Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:42:39 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: 
>
>Just imagine what Hillary or Obama would do, if elected. Shudder.
>

Yeah just think.  The middle and lower class might actually get a
break rather than the top 1% of the population.  You know those $4.00
a gallon prices you are paying or will be paying at the pump?  Those
oil companies are subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars by the
US government.  Thank you republicans.  That's really fair.

And the Dems didn't screw up anything.  The economy has been on a
downward slid ever since Bush took office.  They just changed the
numbers to make it look good.  The real unemployment rate is way over
5% when you take into account those who are unemployed and don't file
for unemployment insurance any longer because their benefits ran out.

The job growth that Bush likes to tout is almost all in the service
industry.  Those are jobs that barely pay minimum wage.  What he never
talks about are the thousands of manufacturing and technical jobs that
have been lost.

But you go ahead and delude yourself into thinking the Democrats did
that and the Republicans are your savior.
 
>

The democrats voted to hold the telecom companies liable for Bush's
warrentless telephone taps.  The Republicans blocked it and Bush would
veto it anyway.

>The Republican electorate is far less tolerant of many character flaws
>than the Democratic electorate. Every Democratic president since FDR,
>with the single exception of Carter, was a serious womanizer. AFAIK,
>the only Republican president in that timeframe who had *ever* had an
>affair was Eisenhower with his jeep driver when he was in England during
>WWII, before his presidency. A Republican president who did what Clinton
>did would have zero chance at re-election.

You're talking about the far right wing of the Republican party.  The
party centralists and moderates are not as picky.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"With global warming, somebody's baby is going to have to burst into
flames to make people do the right thing."
--  Chris Rock
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

SkippyPB wrote:
>
>
> Yeah just think.  The middle and lower class might actually get a
> break rather than the top 1% of the population.  You know those $4.00
> a gallon prices you are paying or will be paying at the pump?  Those
> oil companies are subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars by the
> US government.  Thank you republicans.  That's really fair.

Gas is $5.20/gallon in some parts of California. Still, that's not the most
its ever been nor is that price anywhere NEAR the historical maximum in
terms of hours worked per gallong. As for the middle and lower classes
getting a tax break, well, they ought to get the same break as everyone
else.

>
> And the Dems didn't screw up anything.  The economy has been on a
> downward slid ever since Bush took office.  They just changed the
> numbers to make it look good.  The real unemployment rate is way over
> 5% when you take into account those who are unemployed and don't file
> for unemployment insurance any longer because their benefits ran out.

Downward slide? Surely you jest. The unemployment rate is NOT based on the
number of people who file for unemployment - that's a completely separate
figure, as is the Household Unemployment rate.

The very first thing the Democrats started muttering about when they took
over the legislative branch was not extending the Bush tax cuts. Businesses,
faced with the prospect of a significant tax increase in two or three years
started making plans to address it. They cut back on planned expansions,
enlarging their facilities, hiring and training workers. They started
off-shore entities and incorporated subsidiaries in more tax-friendly
jurisdictions.

Just this past w, the Democrats passed a budget authorization bill which,
for the first time, included repeal of the Bush tax cuts in two years.
Expect more businesses and individuals to take protective steps.


>
> The job growth that Bush likes to tout is almost all in the service
> industry.  Those are jobs that barely pay minimum wage.  What he never
> talks about are the thousands of manufacturing and technical jobs that
> have been lost.

Jesus! Adam Smith put this notion to rest over 200 years ago. It is GOOD
that the U.S. lose manufacturing jobs that can be done better elsewhere. You
really should keep up.

>
> The democrats voted to hold the telecom companies liable for Bush's
> warrentless telephone taps.  The Republicans blocked it and Bush would
> veto it anyway.

Right. Democrats are on the side of the terrorists (and the trial lawyers -
which is pretty much the same thing).

SkippyPB wrote: 
>
> Once again another blasphemous and totally incorrect usage of the word
> "liberal" or "liberals" or "liberalism".  The meaning of liberalism is
> a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
> autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
> government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
> from arbitrary authority.  The meaning of Republican is just the exact
> opposite.  I'll take liberalism any day over the tyrannical,
> unamerican, unconstitutional leadership we've had for nearly 8 years.
>

You're probably right about the classic definition of "liberal."

I suppose that's why the Democrats have started calling themselves
"progressives."

