The Christian/charitable MO would be -

Post #249,597 by Ashton 3/28/06 2:14:18 AM Reply	The Christian/charitable MO would be - Verily I say unto thee: 'Love' Hilary, {wink.. nudge} _{but Hate the sin of being-Hilary..} (You know, same logic as in the adjacent thread: picket one's abortion provider, who obviously did such competent and confidential work - that one is back on the line, next day: hypocricizing the new slime-just-like-You.) Ordinarily, I wouldn't much want to see her in (what's left of) the WH-burned-shell either; though that depends mightily upon the Possible Alternative, as always and especially so: amidst The Fear\ufffd. But I see the 'conservatives' == read: reactionaries' viciousness towards her as, identical to their manic response to Clinton.. from even before inauguration: Repos deemed that there should Never be a non-reactionary in the WH again: How. Dare. Him!! (& Her!!) 'Course there was no Diebold around then, to Make it So Fershure; but WTF.. techno always aids them as can afford to pay the most, to load the new dice with bleeding-edge innovations. Fucked-species do fucked things, especially in times when that ol'-reliable Fear card is being played most effectively; hmmm Revelations / The Book? Chapter entitled, Loving Viciousness 101 If we could just abolish that rotten old 'government' idea (starve it into evanescence) and let The Market 'correct things', then it'd be OK to just lynch Hillary outright and still feelgoodaboutourselves - and what could be more important than That? Archduke Ferdinand Growing-the-Enterprise, LLC Tell us your verdict: we'll program your jury - electronically.
Post #249,602 by bepatient 3/28/06 7:28:55 AM Reply	Good thing I'm neither, then If you can't see through her, then you are not as good a read as you think. Lynching has promise, though. Read her book, scan her other writings/positions, listen now. She is about as grounded as a summer breeze. She takes positions that are "convenient" and changes them according to the whim of a campaign manager. What "firm beliefs" she does have all appear to create shatteringly huge government. And by now you should know how much I like that. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #249,615 by jb4 3/28/06 9:58:40 AM Reply	Re: Shattering huge government... Oh, you mean like our "conservative" junta now, eh? jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #249,630 by boxley 3/28/06 11:14:40 AM Reply	exactly like the current crew Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #249,644 by Simon_Jester 3/28/06 1:05:42 PM Reply	In my mind worse.... our current junta claims to support smaller government, right up till it no longer suits them. The Clintons are, at least, a little more honest.
Post #249,678 by bepatient 3/28/06 4:48:57 PM Reply	While there may be a defense or 2 they are using the term "non-defense related discretionary spending" alot. And to be fair, that tiny little piece has declined in their budget proposals. It does exclude the war and Katrina spending (and the massive waste included in that spending) which is tripling the debt. And while its not popular, they are at least discussing approaches to entitlements, which the democrats seem to be afraid of taking a stand on. As far as "conservative" nature of this junta...I think the real conservatives figured them out a while ago. Bush and admin simply fail...and failed immediately upon coming up with the "pre-emptive defense" strategy. They are all living up to my expectations. They all still suck. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #249,632 by tuberculosis 3/28/06 11:32:55 AM Reply	Changeable would be a good change She is about as grounded as a summer breeze. She takes positions that are "convenient" and changes them according to the whim of a campaign manager. That would be a refreshing change from "stay the course no matter what" blockhead we have now. I'm not fond of Hillary - but what are the Reps gonna run? Frist?!?! I said I wouldn't support Hillary, I want better, but I'll vote for her in a second over Dr "DammitImADoctorJesusLookAtTheVideoCantYouSeeShesJustResting". Although, frankly I'd like it if the lot of them would go away and let some real candidates run. [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #249,647 by jb4 3/28/06 1:43:52 PM Reply	You mean, like Al Sharpton? Or Alan Keyes? At least you know where each of them stand...(and want to run away as fast as possible from them...). jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #249,681 by bepatient 3/28/06 4:50:06 PM Reply	What about McCain? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #249,686 by Another Scott 3/28/06 4:59:57 PM Reply	He pissed me off recently. [link\|http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/6/132113/2039\|Daily Kos]: Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:21:13 AM PDT John McCain, that self-styled "maverick" of Republican politics, continues to try to have it [link\|http://nationaljournal.com/mercurio.htm\|both ways], this time on the politics of abortion and specifically, the South Dakota ban. A spokesperson said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would have signed the South Dakota legislation, "but [he] would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." Well, Senator, the problem is that the South Dakota bill specifically ruled out exceptions for rape or incest, allowing only an exception for the ~~health~~ life of the mother, and by golly, the women of South Dakota were damned lucky to get that. I guess it's small comfort to know that their own lives rate just a little bit higher than a fertilized egg. McCain has tried in the past to distance himself from the Party of Dobson, but the allure of those hard-core, dedicated votes just keeps bringing him back. And McCain isn't the only one. [...] He's "Pro-Life" and that's well known. But he can't have it both ways. The SD bill doesn't have the exceptions he wants, so he should be against it. He's pandering to the Right too much. Cheers, Scott. (Who's reading [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale\|The Handmaid's Tale] right now...)
