Why People Hate Bush

RE: HR 2239

Tick tick tick

RE: HR 2239

>sheets of paper marked with pencil folded into a box to be

>counted manually would be better than completely electronic

>voting.

Exactly. Sometimes technological advancements aren't an improvement over the old-fashioned way. Just like real sex is way better than cyber. }(

RE: HR 2239

Like America, Australia is also a federation of states. Unlike America, Australia long ago overhauled its voting system. Unlike America, however, our system is so complicated that it is thus far beyond the capability of either voting machines or electronic voting.

Australia has a federal Electoral Commission, entirely independent of government, which organises all federal elections. A joint electoral roll is usually maintained with similar state Electoral Commissions, equally independent of government.

Australia has compulsory voting, and has had it for over 80 years. The voter turnout in elections is around 95% or higher. The alleged shenanigans we hear of in US elections are not possible in Australia, where it is compulsory to vote and every effort is made to make sure people can do so.

Indeed, Australia has always held its elections on a Saturday, not a Tuesday. That way, most people do not have to try to get time off work or school to vote.

For more than half a century we have had the world's most complex electoral system involving preferential voting in the House of Representatives and proportional voting in the Senate. Similar systems are used in all state and most municipal elections.

Preferential means that you number the candidates in order of preference. If nobody gets a majority of first preferences, you eliminate the last candidate and distribute his/her votes according to their second preferences. And so on until somebody gets a majority of the votes.

Proportional is a variation of preferential, allowing multiple people elected for each state. Our Senate has 6 senators per state elected at each election, and without giving you the complexities, proportional representation allows a reasonably accurate allocation of senators according to the proportion of votes that party won across the state. If a party gets 45% of the vote, they get around 45% of the senators for the state.

We experimented with electronic voting for the first time in an election in my home city of Canberra (the national capital) 2 years ago. Too many problems emerged to repeat it, so for the moment we're still stuck with paper ballots. However, the very simple American system of first-past-the-post should allow electronic voting to work perfectly. The idea of a paper printout, however, is a brilliantly simple solution to ensuring accountability.

The Australian system has several features worth thinking about, though I grant you that it's not everybody's favourite. First, there is compulsory voting. It denies people the option of just not voting, but it does make it unlikely that the weather or roadworks could affect the outcome. Second, there is preferential or propotional representation. This makes it fairer for smaller parties while still ensuring strong majority government in the lower house, but it is quite complex for voters. Third, there are entirely independent electoral commissions without political interference by either main party to organise and supervise elections. Fourth, the elections are held on a weekend, not a weekday.

We're not perfect, but we are an interesting example of how things could be run. Almost anything, however, would be better than the embarrassing sight of electoral officials in Florida in 2000 crawling over the floor looking for chards, or the constant unease felt by so many about the accuracy of the 2000 result, not just in Florida but in other places as well.

The world's greatest democracy can do much, much better than this. The rest of the world didn't know whether to laugh or cry as the frankly amateur and embarrassing election system was blazened across the world's TV sets. Florida set back America's credibility as a great democracy, for a host of reasons large and small.

RE: HR 2239

elections in the US won't be held on shabbat (sat) or on sunday any time soon. of course, laws mandating time off to vote could take care of that.

>Don't fuck with Woodlawn.............you're way out of your

>league.

Hey, "Bucky" - thanks for the warning! This woodlawn sounds scary! Do you think that if he gets angry enough he might call me "shithead" and "liar" again? Gosh, I sure hope not - I never know what to do when presented with such compelling arguments. Frightening!

Your worship is cute, though - like a submissive weak dog licking the face of stronger dogs, hoping not to be bitten. What's it like to live life cowering in fear in the corner?

>And tell us, please, the source of your crypto-fascist drivel, . . .

Whether or not adult stem cells provide the roughly equivalent reserach value of embryonic stem cells is a question of scientific fact, not political opinion. Believing that they are or are not the equivalent cannot, therefore, by "cryto-fascist" or any other ideological cliche you want to use. Only someone drowning in irrational petty political contempt could think that it is.

>since your drug-addicted god Rush is busy with rehab these

>days.

I think Rush Limbaugh is as foolish, silly, petty, worthless and irrational as I think you are. The fact that you nonetheless opined that he is my "god" only validates that view of you.

