Subject:
|
Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:13:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
306 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
Judicial fiat is how we have Bush as president if that’s the way you want to
look at it, so I’m not sure what you point is when you try to use an example
of a proposition that was doomed legally from the word go. What, the
judiciary should stand by if 59% of the electorate decide to ship all the
Japanese off to Manzanar again?
|
Yeah, just like all those media recounts showed that Gore still lost. We all
know that election laws don’t matter when Democrats are on the losing side...
|
So I expect to never, ever hear the phrase “liberal media” out of you, right,
since it sided with Bush? :-)
“We all know that election laws don’t matter when Democrats are on the losing
side...” Okay, back that up. Give some examples.
As to Gore, he accepted the final ruling, so that would not constitute an
example.
| |
Absolutely not. It is the job of the judiciary to evaluate the
constitutionality of laws passed through proper democratic or
representational means. That means following proper channels--court,
district court, appelate court, Supreme Court--not a “mediation” where one
side isn’t represented.
|
Mediation is usually to avoid an actual court appearance - there is nothing in
and of itself illegal about it. Perhaps if you laid out the entire scenario a
little more thoroughly, I could better understand your position.
| |
| |
You’ll have to give me a link on that one (but if it happened, I suppose it
is payback for George senior’s hate and fearmongering, if you will recall
his dirty deed on that account). Further, that would not have been the
action of the central Democratic party (or the Democratic party at all),
just as the recall in California has nothing to do with the central
Republican party (but still the local Republican party).
|
You can find a Real Audio of it at:
https://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/reality/2000/Fax20001026.html
The worst line of it was James Byrd’s daughter saying:
“So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate crimes legislation,
it was like my father was killed all over again.”
|
Actually, I’d say that was the best line. It has been the age old standby, kill
a white person, get executed, kill a black, oh, maybe a slap on the wrist. But
I rather imagine that it is as I said, payback for the Willie Horton thing,
which your site does not spend one word on deploring. One was a straight racist
appeal, the other was a complaint about letting racism continue (remember,
Republicans like to pretend they are the “law and order” party). So, no, they
are not directly comparable, but if they are, why aren’t you expending even more
effort on the ad that is the root cause?
But thank you, it was interesting reading (but I thought the conservatives shot
themselves in the foot more than anything).
| |
Don’t get me started on the DNC and Terry “Global Crossing is different than
Enron” McAuliffe, either...
| |
The same Enron that was championed by Bush and Cheney that put them in the
position they were to screw things up in the first place, yes. Don’t
confuse running for cover like a cockroach when the light starts shining on
all the skullduggery done in the dark with innocence of complicity in
creating the problem.
|
Championed by everyone, and they gave as much money to Democrats as
Republicans. Still didn’t do them a bit of good!
|
Yes, they tried to bribe anyone, yes, when the cold light of day struck, the
cockroaches pretended like they didn’t know them. So what? The bottom line is
that they were protected and sheparded by Bush and his buddies every step of the
way except the last (i.e. the main cupability for Enron getting out of hand lies
squarely on Bush). Just say, no they weren’t and we can go from there, or admit
that they were instead of these sound bite defenses. And yes, it did do them a
lot of good (in the short run, and some still now): many of those weasels
running Enron made millions at other’s expenses.
| |
| |
No, the economy that Dubya has driven into the ground worse and worse is the
one I’m refering to. You acknowledge that the tech sector was overvalued,
so how is that Clinton’s fault that people came to their senses?
|
Yes, overvalued through exuberant stupidity of investors who don’t know about
revenue or price/earnings ratios. Not really the fault of any President, nor
can a President particularly have much effect on the economy except through
tax increases and cuts. Bush has made the correct steps to try to stimulate
the economy, and there’s plenty in the world still trying to keep it down.
But it’s rebounding thanks in part to his tax cuts.
|
Is it? I must admit I haven’t had a regular newpaper the last few weeks, but I
haven’t really seen evidence of this. Anyone with some reports (and please,
regular news or business sites, not conservative or liberal propaganda sites)?
| |
(Probably we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.)
|
Hmmmm, I don’t know where we seem to be disagreeing that much: you site nothing
to blame Clinton, so it would seem to be on Bush’s head, and if it is
recovering, then it must have been down. All that we seem to differ on is that
it is going back up, and time will either prove your right or not, regardless of
what it appears like at the moment.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
41 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