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:17:05 -0500, Judson McClendon wrote:

> Do you have a sex drive? Do you therefore rape every woman in sight?
> It's not about having or not having natural desires; it's about restraint.

As I understand it, all of these activities were entirely consensual.

Tim

Cobol_Blues wrote:
> gOn Mar 10, 7:42 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote: 
>
> One thing I've noticed that often happens in these situations where
> Politician X gets into trouble, we usually hear their party
> affiliation, assuming they are a Republican. It will be REPUBLICAN
> Governor X is accused of molesting 6 nuns and kicking a puppy. Whereas
> if the politican is a Democrat, the mention of their party affilation
> is not always as regularly, if ever, mentioned.

You never hear a story about a barking dog or a crying baby. News is seldom
about the normal.

When a Republican gets in trouble, the fact that he IS a Republican is
newsworthy. When a Democrat does something nasty, his party affiliation is
not remarkable at all.

HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13tp208mdqlvhed@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Republicans, as a general rule, don't do that sort of thing. Democrats, as
a
> general rule, don't follow the rules.
>
> Republicans and conservatives generally believe that no good can come from
> an immoral or illegal act. The process determines the result, the rule of
> law is all.
>
> Democrats and liberals generally believe that the end justifies the means,
> that there are no moral, ethical, or legal contraints if the result is
> desirable. The result determines the legality of the process.
>

Judging by this - Republicans and conservatives generally are impossibly
smug,  judgemental, generalizing, closed-minded people.

Both "immoral" and "illegal" are situation-dependent concepts.  The "rule"
of law is no more immutable than than its basic assumptions - which vary
from society to society.

PL

tlmfru wrote:
> HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13tp208mdqlvhed@corp.supernews.com... 
>
> Judging by this - Republicans and conservatives generally are
> impossibly smug,  judgemental, generalizing, closed-minded people.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

>
> Both "immoral" and "illegal" are situation-dependent concepts.  The
> "rule" of law is no more immutable than than its basic assumptions -
> which vary from society to society.
>

Republicans, conservatives, and religious folk tend to believe that morality
is absolute.

Secular progressives, atheists, and Democrats are convinced that morality is
situational. Depending on the desired outcome, it is moral to murder, steal,
lie, or watch re-runs of Gilligan's Island.

tlmfru wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:8HbDj.19258$Er2.16586@bignews6.bellsouth.net... 
> population as a whole is somewhat more conservative than than liberal, 
>
> That is a very peculiar combination.  I would have to conclude from
> what you say that less than half of the population of the US consumes
> 98% of the media output.  That is, unless the US isn't a free market
> where people can buy what they want to.
>

I don't think it's 98%. A study by some worthy group in recent years put the
number of liberals in newsrooms at 87%.

Peculiar, but true. The Fox cable network has seven of the top ten cable
network news and opinion shows.

Many people don't get a chance. There are less than a dozen cities in the
U.S. with more than one (major) daily newspaper.

Murdoch was brilliant. He concluded that the American news outlest were left
of center but 40% of the country was conservative. If he could start a
network that was right of center, or even in the middle, he could get that
40% and leave the others to divvy up the remaining 60%.

He was right.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:42:39 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
 
>
>Just imagine what Hillary or Obama would do, if elected. Shudder.

My guess is that the Democrats will be as successful at doing what the
people are electing them to do as the Republicans were at doing what
the people who elected them to do.

The fiscal conservatives got a huge deficit.
The anti-abortionists got no change.
The Constitutional conservatives got Big Brother.
The isolationists got a world economy with legal and illegal aliens
and Americans who don't look and talk the way we do.

I don't see that the Democrats are going to be more competent,
especially during the recession caused by paying for the War in Iraq
(which was paid for by a deficit - which is a tax that more than
countered Bush's tax cuts).

Spend the money here, not there.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:42:39 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>The Republican electorate is far less tolerant of many character flaws
>than the Democratic electorate. Every Democratic president since FDR,
>with the single exception of Carter, was a serious womanizer. AFAIK,
>the only Republican president in that timeframe who had *ever* had an
>affair was Eisenhower with his jeep driver when he was in England during
>WWII, before his presidency. A Republican president who did what Clinton
>did would have zero chance at re-election.

I didn't know about Truman's affairs, if he had them.    But I'd
rather have a president who abused his power for sex than one who
abused his power for money.