>Social Darwinist that he is, Bush probably wants children to

>die, especially the "weak" ones that are diseased.

Actually, Bush is a Christian, as even his enemies acknowledge. That religion, which glorifies the weak and has as one of its central tenets the view that they shall inherit the Earth, is the opposite of Social Darwinism.

Believing that the Government should not steal money from the rich and use it to "support" the poor is not the same as wanting the poor to suffer. In fact, the opposite may be true, since some people may believ that having the Government steal from the rich to support the poor results in an addictive mentality for the poor, where they become addicted to Govermental entitlement programs and achieve nothing for themselves. Such a person may point to decades and decades of recidivist welfare dependency which wiped out possibilities for generations of kids to prove this.

So you may think that your socialist views prove what a caring, loving, weakness-protecting human being you are, but most people think that these views just make you an imbecile.

Save the

>fetuses, but to hell with them after they start breathing air

>outside the womb. After your crude, insensitive remarks about

>Down's Syndrome children, it's probably reasonable to surmise

>that you'd be in sympathy with such perverse thinking.

I realize that making jokes about the handicapped and about cripples is a severe violation of your speech codes, but even you can't be so pious in your orthodoxies as to think that a joke someone tells reflects their fundamental world-view. Oh, and if you do think that, who the fuck cares?

How can anyone not be?

>and you'll be sore over it until the end of your days

A man who did not actually win the presidency was appointed by the supreme court and has done ghastly things 'in our name' since.

In other countries the citizens would riot in the streets to take back their democracy, in the US we're conditioned to just take it... That we can't change anything and there's not enough difference between the two even if we could. That's why Dean's so exciting, but we'll have to see if somebody who's not of the powers that be can get past them.

>

>Actually, Bush is a Christian, as even his enemies

>acknowledge. That religion, which glorifies the weak and has

>as one of its central tenets the view that they shall inherit

>the Earth, is the opposite of Social Darwinism.

>

Most of your drivel fails to merit a response, so I won't digify it with one.

I dare say a considerable number of Bush's enemies would hardly call him a Christian. Is one a "Christian" merely by claiming to be one? In the Orwellian world of Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the Republicans, they've achieved a fair amount of fame or notoriety, depending on your perspective, for calling things one thing when they clearly mean something else. Beware of Nick has cited many of the examples, like "Clear Skies".

According to the teachings of Jesus, Bush would be a piss poor Christian if living according to those teachings would be the standard for determining whether or not one is a Christian. By virtue of his policies, there's far more evidence to describe Bush as a social darwinist. And if Bush claimed to be a horse's ass, there's an abundance of evidence to support that.

To quote Jesus: "Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord", will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Now why don't you go and attend your next Aryan Nations meeting and leave everyone else alone? You're incredibly vile and boring.

>According to the teachings of Jesus, Bush would be a piss poor

>Christian if living according to those teachings would be the

>standard for determining whether or not one is a Christian.

>By virtue of his policies, there's far more evidence to

>describe Bush as a social darwinist.

Good point. Everyone knows that if someone is a REAL Christian, they would be a Democrat, and would favor larger governmental spending on the poor, abortion, tougher environmental regulations, and higher taxes. Like Clinton! He favored all of those things, and he was a great Christian. Since Bush is a Republican, you've exposed his scam of claiming to be a Christian. Good work!

>Now why don't you go and attend your next Aryan Nations

>meeting and leave everyone else alone? You're incredibly vile

>and boring.

I see you've been diligently studying the Great Debating Skills of your Master, woodlawn. Good boy.

George W. Bush and "What Jesus would do": http://www.religiousleft.bmgbiz.net/bushandjesus.html

>

>I read the article before I saw your post. It was linked on

>Eric Alterman's blog under "Quote of the Day."

Oh, I believe you. Someone with your reputation for honesty? Why wouldn't I?

And someone who denigrates liberal pundits the way you do -- it makes perfect sense that you would go to the trouble to read their blogs. Sure it does.

>You probably

>got it there, too - your Wailing Wall of Liberal Prayer.

Nope. I read the Post.

>Nothing has changed.

Not true. Kinsely cites new research. Which I already pointed out in this thread.

>I know that being unaware of each medical condition of your

>liberal-rabbi-gurus would be a great sin, but unfortunately, I

>did know about this loudmouth's sickness. The fact that he

>has a disease doesn't give him any wisdom.

