The Dubya administration "is further to the right than either the first Bush or the Reagan administration" wails a panic stricken Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way.

Pants pissing time

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), March 25, 2001

Answers

They're heeeere.

-- (oh_no@Mr.Bill), March 25, 2001.

Yep. And the more he does it, the more he guarantees that in 2002 the senate goes back to the democrats, and maybe even the house. FOR SURE he will be a one term president.

This jackass did not get a conservative MANDATE-he did not even win the popular vote, and won the electoral college by 11th hour legal balony. Acting as he has, acting like all of a sudden this country demanded a huge shift to the right, is an act of political suicide.

I am glad you got the president you want; we should all get that from time to time. But if you ask me about the first hundred days in office, the stupid fuck has already guaranteed he has but 1,195 more days and his ass will be out of a job.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 25, 2001.

Why Mr. Shock, you are exposing yourself as the disturbed liberal that you are. Might I suggest that you channel your misguided passions towards improving your critically ill spiritual health? The Bush administration will restore respect and dignity to the office of the President of the United States, in spite of your vomiting. Tell us kind sir how YOU personally are making this a better world to live in? I’ve always found it amusing that the underachievers of this country have so much to say about those who are successful or in a position to do well. You sir are a fraud and a loser.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 25, 2001.

The Bush administration will restore respect and dignity to the office of the President of the United States

What dignity? What respect? Below average mental abilities, a sober drunk, an ego driven underachiever who does not exist within the realm of reality, Bush has done NOTHING in his life that warrants his holding the office he was placed in. He does not give a damn about this country, he is living proof that ANYBODY can become president. He is doing what he wants to do, not what the country wants him to do, and he is being as sneaky and decietful about what he is doing, using every trick to get his way without the agreement of the people of this country and even without the approval of the legeslative branch.

No one person has the right to dictate how this country is run. He is the epitomy of what the founders of the constitution were attempting to prevent.

Even republicans are becoming shocked and uneasy over his actions. If he tries to start a war I can guarentee his will not be in office for long. For every 10 peole people who voted in the past election, there are 3 others who are regestering and/or planning to vote. They had better be prepared for the voting booths to packed beyond capacity. And this time they had better have contingency plans in place to make sure every person who shows up to vote is allowed to do exactly that.

Bush is doing something that no one has been able to do before, he is destroying the republican party.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), March 25, 2001.

After reading FS's And Cherri's posts I am shaking my head in confusion. I do agree with FS in that the Senate might (by a very narrow margin) go to the Democrats in 2002. I do think he will be surprised in 2004.

-- Dr. Pibb (who is still a very enthusiastic Bush supporter, and growing more enthusiastic all the time) (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 25, 2001.

Cherri, I wonder how many of these "3 others who are regestering and/or planning to vote" are either dead or illegal immigrants?

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 25, 2001.

Here is one thing I've noticed here. Liberals like to type swear words. Maybe they think potty fingers make them cool and hip and above the mere elements of style. Elements of style are the tools of opression of white male normal religious believers. Doo-doo style, on the other hand, marks one as free-thinking and compassionate. And the more rolling in toilet language, the more caring the liberal, and the more independent of thought.

-- towanamie (sonofagun@yepper.net), March 25, 2001.

Towanamie, shut the fuck up you god damned piece of shit wombat-humping, crack-smoking, ass-licking, butt-reaming, Limbaugh-sucking... person.

-- Mr Nice (clean@language.school), March 25, 2001.

My dear Ms. Cherri, this passionate hatred of President Bush has thrown a poisonous cloud over your ability to reason. Our country appears to be moving forward in spite of the sub-standard leadership of the last eight years and inside the beltway, GWB is considered one of the best leaders this nation has had for decades. He is the ONLY Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive terms in office and people of all races and political persuasions have lauded his outstanding managerial skills. I’m somewhat sympathetic with liberals such as yourself that just can’t let go of that ‘losers lament’ but time will prove you wrong. In the meantime, what are you personally doing to make this a better world that we live in? Venting your spleen on this forum counts for nothing.

