Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on December 15, 2000, 10:19:00 AM
-
Bush is our next president, just like Clinton was our last president. Clinton was impeached because he broke the law, period. He purgered himself in 1 court case and in a federal grand jury. Screw Monica L. it had nothing to do with what he did with her in the oval office. HE LIED UNDER OATH AFTER SWEARING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Say anything you like about it, it doesn't change the facts. He was inpeached, but not removed from office. Then he was pretty much left alone. That's just part of it. He would go into meetings with the congressional Republican leadership and make a deal, shake hands and say goodbye. His next move would be to walk out of the room, get infront of a camera and say that they had just agreed to the opposite of what he actualy did agree too. Bush won't do anything remotely similar to that. He's a man of his word, not that any liberal would know what one of those is.
This election taught me many things, but top on my list was something that it confirmed. I have believed for years that to Clinton/Gore the constitution is nothing but a barrier, something that gets in the way of what they want to do. This election confirmed that to me. Everything Gore tried to do was found unconstitutional. The best thing it taught me was that WE HAVE LESS THAN A MONTH LEFT OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION!!!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
Yesterday Barney Franks was asked if he'd comprimise with Bush, Franks said sure if he agrees to everything the democrats want. He didn't saying in those words, but anytime he was asked to comprimise he would start rambling off the liberal talking points. The left wing has no urge to work with the right wing, and visa versa. This is the way it should be too, what do those 2 wings of the parties agree on? Nothing at all, so there will be no comprimise between the right and left wings. I wouldn't trust the legislation if they did cooperate.
Another thing I've learned since impeachment. The political "will" of this country is in the middle. They don't like the extremes of either party. This was proven in '93 when Hillary tried to take over the medical industry, and again when the Republicans impeached der Schlickmeister. If the Liberal wing of the Democrat party refuses to work w/ Bush I bet they will lose their arses in 2002 and again in 2004. Same goes for the Republicans too.
The economy is already starting to go south, and has been for several months now and clinton does nothing. I wonder if he ordered Alan Greenspan to keep interest rates high to hurt the economy for Bush? Sounds synical, but I wouldn't put it past him for a second. He's a big picture type person and knows that the avg American will think, hmmm 8 yrs of Clinton, booming economy, 4 yrs of Bush economy goes south. For sure the only thing Clinton has done in the last 6 months to a year is raise money for his library. He has totaly fluffied up our foriegn policy and our military. Don't you think it says something when 80% of the military votes against him?!?!?!?!
I'm sure this pisses you liberals off, I'm sorry for that I'm just calling it like I see it. One thing is sure though, and take it from one who knows, if you go into revenge mode your going to do nothing but make yourselves angry for 4-8 years. Go ahead it's your right, but don't be suprised when 60% or more of the country gets tired of hearing it and starts to ignore you or better yet starts voting your leaders out of office.
I'd also like to say goodbye to that murderous proceedure knows as partial birth abortion (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) buh bye marrage penalty tax, buh bye death tax and HELLO 10% tax cut (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) This stuff will happen! LOL I heard Dianne Feinstein agreeing to tax cuts last night on Chris Mathews!!!!!!!! Sure the liberals in the Senate will filabuster, but that will only cost them their seats in 2002.
Mark my words!
Udie
-
I will bite. Just on the facts:
A. The impeachment vote fell along party lines, just as about everything else in his presidency and in the recent Florida brouhaha.
B. He lied under oath about his private life. He swore to uphold the consitution of the United States, his public duty. What is the relationship between these? This is about as stupid as discharging officers from the military for having discrete adulterous affairs.
C. Bush is a politician. Clinton is a politician. Probably the only president in this century who was a man of his word was Jimmy Carter, and while undoubtedly a man of impressive integrity, he wasn't exactly effective as president.
D. In partisan politics, especially in the last 20 years, things like "constitution", "ethics", "the good of the country" (remember the gingrich revolution?) are useful largely for their impact in soundbites. What is important is maintaining one's party in power.
E. But remember, it's in neither party's interest to destroy utterly the other party; one party wants to be dominant, but not absolutely so. They will compromise on some issues, because a disenfranchised public is a threat to the stability of our current government.
Here's one model to consider:
You have two parties, each one controlled by a core group that will be the principal beneficiary of the passing to political office of members of that party. Right now, these core groups for both parties are fairly easily identifiable as corporate (cf. the discussion of the fate of "Gore stocks" and "Clinton stocks"); in other words, competing (but not terribly distinct) groups of fairly wealthy individuals. There's also a slim amount of core ideology, but that's becoming less and less articulated with every election.