It just makes you look rather stupid for implying that Kinsley is just another partisan gunslinger who wants to make Bush look bad for partisan purposes. The truth is that because of his condition Kinsley follows the latest research in this area closely and has reasons for taking the position he takes that transcend the political.

> Lots of people

>with currently incurable diseases supported Bush's decision.

Such as?

>This is stupid. Why else would he be against stem cell

>research other than due to his values - namely, his religious

>values.

Are you ignorant of the meaning of the word "pandering"? Or do you think it applies only to pimps? Bush disfavors stem cell research using embryos because it's a major issue with the religious right -- you know, the same reason his daddy suddenly "changed his mind" about abortion in 1980?

>But how can you doubt that this is what is

>motivating Bush's position on this issue?

Let's see . . . could it be that I doubt it because fertility treatments for women destroy many more embryos than stem cell research, and yet Bush has never said or done anything negative about those treatments? Could that be the reason?

>What do you think

>motivates it - that he wants to prevent cures from being found

>becasue he wants kids with diseases to die?

I think he will say or do almost anything to please an important constituency like the religious right. And it certainly wouldn't be the first time he has sacrificed the health of children for other considerations. His first budget as president, for example, cut federal funding for the training of pediatric oncologists. Do you know what pediatric oncologists do? They treat children who have cancer. And then there was the time when as governor he denied state funding for health care programs for poor children because he wanted to give oil companies a tax break. No, children have never really been an important issue to him, that is clear.

>>Don't fuck with Woodlawn.............you're way out of your

>>league.

What a nice thing to say. Thanks, Bucks.

>Hey, "Bucky" - thanks for the warning! This woodlawn sounds

>scary! Do you think that if he gets angry enough he might

>call me "shithead" and "liar" again? Gosh, I sure hope not -

>I never know what to do when presented with such compelling

>arguments. Frightening!

You do the same thing you do in every other situation -- you scream insults at all and sundry. Remember that thread started by a guy who was worried about the safety of a recent session he'd had with an escort and asked whether anyone here had been infected with HIV by an escort? You responded with a torrent of insults.

It's hard to imagine what sort of giant, swollen asshole would even think of doing something like that, let alone actually do it. But you did. That's the sort of creature you are.

>Oh, I believe you. Someone with your reputation for honesty?

>Why wouldn't I?

>

>And someone who denigrates liberal pundits the way you do --

>it makes perfect sense that you would go to the trouble to

>read their blogs. Sure it does.

Unlike you, I deliberately read a diversity of opinion, including from people with whose views I disagree and/or people whose intellects I hold in low self-esteem. You should have known this already, given that I read the spittle you spew here.

I subscribe to liberal and conservative magazines, read liberal and conservative blogs, and everything else in between. It's how I avoid becoming a brainwashed mindless ideologue. You should try it.

And spare me the bit about not giving a fuck about what I read. You just commented upon that issue, so you obviously care.

>>Nothing has changed.

>

>Not true. Kinsely cites new research. Which I already

>pointed out in this thread.

Research already existed showing that embryonic stem cells provide unique research value. The scientists on whom Bush relied denied that. Did they retract that view? I haven't seen it. If not, there is still substantial controversy in the research community over the value of embryonic stem cells. In other words, nothing has changed.

>It just makes you look rather stupid for implying that Kinsley

>is just another partisan gunslinger who wants to make Bush

>look bad for partisan purposes. The truth is that because of

>his condition Kinsley follows the latest research in this area

>closely and has reasons for taking the position he takes that

>transcend the political.

If you think that a dyed-in-the-wool careerist liberal like Kinsely puts his ideology to the side on this issue - and that his condemnation of Bush on this issue is, unlike his condemnation of Bush on every other issue, free of ideology - and that it's just a big coincidence that his view on this issue perfectly comports with his liberal world-view - than you worship these liberal gurus of yours even more blindly than I thought.

>>But how can you doubt that this is what is

>>motivating Bush's position on this issue?

>

>Let's see . . . could it be that I doubt it because fertility

>treatments for women destroy many more embryos than stem cell

>research, and yet Bush has never said or done anything

>negative about those treatments? Could that be the reason?