Post #249,689 by tuberculosis 3/28/06 5:02:57 PM Reply	Hadn't heard that - more Hillary than Hillary [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #249,693 by bepatient 3/28/06 5:23:27 PM Reply	Sounds like his press spokesperson could also have easily misstated the position and it would be more appropriate to say he "would have" signed had those exemptions been included. But, coming up on election announcement time, he way well be pandering to the right in preparation for another run at the big house. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #249,687 by tuberculosis 3/28/06 5:01:12 PM Reply	I have reservations He's been lying with the wrong dogs for awhile and while he has spoken up a couple times, he's been backing W a bit much for me to be completely comfortable with him. Frankly I'd like a Dem sweep, but I want different Dems than we have right now. [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #249,692 by inthane-chan 3/28/06 5:14:00 PM Reply	You go to elections with the party you've got...
Post #249,718 by tuberculosis 3/28/06 8:23:33 PM Reply	and catch a dose of the crap if you're not careful [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #249,711 by boxley 3/28/06 7:17:28 PM Reply	we would be in more wars than bush with him, no thanx Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #249,712 by drewk 3/28/06 7:22:18 PM Reply	Why do you say that? Not saying you're wrong, just that I never got that sense from him, or heard any reason to think so. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #249,714 by boxley 3/28/06 7:58:30 PM Reply	need to keep up with your reading :-) [link\|http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8221\|http://www.antiwar.c...n/?articleid=8221] McCain's record is so consistent on this point that it's hard to see how someone could miss it. He is not only fervent in his support for the war and massive intervention in the Middle East, but he supported each and every one of Bill Clinton's wars, back when Republican members of Congress were coming off like peaceniks. While the Republican caucus was overtly hostile to President Clinton's war aims in Kosovo and Bosnia, and tried to cut off the funds for that little expedition, McCain cheered and called for "more boots on the ground" as the Clintonites bombed some of the oldest cities in Europe. Indeed, if you Google "more boots on the ground" along with McCain's name, the list of hits numbers somewhere around 700. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #249,716 by drewk 3/28/06 8:08:17 PM Reply	Not how I recall his position on Iraq I remember hearing from him that we never should have gone in, but once we did we had an obligation to do it well. I've always gotten the feeling from him that he's against starting wars, but in favor of fighting those wars we are already in -- or can't avoid -- with all available force. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #249,607 by dmcarls 3/28/06 9:10:57 AM 3/28/06 9:12:00 AM Reply	The quality of mercy >then it'd be OK to just lynch Hillary outright and still feelgoodaboutourselves No need for lynchings.. [link\|http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/rachleff010805.html\|http://mrzine.monthl...chleff010805.html] DEATH OF A WOBBLY IN MONTANA , 1917 [...] "This is the year America enters the first world war and the British take Baghdad. This is the month when the Big Men in Butte, Montana, pay the Poor Men to destroy their own. [...] In the end, Wilkerson closes, the story of Frank Little\ufffds murder demonstrates how "an injury to one" is, fundamentally, essentially, critically, "an injury to all." Edited by dmcarls March 28, 2006, 09:12:00 AM EST Expand All History
Post #249,763 by Ashton 3/29/06 4:58:49 AM Reply	- is particularly strained now, what with all the shouting (Prof. Rachleff has his own sense of deja vu to contend with, out there in Minn., I'd suppose; bet not one in a hundred could give even a sketchy account of the IWW, in Murica '06) Seems that the refrain, an injury to all pretty well summarizes Butte '06 as well: [link\|http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair01042003.html\|http://www.counterpu...lair01042003.html] I'm not sure what the actual volume of their dead-lake is, as I think there's probably not a 'cubic ton' - I suppose he meant, cubic yards/metres. A square mile area sorta gets the idea across, though; and a cubic yard of water is about 1680#.. What's a planet for, after all - except to cash-in, next quarter? As for Chemistry.. well, you don't need to know about such frills in a pure marketing country: ROI.. There's the ticket! We may certainly expect the Bushies to do some triage on those pesky, wasteful Old-world concepts like - the Superfund. What's good for an $8M golfcourse in Butte should be good enough for the neighbors near Hanford WA too, I say. (Did you hear that a little bit of Plutonium in your diet is good for you? ... You will. You will.) Nasty folks, those Company goons - and an Armani isn't much of a disguise, today. Hey - you can kill with a spreadsheet: bloodlessly, at first. RIP, Mr. Little - you were on to Something.

Welcome to IWETHEY!