his
proxy, Al Gore.

What chicken-counters should know about their unhatched eggs is that polls
which show candidate X ahead can actually work for candidate Y. X's
supporters think they have the election in the bag, and they blow off voting
for whatever reason. Y's supporters really go all out to try to reverse
what they see is a losing trend and pour on the coals.

What bothers me most about some posters here is that they treat the
political process as some sort of high school football game, cheering at
every "play." Scheduling conflict? Oooh!!!! Another play to cheer.

The political process should be about the very serious business of
leading the country out of what's really the Great Depression II. To do
that requires honesty in analyzing why this huge meltdown occurred.

When I see the "CRA caused the meltdown" accusations crop up repeatedly with
almost no factual backing, I realize that many people either aren't very
interested in finding out what went wrong or they *know* exactly what went
wrong and it doesn't serve their interests to publicize it.

Capitalism has flaws, and the boom/bust cycle fallout is perhaps the most
serious. If it weren't for Social Security and Medicare, there would have
been rioting in the streets a long time ago. And yet some wish to destroy
those important safety nets. Good luck. Government, as Warren Buffet said,
is an important counter-balance to the problems of business. Those who seek
to "starve it to death" are pretty off-kilter because they really wouldn't
want to live in the government-free Xanadu they so often go on and on about.
They just don't know it.

Here's the unvarnished truth. Business has no conscience. BP assured us
that they could drill and stop any blowouts. They lied. Big time. That
*earned* them a moratorium while the Feds (stewards of oil that belongs to
all Americans) try to figure out what else they were lying about. Obama
didn't capriciously stop drilling (the fairytale that HeyBub tries to sell
from time to time). BP and co-polluters gave him virtually no other choice.
And that's why we need government - among a million other reasons. People
forget about the Equity Fundings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_Funding

and the Enrons of this world too soon. There has been serious fraud and
corruption on Wall St. since I bought my first stock in the '70's. I doubt
it's EVER going to go away. I, for one, want strong, honest regulators to
make sure that the interactions between people and businesses are legitimate
and not predatory. Business is by nature predatory, and has to be
constantly steered away from those impulses. As Chris Rock said, if
employers could pay workers in popsicle sticks, they would.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


When I see the "CRA caused the meltdown" accusations crop up repeatedly with
almost no factual backing, I realize that many people either aren't very
interested in finding out what went wrong or they *know* exactly what went
wrong and it doesn't serve their interests to publicize it.
Nobody in this mess WANTS anybody to know what really happened
because (1) all parties involved have their own things to hide and (2)
it is much easier to pick out one or two things that others did wrong
than it is to bring out the 100s of bad judgements, laws, and policies
(as well as a certain amount of bad timing) that brought this about.


Capitalism has flaws, and the boom/bust cycle fallout is perhaps the most
serious. If it weren't for Social Security and Medicare, there would have
been rioting in the streets a long time ago. And yet some wish to destroy
those important safety nets. Good luck. Government, as Warren Buffet said,
is an important counter-balance to the problems of business. Those who seek
to "starve it to death" are pretty off-kilter because they really wouldn't
want to live in the government-free Xanadu they so often go on and on about.
They just don't know it.

You aren't serious? You think SS and MCare is keeping the streets
safe? Yeah, all of the protesters tearing things up in Europe have been
old people. It was all those walkers that filled the streets of Athens.
Under this sceanario, SS and MCare are likely to BE the catalysts if the
youngsters ever decide they are bearing the brunt of the costs.

Here's the unvarnished truth. Business has no conscience. BP assured us
that they could drill and stop any blowouts. They lied. Big time. That
*earned* them a moratorium while the Feds (stewards of oil that belongs to
all Americans) try to figure out what else they were lying about. Obama
didn't capriciously stop drilling (the fairytale that HeyBub tries to sell
from time to time). BP and co-polluters gave him virtually no other choice.
The problem I have with the O in this case is that he had
announced the decision to open them back up (apparently happy with the
changes) and then put it back in when his peeps went all balistic.