As a politician in a democracy, one can't be pure. Only dictators can be pure, since democrary requires compromise. Oftentimes, politicians allow their values to shape their policies, but still compromise their views in order to get something, rather than nothing.

The fact that Bush follows his religious values on some policies, but is not pure about it, hardly calls into question the authenticity of those values. If it does, then no politician has any real values, since all politicians - at least those who ever achieve anything - ultimately, compromise.

Clinton was a "pro-gay" President who nonetheless authored the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and signed DOMA into law. Does that mean that his belief in gay equality is a sham because some policies that he favored were inconsistent with it? I don't think so.

>And it

>certainly wouldn't be the first time he has sacrificed the

>health of children for other considerations. His first budget

>as president, for example, cut federal funding for the

>training of pediatric oncologists. Do you know what pediatric

>oncologists do? They treat children who have cancer. And

>then there was the time when as governor he denied state

>funding for health care programs for poor children because he

>wanted to give oil companies a tax break. No, children have

>never really been an important issue to him, that is clear.

The fact that someone doesn't think that governmental spending should be increased for "the kids" doesn't mean that one doesn't care about "the kids". Clinton cut welfare funding for poor children - does that mean he wanted to see them starve?

Many people believe that the free market works better and provides more opportunities for poor families. Only the most insane ideologue equates a belief that funding for a certain governmental program should be cut with a desire to harm the beneficiaries of that governmental program.

If the last 50 years have proven anything, it's that governmental largesse rarely helps those who receive it. Clearly, the opposite is true. I know that you want to keep people addicated to governmental spending because those are the bribes your political comrades pay to people to vote for them, but those who don't have this desire shouldn't be accused of wanting to harm the peole whom you want to bribe.

The governmental programs you like have destroyed generations of kids. Unlike you, the fact that you favor programs which harm children won't make me accuse you of wanting to see those children suffer. That you favor such destructive programs just means, I believe, that you ignorant, not malicious. Why don't you afford the same courtesy to people who favor different policies than you do - i.e., conclude that they are in error, rather than motivated by a desire to harm others?

>>>Don't fuck with Woodlawn.............you're way out of

>your

>>>league.

>

>What a nice thing to say. Thanks, Bucks.

The power to create a Confederacy of Dunces is one of the more amsuing powers a person can have.

>You do the same thing you do in every other situation -- you

>scream insults at all and sundry. Remember that thread

>started by a guy who was worried about the safety of a recent

>session he'd had with an escort and asked whether anyone here

>had been infected with HIV by an escort? You responded with a

>torrent of insults.

Sort of like you did in response to that young escort, David Gartner, who was lamenting the fact that some lying asshole-client pretended to want an appointment with him, made him drive an hour, cancel other appointments, only to arrive at the guy's place and find that he didn't really want an appointment and the whole thing was a joke, and you told him he deserved it because he's an escort and broke our immigration laws?

Or sort of like the innumerable other posters here, escorts and clients, who have been subjeted to your tight-lipped and tight-holed moral condemnation and other attacks when they were trying to honestly discuss their escorting experiences?

Sort of like that?

>It's hard to imagine what sort of giant, swollen asshole would

>even think of doing something like that, let alone actually do

>it. But you did. That's the sort of creature you are.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You always become so articulate when you start projecting.

>The fact that Bush follows his religious values on some

>policies, but is not pure about it, hardly calls into question

>the authenticity of those values. If it does, then no

>politician has any real values, since all politicians - at

>least those who ever achieve anything - ultimately,

>compromise.

Doogie: I know your vocabulary is limited, but I would have at least thought you might understand the word "hypocrite". Since you don't let me spell it out for you: a person whose actions are incongruent with their espoused belief system.

>

>The governmental programs you like have destroyed generations

>of kids. Unlike you, the fact that you favor programs which

>harm children won't make me accuse you of wanting to see those

>children suffer. That you favor such destructive programs

>just means, I believe, that you ignorant, not malicious. Why

>don't you afford the same courtesy to people who favor

>different policies than you do - i.e., conclude that they are

>in error, rather than motivated by a desire to harm others?

Doogie, you pompous turd, how the hell do you know what programs we favor? Are you God? A mind reader? The host of a psychic hotline? Don't look now, but your arrogance is showing (as well as your ignorance).