To win an election, though, these groups need to obtain the popular vote. This is done not so much by selling an ideology (this is amurrica, after all: we're practical people), but by extending the promise (and they better make good on it) of sharing in the benefits of power to certain sectors of society (this is why the "Character" issue is so useful: essentially you sell your candidate and promise nothing in return). Of course, you can't make the same promise to all sectors: that would be costly and pointless. All you need is 51% (or, in W.'s case, far less) of the popular vote.
This is where the importance of the other party comes in. It gives you an adversary, a scapegoat and a co-conspirator. By setting the party up against the opponent, the leaders can promise much less to the non-core-groups ("Character" or "Competence"), and still get their votes. The presence of the other party allows a convenient excuse for failure ("Somalia was Bubba's fault for not getting out of there", "Somalia was Bush's fault for getting in there in the first place"; "The Republicans shut down government to force their will on the people"; "The Democrats shut down government...").
Obviously if the other party were too weak, or nonexistent, this game wouldn't work. We'd have accountability, and there would be room for much-feared popular movements (which would threaten the existence of whatever core group survived).
So, both Republicans and Democrats seek to perpetuate the two-party system. Remember when the threshhold for receiving Federal Presidential Campaign funds was 2%? Ross Perot started a popular movement, and the next election that threshhold was bumped to 5%.
F. The political "will" of the country is a flexible thing; it has always been that way, as those of us who play WWII games should know pretty damn well. Nationalized health care lost in part because of the the nation's health care industries paid enough money in advertising to take every man, woman and child in this country out to lunch. Slick Willy probly didn't get impeached because of his artful composure (=Spin) during the process. Sure you could argue Specter's flowchart and the fact that Bill's affair wasn't exactly an affair of state, but the prevailing opinion in political circles is (and has been) that images, photo-ops and soundbites form public opinion more than doctrine, ideology and facts.
And, as I claim above, it's in everybody's interest to keep the political will of the country in the middle.
G. Agreed that economic cycles have little to do with who's in power. I don't think there's any collusion here. Boom-bust cycles are common and regular, and this one was heading bust a year and a half ago.
H. "Revenge Mode" is SOP for both sides. A special investigator whose tenure is almost as long as the two-term presidency, and the only thing he can turn up is the President lying about getting blow jobs?
I. Bye bye Marriage and Death taxes, hello tax cut? Three words:
Read my Lips.
H.
-
Oh c'mon Udie, tell us how you really feel (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 12-15-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dinger:
B. He lied under oath about his private life. He swore to uphold the consitution of the United States, his public duty. What is the relationship between these? This is about as stupid as discharging officers from the military for having discrete adulterous affairs.
Huh? The last time I checked, anytime you testify they ask you :"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...blah blah blah." So according to you, it's ok to lie in certain situations under oath? What exactly constitutes an acceptable perjure?
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 12-15-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Udie:
<snip>
I'd also like to say goodbye to that murderous proceedure knows as partial birth abortion
<snip>
Here we go again. This is one of the Republican Party's biggest flaws: sticking their nose in everybody's business. I'm looking forward to all kinds of new contentious right-wing moral legislation.
10% percent tax cut? Read my lips! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
I haven't figured out yet how we're going to have a tax cut while at the same time we're going to build our godzillion dollar Spray 'n Pray Missile Defense. If GW can do it, God bless him.
Left or Right, Republican or Democrat, they're all a pain in the ass!
-
Blur is right on as usual (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
-
Barney Frank, the democrat homosexual who's roommate, er lover, was busted for running a homosexual prostitution business out of their house.
And to think people elect this trash to represent them..............
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Barney Frank, the democrat homosexual who's roommate, er lover, was busted for running a homosexual prostitution business out of their house.
And to think people elect this trash to represent them..............
Eagler
Alcoholic, drug addict rich boy, who never held a real job in his life, and the BS ones he had - he bancrupted..... hell.. half of the time he has trouble reading his speaches..
And to think people elect this trash to represent them..............
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
hey FD, dont talk about Gore like that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
sorry fd ski, didn't know you voted for Barney Frank, didn't mean to upset you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Bush hasn't had a drink in 20 years, I respect that.
Eagler
-
I haven't figured out yet how we're going to have a tax cut while at the same time we're going to build our godzillion dollar Spray 'n Pray Missile Defense.