And Dr. Pibb sir, you have touched on a subject that will be of major focus over the next few months. The voting roles in this country are scheduled for a major house cleaning and that will result in a massive reduction on the Democratic side. The law is quite clear on who may legally vote in this country and convicted felons, illegal aliens, underage and/or unregistered citizens, duplicate or fabricated names, and of course the deceased do not qualify.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 25, 2001.

Socrates, you ignorant Greek bugger-boy. Convicted felons who have served their time, have paid their debt to society and deserve the vote.

-- (LeonTrotsky@Lubyanka.alumni), March 25, 2001.

“Deserve the vote”

My Dear Mr. Trotsky, perhaps you meant to say ‘deserve TO vote’. Time to sober up comrade!

-- So (cr@t.es), March 25, 2001.

Oh you running-dogs are so anal retentive. Whatever.

-- (LeonTrotsky@Berlin.Wall), March 25, 2001.

I'm seeing the same sortof disillusionment that Cherri is seeing, although I'm not seeing it from the disturbed, losing, illegal underachieving, dead, [let's not forget pond scum] liberals. Actually, the only folks I've seen happy with Bush are folks who tend to not follow politics at all.

A LOT of folks trusted in the campaign promises. They believed Bush when he said CO2 levels would be reduced, water would be made cleaner, education would be his TOP priority, tax cuts would stifle a recession, Alaskan drilling would help the energy crisis in California, etc. Other folks wanted those school vouchers and REALLY liked the idea of faith-based programs.

Once it came time to offer some bills on these campaign issues, folks learned that the CO2 promise was "an error", that there's no proof that arsenic in the water is really harmful [Tell THAT one to the folks in that Nevada city that has the highest levels of arsenic in their water in the country and has now been declared a "cancer cluster" as their children fall from leukemia.] Education..uh-huh. The proposed budget for education before Bush came in had a projected increase of 35% [with a Bush increase of 4%], the biggest increase in Bush's proposed budget going to defense [at 14%.] Those vouchers? Fuggedaboutit. That was the first item on the list to go [in one of those bipartisan compromise efforts of Bush..or at least that's what he said.] And what's this about no tax cuts this year? If the tax cuts don't kick in for several years, how does that help thwart a recession? NOW you tell me that Alaskan drilling won't provide any oil for 10 years? THAT doesn't help California [who uses natural gas rather than oil anyway.] And those faith-based programs? Folks just ASSUMED that faith-based meant Christian. What do you mean the Hari- Krishnas [however you spell that] would be entitled?

In general, folks don't like being lied to. They also don't like presidents creating "memoranda" to avoid their representatives from having any say in an issue. It doesn't even matter if they agree or disagree with the memorandum. They realize that if Bush can do it NOW, a future administration will use the same mechanism to essentially obtain a dictatorship.

Of course lots of folks really liked the Bush campaign promise to stay out of the affairs of the world, but none of them thought he'd piss off just about the whole world in a short three months.

I assure you, Paracelsus, that liberals knew from the start what could happen, and followed each and every step of the "building of the administration" [and wrote their congresscritters with their concerns.] While some of them still wonder how it could have happened and chase their tails over it, the far greater number of folks who are now waking up are the folks in the center and right of center.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 25, 2001.

“I'm seeing the same sortof disillusionment that Cherri is seeing, although I'm not seeing it from the disturbed, losing, illegal underachieving, dead, [let's not forget pond scum] liberals. Actually, the only folks I've seen happy with Bush are folks who tend to not follow politics at all.”

My Dear Ms. Anita, I suggest that you get out more often and upgrade your circle of friends/acquaintances. My vast circle of friends/acquaintances feels that GWB is doing a great job in leading this country and many of them are life long democrats. I will admit that all of these folks are working taxpayers so this may somewhat influence their opinions.

You also state that; “In general, folks don't like being lied to.” So true my dear. That is why Al Gore is not our President.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 25, 2001.