I dare say a number of government programs for children have benefited them significantly, like child nutrition programs, HeadStart, and childhood immunization programs. Of course, in your typical, black and white, moronic style, you lump it all together, saying if the government sponsors the program, it must be bad. Programs that provide welfare to corporations a la Halliburton via the Iraq war are good, but programs that provide for the well being of children "hurt them". What a load of elitist fascist horseshit. You lick Bush's ass because the likelihood is that you're just like him........never earned a dollar by the sweat of your brow, but always had it handed to you by your rich daddy, or his cronies.

Again, Woodlawn was correct......a giant swollen asshole seems to describe you to a T.

Pompous turd, giant swollen asshole,...

Why is it again that people hate Bush?

>The power to create a Confederacy of Dunces is one of the more

>amsuing powers a person can have.

I take it you speak from personal experience.

>You responded with

>a

>>torrent of insults.

>Sort of like you did in response to that young escort, David

>Gartner,

Nope. There were no insults of any kind in my posts to him. I defy you to reproduce them here if you claim there were, you lying piece of shit.

>and you told him

>he deserved it because he's an escort and broke our

>immigration laws?

You're lying again, filth. I never said he deserved to be cheated by anyone for any reason. You made up that lie because you have no other way to respond to my true statements about you, filth.

>Or sort of like the innumerable other posters here, escorts

>and clients, who have been subjeted to your tight-lipped and

>tight-holed moral condemnation and other attacks when they

>were trying to honestly discuss their escorting experiences?

There is not a word of truth in what you say. You lie without the slightest compunction.

>Couldn't have said it better myself. You always become so

>articulate when you start projecting.

Here we go again, another asshole who tosses around psychological buzzwords as a form of insult. What a rancid, filthy character you are.

"What a rancid, filthy character you are."

Woodie is apparently not watching the debate on tv.

>>And someone who denigrates liberal pundits the way you do --

>>it makes perfect sense that you would go to the trouble to

>>read their blogs. Sure it does.

>Unlike you, I deliberately read a diversity of opinion,

I don't believe you. Given your history of substituting lies for arguments, why would I?

>You should try it.

I'm about as likely to take advice from you as from Kim Jong Il. Actually, you remind me of him. Except that he has a much warmer personality. And he's a better dancer.

>And spare me the bit about not giving a fuck about what I

>read. You just commented upon that issue, so you obviously

>care.

I don't. But I do enjoy having the opportunity to catch you in more lies.

>>>Nothing has changed.

>>Not true. Kinsely cites new research. Which I already

>>pointed out in this thread.

>Research already existed showing that embryonic stem cells

>provide unique research value. The scientists on whom Bush

>relied denied that. Did they retract that view?

As Kinsley clearly stated, the new research he cited bears on the problems with adult cells. Which proves my suspicion that you lied about reading the article.

>>It just makes you look rather stupid for implying that

>Kinsley

>>is just another partisan gunslinger who wants to make Bush

>>look bad for partisan purposes. The truth is that because

>of

>>his condition Kinsley follows the latest research in this

>area

>>closely and has reasons for taking the position he takes

>that

>>transcend the political.

>If you think that a dyed-in-the-wool careerist liberal like

>Kinsely puts his ideology to the side on this issue

It's his survival that concerns him, you moron, not his ideology. No one is going to believe that if Kinsley thought Bush's position would benefit people like him he would still oppose it. Not too many pundits are willing to die in order to make a political point.

>>>But how can you doubt that this is what is

>>>motivating Bush's position on this issue?

>>Let's see . . . could it be that I doubt it because

>fertility

>>treatments for women destroy many more embryos than stem

>cell

>>research, and yet Bush has never said or done anything

>>negative about those treatments? Could that be the reason?

>The fact that Bush follows his religious values on some

>policies, but is not pure about it, hardly calls into question

>the authenticity of those values.

Bullshit. A leader who truly cared about protecting human embryos would focus on the procedures that destroy more of them, not the ones that destroy fewer, as Bush has done.

In fact, as Kinsley pointed out in his piece (which it becomes more and more obvious you didn't really read), Bush actually PRAISED the fertility treatments that destroy more embryos than stem cell research. Why don't you explain to us how THAT squares with his supposed values?

