From: Stephen D. Williams (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 12 2001 - 16:19:41 PDT
Jay Thomas wrote:
> Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote:
> > taking their cue from limbaugh, fox network frames the fact that democrats
> > garner the minority and women vote as some sort of insult, as if we comprise
> > a block of undesirable (and somehow more feeble) voters. republicans market
> Remind me again -- who was it who couldn't figure out a simple butterfly
> ballot, designed for the feeble minded, by a Democrat? Oh, right,
> Democrats -- jews and blacks who voted for Buchannan, meaning to vote
> for Gore. Funny how us "dunderheaded"
> pubbies could figure it out. Then again, so could most third graders.
> Thats the real reason we get so upset when W. keeps trying to reach out
> to the Gore voters -- we dont want em!! We don't want Democrats to
> switch sides. We enjoy watching yall look stupid. We enjoy seeing you on
> TV crying "Help us, we're victims"
> Republicans are the rich white party?? I don't think so. Republicans are
> the party of folks who know whats going on, know what has to be changed,
> and try to do it. Entrepreneurs, people who don't hate/envy the rich,
> but would like to be there someday. People who believe in fairness and
> Democrats are the victim party, the gay party, the welfare party, the
> deviant, hedonist party. The amoral party. The party of scandle,
> con-men, adulterers, traitors. People who spit on cops. People who boo
> boy scouts. People who would align themselves with the radical left over
> traditional American values.
> > themselves as the party of the wealthy and successful, so poor, white,
> > rectangle-state guys (see which states voted bush) can butch up and pretend
> > they're part of a winning team. suckers.
> You want to proclaim youself a member of that fine group, allied with
> James Carville, Bill Clinton, and Larry Flynt, be my guest. Throw around
> cute little neologisms like "repugnican", fine. But as a not so poor,
Well that was a little extreme. I know most Republicans mean well and
just can't stomach some part of the opposing platform. There are a few
however that are consistently repugnant enough... (When I care to pay
attention that is.)
> white guy from a Bush state, let me tell you, there are no delusions
> here. W. may have been an unknown, and not all he's done has made me
Actually I thought he was doing pretty well until the last week or so.
In my shallow watch, it almost appears that the good reviews of the
first 100 days allowed some rougher stances to come out.
> happy, but we knew what we'd get with Gore -- more socialism, more
> dishonesty, higher taxes, less freedom, and we fought hard. Those of you
Less freedom? Doubtfull. More socialism? Maybe, it's hard to draw the
line unless you are purist Objectivist. Dishonest? I can't keep track
of who's more dishonest overall. No points against W. yet. Previous
R's didn't do so well overall.
> who keep slinging around that "it costs alot to buy an election" are
> either totally dishonest or totally stupid. Gore did his best to steal
> the election and we stopped him. Deal with it/get over it, but I am so
I'm over it, but remember that he won the popular vote by 500,000+.
Every winner of the popular vote that lost the election won by a
landslide after running for the next term. Maybe it won't happen, but
Bush isn't looking that great at this point in time.
> sick of hearing it. You sound like petulant children who need a time out
> and a spanking.
> And since all of you doing the bitching on this list didn't vote for him
> anyway, and didn't agree with his stances/policies before he was
> *ELECTED*, I really don't care what you have to say now.
I seriously would have considered voting for McCain. If the Repubs had
nominated him, it would have been an easy contest.
> Shut the fuck up, already.
> > hoping cheney won't conserve anything,
> > gg
> I agree with you there.
> The Winning Team.
> P.s. -- I'm usually not this cranky, but after spending an entire
> afternoon reading nothing on FoRK but the scribblings of the gg/sdw
> Crypto-Marxist, Mutual-admiration society my brain must've melted. Think
> I'll go register Democrat.
Crypto yes, Marxist, never. I've always been an entrepreneur,
completely identified with Objectivism (although I view it as too
shallow to be totally purist about; it 'informs' well), etc. I don't
believe that Communism, Socialism, Marxism, or even the red tape mire of
India (apparently much improved) can work. On the other hand, I balance
my opinions by realism interpreted by various theories, not the other
I don't agree with the Democrats all of the time but they piss me off
less than the Republicans and no other party is viable yet.
> "You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those
> with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig"
> -Clint Eastwood, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" 1967
-- firstname.lastname@example.org http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 12 2001 - 16:27:40 PDT