And that's why we need government - among a million other reasons. People
forget about the Equity Fundings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_Funding

and the Enrons of this world too soon. There has been serious fraud and
corruption on Wall St. since I bought my first stock in the '70's. I doubt
it's EVER going to go away. I, for one, want strong, honest regulators to
make sure that the interactions between people and businesses are legitimate
and not predatory. Business is by nature predatory, and has to be
constantly steered away from those impulses. As Chris Rock said, if
employers could pay workers in popsicle sticks, they would.

The main problem with regulations is that everybody either sees
them as a panacea for all that bad, or the embodiment for all that is
bad. There is little being done to actually look at what regulations
work, what doesn't, and most importantly the costs. (Or when costs are
involved, only the costs of the one side are viewed as important.
The melt down was multifactorial. And,I would note,EVERY law that
was changed to help make it possible, was done by large bipartisan
majorities. Glass-Stegal repeal was passed by a VOICE vote in the Senate
for God's sake.


--
Bobby G.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sep 10, 6:48*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

stuff snipped



Next Tuesday a special election will be held to replace Anthony Weiner.
The
district comprises most of the Bronx and went for Obama by over 60%. It
holds a 3-1 Democratic registration advantage.

As of last night, the Republican was polling six percent ahead of the
Democrat.

I ran down that poll, via Google and it turned out to be a Siena College
poll. *Who and what is Siena College and what is their background in
polling? *I'll let them say:

http://www.siena.edu/pages/1180.asp

Siena College is a learning community advancing the ideals of a liberal
arts education, rooted in its identity as a Franciscan and Catholic
institution.

Hmmm. *Do you think Catholics might have an agenda? *Do you
think they might not be the most experienced pollsters?

Even if Gallup rose from the dead to do the poll personally, the win or loss
is not the end of the world or an indication of an overwhelming mandate from
anyone. *It is a special election where there was serious misconduct.

Voters will typically vote against the party of the miscreant because they
can no longer vote against the man. *That's how Bush Jr. won. *People wanted
to vote against Clinton, but he was not running, so they voted against his
proxy, Al Gore.

What chicken-counters should know about their unhatched eggs is that polls
which show candidate X ahead can actually work for candidate Y. *X's
supporters think they have the election in the bag, and they blow off voting
for whatever reason. *Y's supporters really go all out to try to reverse
what they see is a losing trend and pour on the coals.

What bothers me most about some posters here is that they treat the
political process as some sort of high school football game, cheering at
every "play." *Scheduling conflict? *Oooh!!!! Another play to cheer.

This coming from the guy who admits he's registered
as a Republican so he can go to the polls on primary
day and vote for the Republican that's most likely
easier for the Democrats to beat. Of course if it came
to light that some Republican ever did that, why it would
be the most unpatriotic, dishonest trick ever.

If you don't like that poll in NV, how about the other one
that Heybub pointed out. The race in NYC for the former
seat of Anthony SEEmy Weiner? That district is
3:1 Democrat and his been a Democratic seat forever.
Latest polls shows the Republican ahead by 6 points.
If he winds it will be the biggest upset since Scott
Brown won the former Kennedy seat in MA.

Even if the Dems win by a small margin, what does
that say about the notion that the Tea Party is dead
and it's back to business as usual?




The political process should be about the very serious business of
leading the country out of what's really the Great Depression II. *To do
that requires honesty in analyzing why this huge meltdown occurred.

When I see the "CRA caused the meltdown" accusations crop up repeatedly with
almost no factual backing, I realize that many people either aren't very
interested in finding out what went wrong or they *know* exactly what went
wrong and it doesn't serve their interests to publicize it.

I don't think anyone here said the Community Reinvesment Act
alone was responsible for the current financial crisis. I've listed
the many factors here over and over. The CRA is certainly one
of many factors that contributed towards it. Yet, you choose
to keep bringing up this strawman that all Republicans say CRA
exclusively is the cause.



Capitalism has flaws, and the boom/bust cycle fallout is perhaps the most
serious. *If it weren't for Social Security and Medicare, there would have
been rioting in the streets a long time ago.