>Clinton was a "pro-gay" President who nonetheless authored the

>"don't ask, don't tell" policy and signed DOMA into law. Does

>that mean that his belief in gay equality is a sham because

>some policies that he favored were inconsistent with it? I

>don't think so.

I do think so. I think Clinton was a wily character who rode whatever issues would take him where he wanted to go. And Dubya is exactly the same. Except that with Dubya his wily tactics often seem to kill or endanger human beings.

>>And it

>>certainly wouldn't be the first time he has sacrificed the

>>health of children for other considerations. His first

>budget

>>as president, for example, cut federal funding for the

>>training of pediatric oncologists. Do you know what

>pediatric

>>oncologists do? They treat children who have cancer. And

>>then there was the time when as governor he denied state

>>funding for health care programs for poor children because

>he

>>wanted to give oil companies a tax break. No, children have

>>never really been an important issue to him, that is clear.

>The fact that someone doesn't think that governmental spending

>should be increased for "the kids" doesn't mean that one

>doesn't care about "the kids".

Oh, right. And the fact that the Japanese sent American POWs on forced marches with little food or water doesn't mean they wanted anything bad to happen to them. Sure it doesn't.

>Clinton cut welfare funding

>for poor children - does that mean he wanted to see them

>starve?

No, but he was obviously willing to take a chance with their well-being in order to keep his pledge to change the welfare system.

You keep bringing up what Clinton did as if you think I'm so devoted to him that I'll back off Bush rather than say anything negative about Bill. That just shows what an idiot you are.

>Many people believe that the free market works better and

>provides more opportunities for poor families.

No, no one really believes that. That is just a flimsy excuse that greedy, unfeeling plutocrats use for diverting government spending to corporate welfare programs.

>If the last 50 years have proven anything, it's that

>governmental largesse rarely helps those who receive it.

Of all the lies you've told recently, that one takes the cake. To give just one example that proves your absurd mendacity, Social Security currently provides more than 50% of the annual income for a majority of the nation's seniors. That one program has all but ended the widespread poverty among seniors that existed when FDR began it.

>The governmental programs you like have destroyed generations

>of kids.

Another stupid lie from the poor man's version of Hitler. Millions of children have benefited from federal health, nutrition and education programs. You are simply too committed to an ideology of greed and hatred to admit it. If you want to live under the law of the jungle, go live in a fucking jungle. Those of us who are civilized recognize that the general well-being benefits when we all help each other, not from your approach of devil-take-the-hindmost. You hate government? Fine, go live in Liberia. They have none. Bon voyage. Send us a postcard when you get there. And don't hurry back.

>Why

>don't you afford the same courtesy to people who favor

>different policies than you do - i.e., conclude that they are

>in error, rather than motivated by a desire to harm others?

A putrid hatemonger like you is in no position to demand courtesy from anyone -- you don't know the meaning of the word.

Thanks primarily to a venomous generation of conservative vipers in Washington, liberals now have two choices. They can either engage in the same character assassination tactics that have helped conservatives gain power, or they can watch their cause destroyed. No doubt you would prefer the latter. Sorry to disappoint you.

>>Clinton cut welfare funding

>>for poor children - does that mean he wanted to see them

>>starve?

>

>No, but he was obviously willing to take a chance with their

>well-being in order to keep his pledge to change the welfare

>system.

If you think that welfare dependency was good for poor chilrden, then you are sadistic and irrational. The greatest thing to happen to welfare families was welfare reform, since now, the parents who used to wait in line for governmental checks which were stolen from the wealthy and given to them in exchange for Democratic votes, now instead work in jobs for those checks, giving them the self-esteem of a job, possibilities and opportunities in the workplace, and the chance to teach their children to WORK, not to freeload.

I know it makes you feel better about yoruself to feed the helpless little poor people free money, but the only beneificiary of that sick system was you and your political comrades. The people it pretended to "help" were actully destroyed in the process, locked into generations of helplessness and dependency on the sadistic selfish desires of people like you who pretended to "help" them while killing them.

One can only be grateful that your socialistic, 1960s view of the world is so discredited and disproven that nobody can advocate these views without provoking scornful laughter - unless, that is, one is in a forum filled with tiny minorities who still cling to these violently destructive leftist theories.

>You keep bringing up what Clinton did as if you think I'm so

>devoted to him that I'll back off Bush rather than say

>anything negative about Bill. That just shows what an idiot

>you are.