Gee, I'd like to join this discussion, but there's a news program on now about how Bush's gag order will cause the deaths of 600,000 women and children in poor countries overseas. Gotta watch that!

Hmm, not so good. Guess I'll go for a walk. What's that? The sounds of a young babe being violently beaten! The cries are heartrending. I'll call the child abuse prevention program.

Whoa-- they weren't there -- their budget has been cut by Bush! I still hear the cries of the baby.

I'm home now after my disturbing walk. Guess I'll have a glass of water after I stop coughing (the CO2 emissions from the local plant have gotten worse because there's no longer any controls on how much the stacks can spew out. Bush believes in the free market!).

Ahh -- water! At least we still have good ol' H20-- wait, there's something new in the water, a new taste. Hmm, could it be -- ARSENIC!?

It is! It's arsenic! Hell, don't taste so bad. Guess I'll just have to live with it.

I'm a diehard Republican! Long live Bush! He's making this country better, not worse!

-- Dr. Pibbsqueak (better@not.worse), March 25, 2001.

My husband works at a small boat yard in Rockport, Maine that builds and repairs class A wooden sailboats. Right now they are building a 180 ft. schooner for a very wealthy individual in California. I've seen the boat and watched the construction out of hand molded wooden beams and decking and planking, and it is absolutely amazing. My husband is in charge of designing and overseeing the creation of the three massive wooden masts of the schooner and is working with a totally non-union crew. All of this builds up to the fact that every day my husband comes home, after listening to the talk among the crew at the boatyard, more convinced that Bush is an idiot, is taking this country in the wrong direction, and is trying to undermine all the environmental things that these boatbuilders and their families believe in.

It's quite amazing how angry these guys and gals are, and some of them even voted for Bush. It's amazing, too, that all the media stories lately ignore what the workers think. From what my husband tells me of his boatbuilding crew, Shrub and his policies are not in high favor, and Bush is not going to get a warm welcome here unless he goes directly to Charles Cawley's (of MBNA fame) residence in Camden to a private party, where only Bush/big government supporters are invited.

Did anyone outside this Camden, Maine village know that Charles Cawley, when hosting a fund-raiser at his house here for GW, told all the local invited Maine management employees of MBNA that they had to show up with a thousand dollar check for self and spouse for the Bush campaign? The threat if they didn't produce the donation was unsaid, but very real--If you don't come up with a donation for the guy Cawley wants, then your career with MBNA might suddenly be derailed.

I live with this stuff on a daily basis, knowing people who work for MBNA, from the workers, who for $8.50 an hour are hired to call up people who have and do NOT have credit, to entice them to sign on to an MBNA credit card, which, if they don't read the fine print, will put them in debt for years to come.

Cawley and MBNA, since they descended on this mid-coast town where Cawley's grandparents lived and where he used to spend his summers, have done their best to reshape this Maine town into a recreation of the original MBNA headquarters down in Delaware. When the citizens of Camden town objected furiously to having their town recreated in the beige and green MBNA colors, MBNA moved up the coast slightly to supplant themselves on an area where strict zoning rules had yet to be established. So now we have a couple of miles of near-coastline open woods (essential deer wintering grounds) being defiled by MBNA so that they can build 'guest' cabins for their trainees and influential visitors.

We have a lot of poor and borderline poor in this state, mostly comprised of working poor who've had a health care or job loss hardship. These are people who work 40 hours a week and just make ends meet, but even at $8.00/hour can't afford health insurance. (Note: at $8.00/hour they are getting paid almost twice the federal Minimum Wage in this Country.) So if a health emergency strikes, they can be put into bankruptcy. But what does MBNA do? It gives hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions in an effort to get a new bankruptcy bill passed that will make it harder for these poor folks to get out of debt.

No, the hardworking 'little' guys up here aren't very happy with Bush.

-- My friends feel different (than@your.friends), March 25, 2001.