There was rioting in the streets here in the 60's, 70's, and most
recently the LA riot in the 90's. We had SS and Medicare then.
And for really serious riots you need look no further than
the countries that have even more extensive social programs,
eg Britain, France, Greece, etc. In fact, it's precisely those
programs that can no longer be supported because there
is no more money and the high
unemployment that those programs have caused in those
countries that caused those riots. There goes that argument.



* And yet some wish to destroy
those important safety nets.

Another strawman. For the most part, the Republicans
want to reform those programs because they are
going broke. The guy most villified for
daring to offer a plan, Paul Ryan, wanted to turn Medicare
into a voucher system, where recipients would be given
vouchers that they could then use to purchase medical
coverage in the private market. That transition would
occur over decades. Maybe a bit radical,
but it's clearly not destroying Medicare. It's substituting
a new safety net for an existing one to solve the problem
of the current program going bust.

The Democrats response? Did they at least discuss
it, consider it? Why, no. Obama gave Paul Ryan a
front row seat at his news conference where he
proceeded to harpoon him. And what about the
Dems plan to keep Medicare and SS from going
bust which will start to occur about 2020 if nothing is done?
They have no plan other than to vilify any
Republican who does have a plan.


*Good luck. *Government, as Warren Buffet said,
is an important counter-balance to the problems of business. *Those who seek
to "starve it to death" are pretty off-kilter because they really wouldn't
want to live in the government-free Xanadu they so often go on and on about.
They just don't know it.

Oh dear. Starve it to death? One more time.
The federal budget is now 40% larger than it was
just 4 years ago. In 2007 it was $2.6tril. This
year it's $3.8 tril. Thank you for the opportunity
to get the real facts out once again. Facts, not
emotion.




Here's the unvarnished truth. *Business has no conscience. *BP assured us
that they could drill and stop any blowouts. *They lied. *Big time. *That
*earned* them a moratorium while the Feds (stewards of oil that belongs to
all Americans) try to figure out what else they were lying about. Obama
didn't capriciously stop drilling (the fairytale that HeyBub tries to sell
from time to time). BP and co-polluters gave him virtually no other choice.
And that's why we need government - among a million other reasons. *People
forget about the Equity Fundings

You seem to forget that accidents happen. When a Britsh Airways
A330 crashes somewhere, do we ground all planes from all
airlines indefinetly? And you conveniently forget that offshore
drilling was already highly regulated. The govt approved the
specific drilling plan for the BP well. Why is it that you always
vilify any business while at the same time giving govt a
pass. No, wait. That's not quite it. You want MORE govt.
How about next accident, we shut down the govt because
they contributed to it happening too?





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_Funding

and the Enrons of this world too soon. *There has been serious fraud and
corruption on Wall St. since I bought my first stock in the '70's. *I doubt
it's EVER going to go away. *I, for one, want strong, honest regulators to
make sure that the interactions between people and businesses are legitimate
and not predatory. *Business is by nature predatory, and has to be
constantly steered away from those impulses. *As Chris Rock said, if
employers could pay workers in popsicle sticks, they would.

--
Bobby G.

Many of us are more concerned about the interaction between
people and their govt and making sure that relationship is
legitimate and not predatory. See, I have a choice. If I don't
like a company, no one is forcing me to have anything to
do with them. On the other hand, govt is forcing us,
controlling us more, each year. For the clearest example
of this, you need look no further than how many days
the typical American must work today to pay all their
taxes compared to 10, 20, or 50 years ago. At what
point do we just become serf's of the state? It was
precisely that which concerned the founding fathers,
not the citizens relationship with a private company.
Sadly, for a long time, Americans have forgotten that.
But, I believe the libs have finally awakened a sleeping
giant.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 05:42:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

If you don't like that poll in NV, how about the other one
that Heybub pointed out. The race in NYC for the former
seat of Anthony SEEmy Weiner? That district is
3:1 Democrat and his been a Democratic seat forever.
Latest polls shows the Republican ahead by 6 points.
If he winds it will be the biggest upset since Scott
Brown won the former Kennedy seat in MA.