No, actually that is not why I "keep bringing up Clinton." It doesn't surprise me at all that you bash Clinton on the ground that he failed to serve your leftist ideology with sufficient purity. Basically, you dislike Clinton because he wasn't far enough to the left for you. Only Dennis Kucinich and Jane Fonda are.

I keep bringing up Bill Clinton to give the lie to the notion that the mere fact that a politician compromises on proclaimed values doesn't make them a hypocrite. It's just a reflection of the political realities of being in a democracy. Since only the furthest fringes on the ideological scale think that BOTH George Bush and Bill Clinton are "hypocrites", making this point exposes the dishonesty of this accusation against Bush.

>>Many people believe that the free market works better and

>>provides more opportunities for poor families.

>

>No, no one really believes that. That is just a flimsy excuse

>that greedy, unfeeling plutocrats use for diverting government

>spending to corporate welfare programs.

This is one of the most revealing and one of the sickest statements I have EVER read.

First, don't you frequently object when other people purport to speak on behalf of everyone. I believe that it usually provokes the cry from you that "nobody appointed you spokesman of 'everyone.'" And yet - look what we have here - you proclaiming what everyone really believes. It looks like you exempt yourself from this principle. Gee, that's a shock.

Second, the fact that you think that "no one REALLY" believes in the opportunity-creating effects of the free market shows what a depraved, sad, 1960s-socialist-refugee that you are. What's it like to watch the whole world - other than Cuba and North Korea - puke up your political views as though it's toxic poison that kills upon touch?

Third, it's amusing that you constantly talk about yourself by telling everyone how you never reveal anything about yourself on this Board. But you do, unwittingly, reveal everything about yourself. You grew up a studious little jewboy with your mommy telling you how smart you were, inculcating you with nice liberal political views about how great it is to help the poor people and the black people by giving them money, because it's the only way they can make their way in the world, and you felt so good about yourself for thinking this, and your mommy thought it made you so nice and good and smart to watch you think this.

But then you grew up and you see that the majority of people have come to despise this view, and that history has exposed it to be the sick sham that it is, and the vast majority of your fellow citizens can't even listen to these views without puking with digust. And you feel angry and betrayed that the world has rejected these socialistic views that your mommy told you you were so smart for embracing, and that's why you're so bitter and upset with the world.

It'd be a lot easier for you if you just accept all of this, and admit error, rather than clinging to corrupted ideas which you know are corrupted, but which you can't let go of, for fear of being exposed as having your whole world-view and life be worthless. Stop having that hook-nose of yours face the ground with disappointment and defeat and anger, and move on.

This is just to help you. No need to lash out.

>Thanks primarily to a venomous generation of conservative

>vipers in Washington, liberals now have two choices. They can

>either engage in the same character assassination tactics that

>have helped conservatives gain power, or they can watch their

>cause destroyed. No doubt you would prefer the latter. Sorry

>to disappoint you.

A beautifully revealing statement. Just as I said, what is motivating you at your core is anger and bitterness over having LOST. You can't admit that you lost beacuse your ideas were wrong and were exposed as such. It has to be because the other side cheated. After all, you CAN'T have been wrong. Your mommy promised you that you weren't.

Alright fellas get out your smelling salts!

I would have NEVER thought about posting something in support of Woodlawn,he really defends himself quite well,so this is a real shocker.

Doogie-you pathetic piece of crap-SHUT THE FUCK UP.You are such an anti-semetic asswipe with your veiled"hook-nose"reference etc.

Do you ever expect anyone on this board to have the least bit of respect for you when you stoop to such low tactics?

Woodlawn,while not my fave by any stretch,debates in a very direct manner.I do not agree with him on most of his post-and I find some of the things he says reprehinsible-he is so far above you in intelect,reasoning,cunning,and logic as to make any "debate" between you two a waste of time.You are sooooooooo out of your league here.

Now run over to Andy's house,He just finished barebacking with some Big Black Buck and he needs you to do clean up duty.And his boots need to be cleaned.

Hey Big Pig - You will never know how relieved and gratified I am that you emphathize and identify, both intellectually and ideologically, with woodlawn and not with me.