“Hmm, not so good. Guess I'll go for a walk. What's that? The sounds of a young babe being violently beaten! The cries are heartrending. I'll call the child abuse prevention program.”

Save your .35 cents on that call my dear friend. Instead, contact the police who are the proper authority to deal with this type of crime. Child abuse prevention programs do not return a value for dollars spent. Many of these ineffective programs will be scrap-heaped over the next year. Good riddance to a waste of taxpayers money. We don’t need better programs we need better people and only a return to a morally responsible society will correct this growing problem!

Your water sucks you say! I doubt that it is being piped in from Washington D.C. so you need to work with your local water district and not depend on the federal government to baby sit all of your needs.

The good news is that you can now safely cancel those Chinese lessons.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 25, 2001.

“(Note: at $8.00/hour they are getting paid almost twice the federal Minimum Wage in this Country.)”

Don’t think so….check again please.

Do they have laws in Maine that force people to work for ANY fixed sum? Oh, I see. So like everyone these folks can work to elevate themselves. Thought so.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 25, 2001.

Please, Socrates, don't call me "my dear friend." It makes me actually nauseous.

In your narrow cruel mind, it's better to wait until AFTER a child is beaten and injured than to invest a little money into seeing that it doesn't occur in the first place. Prove that prevention programs don't work -- for every one you cite, I'll show you one that works. Why do you think Bush wants to turn over these programs to churches? Because intervention programs work.

Guess you'd rather just wait until the damage is done -- then call 911 and clean up the ugly mess. If a baby is murdered, well, tough, right? "That's just too bad! Now give me my tax 'relief!'"

How hypocritical of you to say we need to "return to a morally responsible society [that] will correct this growing problem!" when you are willing to "scrap" programs designed to save a child's life.

Yeah, you're a shining example of "morality," malevolent freak.

As for arsenic in my drinking water, what if my local drinking water authority says "tough luck" ... just like you? Then I have no recourse -- nowhere to go. No federal law that says it's important to protect the health of all Americans, and corrupt local boards will not have the wherewithal to pollute and poison our water.

"Touch luck!" you say. "Elect a new board!" In the meantime, our water is POISONED with ARSENIC, and we have NO RECOURSE FOR PROTECTION.

You are a sick person with inhuman "ideas," and you epitomize why this country under the GOP is devolving swiftly to the dogs. I can't wait until 2002 when the Democrats have their revenge on barbarous and greedy misanthropes who want to plunge our country into a Dickinsonian world of might makes right and survival of the fittest.

Go have a nice drink of arsenic laced water. And do me a favor, would you? Drink a LOT of it.

-- Your Charitable GOP in Action (malignant@creeps.com), March 25, 2001.

YCGIA,

You are correct but you do not go nearly far enough. The only way to truly protect children is to have them all raised by the State. That way, equality of opportunity can be assured; that way no evil, reactionary parents can rule young bodies and minds; that way the nefarious influence of corporate religion can be purged; that way right-thinking ideas can be inculcated.

The goal of progressive, enlightened humanists is to raise children as we cultivate plants---in an optimal environment of sunlight, nitrition and protection.

Children raised by the State will be loyal citizens of the State. They will gratefully pay their taxes and eagerly give their lives for our noble causes. They will cause no trouble, they will do as they are instructed by their superiors at the Ministry of Love.

-- (LeonTrotsky@Potempkin.Village), March 25, 2001.

Socrates, are you seriously claiming that the opinions of Anita's friends have nothing to do with what's going on in the country, but the opinion's of your friends are somehow the voice of the masses?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 25, 2001.

“As for arsenic in my drinking water, what if my local drinking water authority says "tough luck" ... just like you? Then I have no recourse -- nowhere to go.”

Sounds like another knee-jerk reaction to a yet-to-be-proven problem. Have you had your water tested? Real easy and not too costly. Report back on the arsenic content, or the lack of. Why not move to ‘bottled’ water? Also real easy and not too costly.