Even if the Dems win by a small margin, what does
that say about the notion that the Tea Party is dead
and it's back to business as usual?

"...“The whole national debate has moved away from what the
Republicans have done with Medicare to the national dialogue that the
president hasn’t been able to talk about the economy effectively and
that hurts congressional Democrats,” said one top Democratic
strategist who asked not to be named so he could speak candidly.

“It certainly hurts both of them and took Nevada out of contention.”

The Democratic candidates in both special elections have tried to
distance themselves from Obama."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/180735-obama-dragging-down-democrats-in-house-special-elections

The Tea Party is dead; just reloading :-/

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:48:53 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

The political process should be about the very serious business of
leading the country out of what's really the Great Depression II. To do
that requires honesty in analyzing why this huge meltdown occurred.

Reminds me:

"Obama has done for the economy what pantyhose did for foreplay." --
Kinky Friedman

And Ronald Reagan summarizing his view on government:

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops
moving, subsidize it." -- Ronald Reagan

Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Next Tuesday a special election will be held to replace Anthony
Weiner. The district comprises most of the Bronx and went for Obama
by over 60%. It holds a 3-1 Democratic registration advantage.

As of last night, the Republican was polling six percent ahead of the
Democrat.

I ran down that poll, via Google and it turned out to be a Siena
College poll. Who and what is Siena College and what is their
background in polling? I'll let them say:

http://www.siena.edu/pages/1180.asp

Siena College is a learning community advancing the ideals of a
liberal arts education, rooted in its identity as a Franciscan and
Catholic institution.

Hmmm. Do you think Catholics might have an agenda? Do you
think they might not be the most experienced pollsters?


What agenda? The Democrat, David Weprin, is an orthodox Jew in the most
Jewish district in the nation and he's behind 50-46.

Oh, I see what you mean! The Republican, Bob Turner, is a Roman Catholic.

Another polling outfit, Magellan Strategies, polled on Sept 6th and found
the Republican, Turner, leading by four percentage points.
http://www.magellanstrategies.com/in...n-survey-9611/

A poll a week earlier showed them tied:
"A McLaughlin & Associates poll of 300 likely voters found 42 percent would
vote for state Assemblyman David Weprin (D) while 42 percent said they would
vote for retired businessman Bob Turner (R)."
http://www.nygop.org/page/gop-poll-n...ce-weiner-tied

We'll see in a few days which pollsters are the most accurate.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:08:39 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Hmmm. Do you think Catholics might have an agenda? Do you
think they might not be the most experienced pollsters?


What agenda? The Democrat, David Weprin, is an orthodox Jew in the most
Jewish district in the nation and he's behind 50-46.

Orthodox Jews, ****ed that Obama abandons Israel.

The Jews swing back to the Republicans this time.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:48:53 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Next Tuesday a special election will be held to replace Anthony Weiner.
The
district comprises most of the Bronx and went for Obama by over 60%. It
holds a 3-1 Democratic registration advantage.

As of last night, the Republican was polling six percent ahead of the
Democrat.

I ran down that poll, via Google and it turned out to be a Siena College
poll. Who and what is Siena College and what is their background in
polling? I'll let them say:

http://www.siena.edu/pages/1180.asp

Siena College is a learning community advancing the ideals of a liberal
arts education, rooted in its identity as a Franciscan and Catholic
institution.

Hmmm. Do you think Catholics might have an agenda? Do you
think they might not be the most experienced pollsters?

I live a few miles from Sienna so their pollster is on the local news
frequently. I listen to most of their polls and in local stuff I
find them much more accurate than any of the national folks.

That said-- downstate is not all *that* local-- the election is the
only poll that matters -- and 6 points ain't much.


Even if Gallup rose from the dead to do the poll personally, the win or loss
is not the end of the world or an indication of an overwhelming mandate from
anyone. It is a special election where there was serious misconduct.

