 | | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) Of course, if you simply hate Liberals, then Feinstein slithers, but at least she isn't an incompetent do-nothing. (...) We don't get a choice: it would be Cheney. I just had to one-up the Feinstein scenario you dread. :-) -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 11-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) I'm not clear why this is unrelated -- it seems very related to me, and also an obvious example of the U.S.' very poor foreign policy as a whole. The other issue is shelf-life: it is my understanding that most of this stuff has lost its (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote: (snip) I'm curious. Elsewhere in this thread the recall of Gray Davis was mentioned. I happen to think that a bad idea because I think that that could open the door for someone really horrible to (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) We have to be careful about that kind of assertion, though, because it's after-the-fact and is succeptible to tremendous spin. Additionally (though not conclusively) I've heard the point put forth most vehemently by conservative pundits, who (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
Well from all 3 Economics classes I have taken through high school and college all three teachers/professers have stated that a President and Congress's effect on the economy shows up about 10 years after the fact. Sort of a catch 22, the government (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) First you must demonstrate that it's obvious. Then you must demonstrate that it's biased. Then you must demonstrate that it's a source. (also riffing on that previous joke (for those joining us late)) (...) I confess that I'll miss him, (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) As to whether Harry Browne is running(2) again, let us hope not. Yes, some Libertarians lie/cheat/steal... but we don't claim to be perfect, just forgiven... er wait, wrong tagline, try that again.... but we are actively working to make the (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) Here's a good counterpoint from (...) This quote was taken from (URL) (21 years ago, 11-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) I failed to include my cite: (URL) (21 years ago, 11-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
|
(...) You make a good distinction. In the interest of fairness and disclosure, I offer some documentation of my assertion: Dubya's speech on 10/7/03 included the following statements: re: active biological/chemical weapons program: (...) and a (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