“How hypocritical of you to say we need to "return to a morally responsible society [that] will correct this growing problem!" when you are willing to "scrap" programs designed to save a child's life.”

‘Designed’ and ‘do’ are two separate issues. Spend the money on working on the disastrous lack of parenting that is this nation’s worst epidemic. Why do liberals consistently avoid the subject of individual ‘responsibility’? Ah, don’t bother…..I already know the answer to that one!

Your kind words do not change the fact that the democratic give-a-way programs have poisoned this country and destroyed the self-esteem of the recipients.

Why yes Mr. Ape, that is exactly what I am saying. What part did you not understand?

-- So (cr@t.es), March 25, 2001.

Oh, I get it! In Anita's case, it's ME, in Socrates case, it's WE!

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 25, 2001.

Tarzan:

Just my opinion here, but unless you're interested in evangelism, I'd say, "Allow Socrates and others their fantasies." Cherri and I [over and above what we see/hear/read IRL] subscribe to several lists where folks come in and express their views. Cherri has subscribed to these lists a lot longer than I [and probably hasn't been kicked off some for expressing opposing views.] While I don't share Cherri's passion against Bush, I DO live in Texas [where the local congress is trying to recover from the tax cuts he implemented.] Florida is trying to do the same recovery from the tax cuts of Jeb. BOTH states have a shortage that can't accommodate the needs of the states.

As much as Socrates would like to blame everything on the past eight years of the Clinton administration, he doesn't seem to have a handle on where and how assistance programs developed. He overlooks how the Clinton Administration moved folks off welfare and limited their funds to a specific time period. This is not uncommon. He also feels that "liberals" are those who hate the rich and fear loss of assistance programs. This is ALSO not uncommon. He feels that the pond-scum liberals are against responsibility. This is not uncommon either. Cherri and I both agree that children must be taught responsibility by parents who demonstrate same, although she and I would disagree on minor points in that regard.

I've got to believe that he gets his "news" from folks who think that the only GOOD liberal is a DEAD liberal, and that the folks who don't think like he and his "friends and acquaintances" are a minority.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 25, 2001.

It all really started with LBJ’s ‘Great Society’, State of the Union speech in 1965. This was done to insure the voting support of the minority community. The democrats are still at it today so what is new? I understand why this is done but I will never agree to support this dark side of the political spectrum. Never bet on a lame horse.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 25, 2001.

There is no right and wrong folks. We're all fucked up humans, all of us. Eventually, we will kill ouselves off because of stupidity, greed, and the inability to coexist peacefully, and millions of years later we will be replaced by another type of intelligent life.

It sucks being a spieces thats still on the drawing board.

-- mayan mike (december@23.2012), March 25, 2001.

Anita:

You are a bit too glib about "the needs of the states". If you are saying that they are not raising the revenues necessary to pay for what the politicians chose to fund, then say this directly.

What I've noticed is that government programs tend to appear and grow in proportion to the number of programs politicians find attract votes for themselves. And *every one* of these new programs and funding increases then becomes a "need of the state" that we somehow couldn't live without, although we used to.

The political middle of the road has always been occupied by those who want their taxes reduced, and *everyone else's* programs reduced to pay for it. We aren't falling anywhere near short of the "needs of the states", but we're falling short of the WANTS of important voting blocs.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 25, 2001.

Socrates: Actually, it started during WW II when the government didn't want to see those poor white women trying to raise families while their men were fighting. It was implemented to encourage women to stay home with their children rather than take a job away from a man. You're probably right about the timing on when women of color were included.

Flint: Road repair has been cut almost completely, so I expect folks to commute for a while with the half-done highways. Medicare [of course] has been cut, but I've heard that those Mexican kids die quietly. Some of us have tried to cut medicare expenses of our elderly parents when we could. My mom, for instance, was having her toe-nails cut every few months by a Medicare podiatrist. He charged Medicare $60.00 each time. Mom had a beautician at her place that only charged $30.00, and would soak her feet, etc., but Medicare wouldn't pay the bill. I chose to pay the $30.00 out of my own pocket to use the beautician, as did many others where my mom resides. That beautician was recently killed in an auto accident and there hasn't been a replacement offered yet, so we're back to the Medicare guy.