Voters will typically vote against the party of the miscreant because they
can no longer vote against the man. That's how Bush Jr. won. People wanted
to vote against Clinton, but he was not running, so they voted against his
proxy, Al Gore.

I can't agree with you there. The only candidate I can remember who
was less suited to run for president [not *serve*, necessarily, *run*]
was John Kerry.

Give Rove his due-- but the Dems threw both of those.

What chicken-counters should know about their unhatched eggs is that polls
which show candidate X ahead can actually work for candidate Y. X's
supporters think they have the election in the bag, and they blow off voting
for whatever reason. Y's supporters really go all out to try to reverse
what they see is a losing trend and pour on the coals.

What bothers me most about some posters here is that they treat the
political process as some sort of high school football game, cheering at
every "play." Scheduling conflict? Oooh!!!! Another play to cheer.


I'll let them live their vicarious lives cheering from the sidelines
for political crap-- it just ****es me off when they start looking at
wars fought by others as giant fantasy games.

Jim

On Sep 11, 6:55*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:48:53 -0400, "Robert Green"









wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

[...]


People did not vote against Gore. The popular vote was enormously in
favor of Gore. The whore Supreme Court decided that Bush "won". Gore
is greatly at fault for not challenging the count and demanding that
the entire state of Fla. be recounted.

[...]

HB

On Sep 12, 12:22*am, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Sep 11, 6:55*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:48:53 -0400, "Robert Green"

wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

[...]

People did not vote against Gore. *The popular vote was enormously in
favor of Gore. *The whore Supreme Court decided that Bush "won". *Gore
is greatly at fault for not challenging the count and demanding that
the entire state of Fla. be recounted.

[...]

HB

There you go again. The truth is that after the Supreme Court
decision, the press did several seperate investigations where
they went out and counted all the disputed ballots to determine
themselves who would have won under the various proposed
counting metrics. Using even the method Al Gore demanded
Bush won by a clear margin.

Here's one example from USA today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...loridamain.htm


"Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed.

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed
ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first
full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes
— more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple,
hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA
TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first
comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at
the center of Florida's disputed presidential election. "

Even the NY Times came to the same conclusion.
But this does help prove what many of us have said here
all along. And that is that the treatment Obama is currently
receiving from his opposition is no different that what
Bush received from the libs.

"Higgs Boson" wrote
On Sep 11, 6:55 am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:48:53 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

stuff snipped

People did not vote against Gore. The popular vote was enormously in
favor of Gore.

Enormous is a word I would *not* use in this case.

On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush
won with 48.8% of the vote in Florida, a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.
The margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a
statutorily-mandated automatic machine recount occurred. On November 10,
with the machine recount finished in all but one county, Bush's margin of
victory had decreased to 327

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

The issue of why votes from some states count more than others lies with the
bizarre electoral college system. It was designed from the start as a way
to remove the decision from the riffraff (hyperbole alert) if the voted the
wrong person in via popular vote.

The whore Supreme Court decided that Bush "won".

Could have gone either way. The fact that is went along partisan lines and
that more and more decisions have gone that way lately brings the alleged
neutrality of the SCOTUS into question. That may be a serious functional
defect, as is the current situation with Congressional gridlock. If all
these things were happening in a personal relationship, I'd say it's clear
we need marriage counseling for the branches of the Federal government.

Gore is greatly at fault for not challenging the count and demanding that
the entire state of Fla. be recounted.

Proving he wasn't POTUS material, to me at least. I know I'm the type that
will litigate at the drop of a hat, but his performance looked like it was
one "for the ages" and he hoped that people would remember him as an
honorable man who stepped away with grace instead of a loser. As Jim
mentioned, he just didn't come across as a leader. I kind of wonder in the
end if he didn't protest very hard because he didn't really want the job. I
believe (jeez, I can see his face, his uniform, hear his voice, but not
remember his name other than a "C" or something) ah, Colin Powell was
truthful when he said he had no desire to run because what it would do to
his family.