If you want to know why this is so, I'll let woodlawn explain - from prior posts where he described you oh-so-well:

<<Fat guy, a rancid hatemonger like you has no right to complain when others treat you the same rotten way you treat them. Unlike Doug and Devon, I don't see fat people as a plague on society. Some of them are real assets to their communities. Of course there are others, like you, who are about as useful as an extra asshole.>>

<<It sounds like you prefer the point of view of Doug, which seems to be that all fat people are a burden to our nation, rather than mine, which is that fat people should be considered as individuals. To my way of thinking, fat people should only be derided when they are like you, a putrid bag of filth.>>

<<I'm not going anywhere. You already made a fool of yourself by claiming you were "taking steps" to have Axebahia excluded from this board, and he's still here as well. And you're much too stupid to trip anyone up; you can hardly write a coherent sentence. Perhaps if you put down the twinkie and tried typing with both hands it would be a bit easier.>>

So please Fat pig - anytime you want to write about how smart woodlawn is and how right his opinions are, and how dumb I am and how wrong my opinions are, PLEASE FEEL FREE!!! Nothing makes me feel more vindicated than arousing the anger of obese illiterate mongrels.

There you go, woodlawn - fat pig thinks you're smart and that you're right - how could I not concede?

You can obtain the true measure of a man's odor by examining the flies he attracts. Woodlawn's fly is Fat Pig. Enough said.

You lick Bush's ass

>because the likelihood is that you're just like

>him........never earned a dollar by the sweat of your brow,

>but always had it handed to you by your rich daddy, or his

>cronies.

although i never read anything the dipshit posts, i do read peoples responses to his lame shit.

i have to disagree with you bucky. i don't think the dipshit has any money, or the comforts of those lucky and skilled enough to aquire wealth and security, or through the luck of the biological draw were born into families that not only can give us the security he envys,but also loves us no matter what our failings.

the dipshit strikes me as the type of person that has accomplished nothing in life, and blames all but himself.he will never understand it is not the fault of me ,you,or any other person that he is behind on his house trailer payment.also not our fault that they cancelled his k-mart credit card,or that they are raising the cost of his bus pass.

but we should never forget people like him are dangerous. we see it in the news often when they snap and kill co-workers and other innocent people who they blame for the inadequacies of the life they live.

so as i won't go so far as to say we should pity him,i do think we need to recognize that it must be difficult for him to live knowing that nobody hates him as much as he hates himself.

;(

>although i never read anything the dipshit posts, i do read

>peoples responses to his lame shit.

WOW - today's my lucky day. Both Bigpig AND "taylorky. . . " chime in with characteristically illiterate spittle!! I fucking love nothing more than these 2 - my absoulte favorite posters!

My favorite thing about THIS taylorky post is that he wrote to "Bucky" to say how much he agreed with Bucky's post about me - , but "taylorky" went on to say the exact opposite of what Bucky said.

"Bucky" opined that I never earned any money myself but was nonetheless rich because my father and his cronies give me tons of money. Taylorky chimed in to say how much he agreed with "Bucky," and then proceeded to talk about how poor I am and how I am behind in my trailer park payments and my K-Mart card got cancelled. In other words, "taylorky" thought he was agreeing completely with "Bucky" even though he said the exact opposite of what "Bucky" said!!

As I said before, Hooboy should charge a fee to read "taylorky's" posts. I know I would pay. Same with the stuff from BigPig. YOu couldn't make this up if you tried. More, guys!!!

WOW! Ever try posting sometime when you're medicated and/or not drunk? Oh, I forgot you're exempt from such charges as you are one of the crybaby queens who feel it is okay to spew filthy name calling at others but not for others to respond in kind.

Well, you are nowhere in the class of either woodlawn, doug69 or axe, and your hypocrisy in having the ability to dish it out but the inability to take it makes you far less worthy of respect than any of them.

I respect doug69 one hell of a lot more than I do you and your fawning little clique who get so frustrated not being able to respond to other's points of view via intelligent discourse, that you always eventually resort to filthy name calling and attacks on their integrity, intellect, mental health, ad nauseum.

>although i never read anything the dipshit posts, i do read peoples responses to his lame shit.>

Perhaps you should read what he posts before you attack him based on other's responses. Kind of like expressing an opinion on a book, movie or anything similar based only on what others have opined. As such, these opinions are baseless and just uniformed shots in the dark, whose only purpose can be to "shoot the messenger".