SOME programs were optional. On THIS I agree. There were hopes of getting Texas teachers some health insurance, but that thought was scrapped. Personally, I expect a tax increase soon. It will probably be on property, as neither Texas nor Florida have a State tax.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 25, 2001.

Anita:

I'm not sure I'm parsing your reply. Are you saying that medicare podiatrists charging $60.00 per nail clipping are causing Mexican children to die somehow? I'm not sure if you are favoring more medicare or just less waste. I know it's hard to find any two people who agree on priorities, but everyone seems to agree that some programs aren't important (other peoples' programs). I kinda doubt you and I could agree on just what's a necessity, much less whether we or others should pay for them.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 25, 2001.

Flint: Your response tickled me. Are you saying that medicare podiatrists charging $60.00 per nail clipping are causing Mexican children to die somehow?

I only know that the state budget hasn't kept up with the rising costs of Medicare, or the rising population of the Medicare eligible.

I'm not sure if you are favoring more medicare or just less waste.

I favor more medicare eligibility for those in need and less waste for those capable of paying, but that's what we pond-scum liberals do. It makes no sense to me that a young child should be denied needed medical care while Medicare pays to clip my mom's toenails. Personally, I can't even cut my mom's finger-nails. I've tried, and as soon as she withdraws her hand and screams, I give up.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 25, 2001.

Bush merely repealed the new arsenic standards that Clinton set during his last few weeks in office. Since repealing it, the arsenic standard is now the same as it was during virtually all of Clinton's 8 years. If you were not poisened during the Clinton years, you will not be poisened now. If you are truly concerned, your local grocery store sells some fine bottled waters. I suggest Dasani.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 25, 2001.

I think Liberals should be happy that Bush is stocking up on Conservatives. That way, if things go bad, you will have real villians to finger, not the wishy-washy, me-too Republicans of the past.

On the other hand, if things go well, you will have to scramble. Think of it this way--it will be good for you.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 25, 2001.

My good Dr. Pibb, we were ALL poisoned during the Clinton years.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 25, 2001.

Socrates, the way they make it sound it's like Bush is driving around the country pumping arsenic into various municipalities' water systems.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 25, 2001.

liberal=bitter underachiever, Liberals are the ruination of this fine country!!!

-- Tommy H. (progun@nra.com), March 26, 2001.

Futureshock, you are rather scary lately. Definitely not the same person you were last year. What gives?

-- (possessed@or.what?), March 26, 2001.

It's almost like Future Shock stopped posting, and Hawk stole his handle.

-- The Little Dipper (in@the.stars), March 26, 2001.

Possessed.

The election happened. The supreme court bandits happened. A president who received less than the majority of the popular vote is acting like he has a conservative mandate to take this country far right.

Sure it was nice last year to wax poetically about spiritual theories and about astrological musings-sure it was great fun to go on philosophical meanderings, or discuss the nature of time.

But real people are going to be hurt by this president. People in my backyard-people in my family. My spirituality requires me to act-to do something-and believe me when I tell you I am not just ranting on this board; my congress critters are getting regular letters from me, I will be going to the women's reproductive rights march in DC on 4/22/2001. In other words, I am practicing what I preach. Could I tone it down a bit? Absolutely. Will I? Cannot promise for sure.

I am outraged by this supreme court. My anger cannot be quelled by simple acquiescense to what I believe was a political coup. I do not care if you agree with me. Will using foul language increase my point of view? No. Does it feel good to let out the anger? Hell yeah.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 26, 2001.

I am OUTRAGED!!

-- (MollyYardsale@NOW.orgy), March 26, 2001.

Mr. Shock, you have plenty of company in the ‘outraged’ arena. I was outraged for the last eight years that our great country was under the ‘outrageous’ control of the Clinton machine. So I feel your pain.