But I won't recant my claim that Gore had the stink of Clinton's sweaty sex
on him, indirectly, I hope. (-: That stink cost him votes. Enough to
matter much? Maybe not. But maybe so.

I believe strongly that Hillary suffered profoundly from Bill's bodacious
booty calls when she ran for President. I think that's really sad because
she might have been a far better President than Obama's turned out to be. A
lot of Democrats really, really want to distance themselves from Clinton for
his sex/perjury business. Maybe even more than Republicans want to forget
about "spend like there's no tomorrow" Bush. I realize these claims are
very hard to prove, but I believe that by and large the evidence is there if
you read what Democrats were saying after the impeachment. None were very
happy watching their guy spend the rest of his term on the run.

The Tea Party proves, I think, that American voters only come out in numbers
when they are angry. They were pretty peeved at Obama but he wasn't running
during the midterms so people voted against his proxies AND, ironically,
against the Republicans, too. They didn't care if they stepped on the RNC's
plans. People think of Tea Partiers as mostly Republican but Boehner's
inability to control them during the debt debate proves they're independent
enough to cause real trouble. It's happened before with Nader's Greenies
and Ross Perot's Weenies (sorry, I forgot the name of his third party - EDS
"Election disruption system" - no, that not it . . . Third Party Pooper -
no, it was something else).

All I really remember was his running mate, Adm. Stockdale whose performance
actually played into my decision not to vote for McCain. I thought his
rather unorthodox behavior might have been the results of his terrible years
as a POW. I worried that McCain could have a serious bout of PTSD if
elected that would leave the country in SP's hands. It turned out that
Stockdale had Alzheimer's and was in the early stages of it when he debated
Quayle and Gore. sigh

I've been learning a great deal about the large variability in onset and
progression of the disease. I've become convinced that Reagan was showing
mild symptoms of the disease long before he left the Whitehouse. Medical
experts say that mild symptoms can predate full-blown dementia by 20 years.

I don't think it made much difference in how things were done because of the
number of advisers and others who could and did take up the slack. His
tendency to blend personal memories with famous movie roles he played is
exactly what I would expect of Alzheimer's. A blurring of memories and
their sources.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"
People did not vote against Gore. The popular vote was enormously in
favor of Gore.

Enormous is a word I would *not* use in this case.
Over the entire vote, 0.51% difference out of something north of 10
million votes. You can't get any closer than that.

The issue of why votes from some states count more than others lies with the
bizarre electoral college system. It was designed from the start as a way
to remove the decision from the riffraff (hyperbole alert) if the voted the
wrong person in via popular vote.
I was never a fan of the EC until then. At least it kept the circus
to a minimum and more or less contained in FL. Can you imagine the hooha
if EVERY vote in the entire US had to be recounted and then litigated?
We'd STILL be waiting for the final count.



The whore Supreme Court decided that Bush "won".

Could have gone either way. The fact that is went along partisan lines and
that more and more decisions have gone that way lately brings the alleged
neutrality of the SCOTUS into question. That may be a serious functional
defect, as is the current situation with Congressional gridlock. If all
these things were happening in a personal relationship, I'd say it's clear
we need marriage counseling for the branches of the Federal government.
The part that tossed out the FL recount plan was 7-2. It only broke
5-4 on what to do next. If you really want a shock, read the dissenting
opinion (which by the way was fairly broken up, too, with multiple
opinions). Ginzsberg, for instance, called for a study of exactly how
much force it took to punch out the discs, etc. Really strange.
I can't find the URL anymore, but the CA Supreme's decision when
some people tried to stop the recall that eventually put Ahnold in
office is a very well done and interesting look at the error rates of
the various types. IIRC, the best anyone could do was about 3-5%, even
with scanners.
I also tend to point out that ALL of the FL problem precincts where
in counties where the Dems had majorities on the election boards and
that in every one, this was not the first time those (badly designed)
ballot formats had been used and had documented problems in the past
(one of the more interesting things in the CA decision was that the
error rates in the FL counties were not markedly higher in 2000 than in
the election before.).