That's easy. They are either going to...
A) Run up our national debt, or....
B) Cut funding from other areas (which they never specify before an election) to pay for it.
Gordo
-
I'm all for B, heartless as that may make me.
-
you forgot:
c) Not bother with the Spray and Pray Missile Defence.
Sure, some people would argue we so desperately need it (for some reason), but they'd be the same people who argued the same for Reagan's Star Wars program.
-
Heh, we'll have to wait and see if they choose A or B this time around, eh Fatty? I don't necessarily have a problem with B either. Hell, I might vote for them because of it IF they were to spell out exactly what they plan to cut at the time I am figuring out who to vote for. But they don't, so my decision making is made that much easier. I guess it is more politically prudent to keep such details nebulous before an election.
Gordo
-
Originally posted by Dinger:
B. He lied under oath about his private life. He swore to uphold the consitution of the United States, his public duty. What is the relationship between these? This is about as stupid as discharging officers from the military for having discrete adulterous affairs.
B.
It dinnae matter what he lied about. He lied, and he did it under oath, which is perjury, which is illegal. Isn't part of the public duties of the executive branch to uphold the laws? Does the law make some distiction about lying about public duty and lying about intimate, personal business? Not the last time I heard.
-
DUBYA is da stuff! (http://www.gopfun.com/images/bush28x120.gif)
-
Many Republicans just don't get it. The United States of America is split 50/50 (only 50% voted? well, think of it as a really large poll, then). There is an entire other half of the nation that is liberal. Where's the vindication of conservative values in that? A co-worker of mine, a young moderate Republican, has told me people like him are waiting for the 'Old Guard' to to leave politics, so that the GOP can return to more productive legislation. And, while he had problems with Clinton, the Lewinsky thing was not one of them.
Udie, you need to talk to other people besides your deeply conservative friends if you want to really understand what an uphill battle Bush has in store. An interesting note is Bush's pick for Energy Secretary, Senator Breaux, a Democrat. Sen.Breaux has already told Bush he wasn't interested, and Breaux is a conservative Democrat.
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 12-15-2000).]
-
Uh leonid, with all due respect:
the secretary of energy is the guy who gets to oversee the massively expensive spray-and-pray missile defense. Previous SOEs have gotten screwed as they are partisan appointments to probably the easiest partisan target out there. The last (democrat) SOE saw his career get ruined over a misplaced hard drive and a possible (read: nonexistent) espionage case. The (republican) SOEs before him got screwed on nonexistent environmental issues. You have to be pretty stupid, ideologically motivated or near death to agree to be Secretary of Energy these days.
-
Dinger is right. Anybody who would accept that post is just askin' for it. He knows it, I know it, hell... Breaux certainly knew it. So what does that say, really, about W's 'gesture'. Not a lot.
But that wasn't Leonid's point, was it? "An interesting note", he said... and indeed it is... But still, it aint fair to focus on that 'note' as if it were the gist of Leonid's comment.
-
Hmmmmm. It's a shame Bush is totally clueless tho.
I mean you only have to look at him to see he simply *looks* like a complete gimboid. As soon as he opens his mouth he confirms it.
What was it he said once? "Our future successes will be defined by the success of our future endeavours" or something like that. Er.....yeah ok. Bush has got to be the daftest bloke I've ever seen on the TV (and that includes everyone who's ever been on the Jerry Springer show).
Gimme a break, when a man of Bush's intellect can be elected president of the most powerful nation on earth it's time to pack up and move back to Saturn where it's safe.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Swoop
-
Originally posted by Swoop:
Hmmmmm. It's a shame Bush is totally clueless tho.
I mean you only have to look at him to see he simply *looks* like a complete gimboid. As soon as he opens his mouth he confirms it.
What was it he said once? "Our future successes will be defined by the success of our future endeavours" or something like that. Er.....yeah ok. Bush has got to be the daftest bloke I've ever seen on the TV (and that includes everyone who's ever been on the Jerry Springer show).
Gimme a break, when a man of Bush's intellect can be elected president of the most powerful nation on earth it's time to pack up and move back to Saturn where it's safe.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Swoop
Cya later, next shuttle launch is..... im not sure actually.
-
Originally posted by Nash:
So what does that say, really, about W's 'gesture'. Not a lot.
Gesture? it is more like a strategic move, I hope the LA senator takes it. It is time for this country to do a "180" away from the "clinton/gore" ideology. The more conservative the better.