I fully understand your anger and frustration, even though I am on the other side of the political spectrum. My greatest concern for the future is the widening chasm between the political ideals and social divisions in this country. I predict that we will open this gap to the point of major social upheavals that could tear us to pieces.

Never have the ‘sides’ been so clearly divided and I predict that the rapidly changing demographics will insure that we may never again see another Republican in the White House. On the surface, this may seem like good news but you appear to have the intelligence to see through to the dark side.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 26, 2001.

Terminal didactia is tragic.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), March 26, 2001.

As is the use of a non-existent word.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 26, 2001.

Future Shock,

I just read pieces of this interesting thread, so I might have missed something.

But you know, in all my conversations with you on the board over the past year or so, I really can't recall anything we ever agreed on -- except now I see one thing for sure -- that you're really going out to try to make this world a better place.

FS, it's so exciting for me to read this. And go figure! Again I can't support your position, but I've got a smile and my eyes are starting to tear up, thinkin' "go for it, guy!"

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 26, 2001.

Whoops...FS -- the womens' rights march sounds like something I'd fully support.

(Please, y'all -- let's not turn this into an abortion thread.:)

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 26, 2001.

For those of you who feel that bottled water is safer than tap water, you might note how much bottled water IS tap water.

bottled water

Pibbs: No one is asserting that Bush is running around the country tossing arsenic in the water. The point was [and still is] that the guy campaigned for cleaner water and THEN dismissed the one item that would [at the least] improve water quality from the acceptable levels defined in 1943, before arsenic was proven to be a carcinogen.

The GOP did their damndest to portray Gore as the liar, and lots of folks believed the propaganda. I don't know, myself, why folks believe what they hear without looking into the records of the candidates, but many are not pleased with the outcome.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 26, 2001.

Mr. Shock, you have plenty of company in the ‘outraged’ arena. I was outraged for the last eight years that our great country was under the ‘outrageous’ control of the Clinton machine.

How inane.

Clinton was elected legally and legitimately. No matter how you feel about his policies or personal life, he was a man constitutionally and fully elected by the people in our democratic system.

Bush was installed by a constitutional coup d'etat. This has been explained in detail in other posts, notably the long essay in the NY Review of Books that described just how the coup occurred. He was installed by the criminal bungling of five Supreme Court felons who ravaged our constitutional and judicial system in the process.

Your ridiculous analogy has no meaning in light of these extraordinary criminal events.

-- another outraged citizen (who@won't.forget), March 26, 2001.

Socrates, you are not the one with didactia. It is a newly identified condition. Please try to stay informed.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), March 26, 2001.

Anita, you are right about some bottled water. Dasani is good stuff though.

The GOP did their damndest to portray Gore as the liar. True, and the Democratic party went to equal extent to protray Bush as a bumbling idiot. Nothing to be proud of with either party.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 26, 2001.

Socrates

very Lucid point. While I do not fully understand the outrageover Clinton, I can understand how you feel with him gone-pretty much the same way I am going to feel when Tom Daschle is elected president in 2004.

Personally, I did not like Al Gore. I disagreed with many of his positions, and I disagreed with many things the Clinton administration did or failed to do.

My issue with the people who would coronate Bush as King is that they remind me of people who believe a bad relationship is better than no relationship-a bad republican president is better than no republican president.

It is a shame this is what the party had to offer. I really am a fiscal conservative, and I have some libertarian leanings, so I do not consider myself a far out left wing person. I think you are absolutely correct in saying that the wider the ideological divide comes, the more danger we are in. Bush campaigned as a moderate, an "across the aisle" kind of guy. No one, however, can make that argument about his first 100 days.

One thing is for sure-over time this country will find the middle again. I think sometimes the outer boundries of divide must be found before the middle can be found. This is a dynamic in all human relationships, so I do not find it unusual playing out on a grander stage.

The first step to finding compromise in all matters, personal or business, is to agree one one thing. I posture myself for a rather black and white version of politcal reality-I paint Bush as I see him- a radical conservative, steeped in religion, who is downright scary.

I do not find all republicans repugnant. I believe all human beings have something to offer. I do not believe you through the baby out with the bathwater-it is an injustice to dismiss government services out of hand, to feel it is okay to slash social services, because some of them are corrupt. That's like when we all had to stay after school until the bloke who made the comment confessed.

So let's find something we agree on. How about the true elimination of the "marriage" penalty. Bush's current proposal really does nothing of consequence. I see no good reason why there is a greater tax burden on married people.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 26, 2001.

My issue with the people who would coronate Bush as King is that they remind me of people who believe a bad relationship is better than no relationship-a bad republican president is better than no republican president.

I think you are confusing George W. Bush with Bob Dole. Either that, or it must irk you to no end that their are alot of enthusiastic Bush supporters.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 27, 2001.

My good Mr. Shock, I must thank you for the best laugh of the week.

“Tom Daschle is elected president in 2004.”

While it is true that the DNC is scrambling for a viable candidate to groom, Mr. Daschle will implode long before 2004.

And sir, you have suggested: “How about the true elimination of the "marriage" penalty.”

The solution to this problem is already in place. They call it ‘Divorce’ :>))

-- So (cr@t.es), March 27, 2001.

The irony of the "marriage tax" is that it derives from a time when families had only one breadwinner (husband) and the progressive thing to do was to give a family who made X a tax break over an unmarried person who made X. Now that both spouses routinely contribute to a family income, the prgressivity of tax rates causes a family that makes 2X to pay more total tax than two singles who each make X. Both political parties are reluctant to acknowledge this.

Gay couples who ardently seek legal sanction of their union will be hit by the marriage tax if gay-marriage ever becomes a widespread reality. Maybe that's what it will take to break the marriage tax.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 27, 2001.

I guess this is to Pibbs and Socrates, but I've listed a whole number of reasons why folks are already disillusioned with the Bush agenda overall, and the best you two have offered is "We love him because he's not associated with Clinton." Might you have some specifics that demonstrate that the folks who "LOVE" Bush are actually following politics?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 27, 2001.

Please, ‘define politics’. (Sound familiar?)

-- So (cr@t.es), March 27, 2001.

Anita, I am not a Clinton hater or basher and I resent you trying to label me as such. I did not vote for Dole in '96 because I thought he would make a terrible president. I was originally not going to vote for Bush because I also thought he would make a terrible president. Something happened during McCain's challenge to Bush in the primaries that made me examine Bush more carefully and I actually learned that I liked him. My enthusiasm increased as the campaing rolled along. It has not dimmed one iota now that he is president.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 27, 2001.

Wait just a minute there, Pibb. YOU resent MY labeling? It seems to me that this whole thread consisted of labeling. Of course it was labeling of LIBERALS, but THAT's Okay, right? I mentioned water as only one of many reasons why folks were disillusioned, and you shot back with a comment regarding how it sounded like folks were accusing Bush of tossing arsenic in the water. Socrates responded that we were all poisoned for eight years. [*I* wasn't poisoned, so who is he talking about?]

I don't often entertain political discussions on this forum, but when I do, it's with the thought in mind of learning more about how folks think. If you're pleased with the Bush administration's first three months in office, could you provide five examples of WHY? What exactly has he done so far that leads you to be so pleased? I don't want to hear campaign rhetoric. I want to hear how you feel about what he's DONE since he's obtained office.

I'm pretty darned hard to please, myself. I didn't like Bush, and I didn't like Gore. Actually, there hasn't been a president or a presidential candidate in my lifetime to which I felt I could throw my allegiance in a way that reflected anything but "You're a LITTLE bit better than the other guy." I'm really curious why some folks see Bush as their savior.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 28, 2001.

Old saying:

"A Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged, and a Liberal is a Conservative who has been arrested."

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), March 28, 2001.