But I won't recant my claim that Gore had the stink of Clinton's sweaty sex
on him, indirectly, I hope. (-: That stink cost him votes. Enough to
matter much? Maybe not. But maybe so.
In this case I would have to say if he lost 1% or so, then yeah it
would have.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"
People did not vote against Gore. The popular vote was enormously in
favor of Gore.

Enormous is a word I would *not* use in this case.

Over the entire vote, 0.51% difference out of something north of 10
million votes. You can't get any closer than that.

It was a classic photo-finish, right down to the wire. (Sorry, HB, but I
can't bring myself to claim that Gore had an "enormous" victory in the
popular vote.) In fact, what these close elections tell me is that the
country is seriously divided and the partisan pipe dreams of both sides
(that they'll one day have a supermajority and beyond) is making the problem
worse and worse.

The issue of why votes from some states count more than others lies with
the
bizarre electoral college system. It was designed from the start as a
way
to remove the decision from the riffraff (hyperbole alert) if the voted
the
wrong person in via popular vote.

I was never a fan of the EC until then. At least it kept the circus
to a minimum and more or less contained in FL. Can you imagine the hooha
if EVERY vote in the entire US had to be recounted and then litigated?
We'd STILL be waiting for the final count.

Perhaps. The Constitution was written in a era of slow motion. The long
delay between the Presidential voting and the inauguration was much needed
in the early 1800's but not so much now. I actually believe that even
recounting every vote would still not affect the process that much,
considering there's about two and on half months from election to
inauguration. It wouldn't be pretty, but it might be achievable. I might
have to agree that the follow-on litigation would be very difficult to
conclude in that short a time, but the court systems can really fly when
they need to. I'm on the fence with this one.

The whore Supreme Court decided that Bush "won".

Could have gone either way. The fact that is went along partisan lines
and
that more and more decisions have gone that way lately brings the
alleged
neutrality of the SCOTUS into question. That may be a serious functional
defect, as is the current situation with Congressional gridlock. If all
these things were happening in a personal relationship, I'd say it's
clear
we need marriage counseling for the branches of the Federal government.

The part that tossed out the FL recount plan was 7-2. It only broke
5-4 on what to do next. If you really want a shock, read the dissenting
opinion (which by the way was fairly broken up, too, with multiple
opinions). Ginzsberg, for instance, called for a study of exactly how
much force it took to punch out the discs, etc. Really strange.

I saw an interview with retired Justice John Paul Stevens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens

who said: "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity
of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the
loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an
impartial guardian of the rule of law."

I can't find the URL anymore, but the CA Supreme's decision when
some people tried to stop the recall that eventually put Ahnold in
office is a very well done and interesting look at the error rates of
the various types. IIRC, the best anyone could do was about 3-5%, even
with scanners.

I also tend to point out that ALL of the FL problem precincts where
in counties where the Dems had majorities on the election boards and
that in every one, this was not the first time those (badly designed)
ballot formats had been used and had documented problems in the past
(one of the more interesting things in the CA decision was that the
error rates in the FL counties were not markedly higher in 2000 than in
the election before.).

It was not a good year for trouble-free vote counting anywhere in the
nation.

But I won't recant my claim that Gore had the stink of Clinton's sweaty
sex
on him, indirectly, I hope. (-: That stink cost him votes. Enough to
matter much? Maybe not. But maybe so.

In this case I would have to say if he lost 1% or so, then yeah it
would have.

When the election is *so* close the "little trends" like revenge voting that
don't
count in big margin wins take on a "dealbreaking" sort of reality. Bill
Clinton not only screwed his own pooch, he screwed Gore's and Hillary's,
too.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



who said: "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity
of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the
loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an
impartial guardian of the rule of law."
JPS always a sore loser. (g).




It was not a good year for trouble-free vote counting anywhere in the
nation.
There is not such thing as trouble-free voting anywhere at anytime.
It is just that B/G fell within (well within) the margin of error of the
system used. Most don't get there so the impact of the error in the
system is moot. But when it does...



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz