ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
ScottW wrote:
Here in Ohio wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 15:47:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**I'd like to talk to some of those Americans who called Michael
Moore a
traitor a few years ago, when he was suggesting that America should
not
attack Iraq. Back then, around 30% of Americans were against the war.
Now,
the figures are substantially higher.
Most of those same people would still call Moore a traitor.
And they'd still be jingoistic idiots. :-)
Nah... we just don't like lying traitorous scumbags.
That's what endears you to me: a total unwillingness to change your
mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.
BTW, it would appear to me that calling people 'traitor' because they
disagree with you went out of vogue last Tuesday...;-)
It wasn't the disagreeing part by itself that tipped him over the
line as traitor. It was that he had to go on one of the world's
Using that definition, we have a 1-2 punch of traitors in bushie and
cheney.
Did you hear bushie talking about rummy? He tripped over himself a few
times before the story he wanted to finally came out.
I can't listen to him after he got all giddy at the idea of his amnesty
getting passed.
Hugh Hewitt has an interesting take on the election and how
the republicans blew it.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/H...ing_a_majority
I don't think that essentially railroading things through was the
answer. ("Yes, President Bush got his two nominees to SCOTUS through a
55-45 Senate, but the door is now closed, and the court still tilted
left. A once-in-a-generation opportunity was lost.") Remember too
bushie's recess nominations. Bolton, for example, only seemed liked by
the far right. No attempt at bipartisanship in appointing someone to
represent the US in an inernational body. Never any attempt at
bipartisanship. bushie seemed to say, "My way, or the highway. And if
you don't give me my way, I'll take it anyway."
And if you read between the lines, Hewitt is actually advocating
obstructionism --exactly what he accused the Dems of-- for the next two
years. ("But the majority is not going to return unless the new
minority leadership --however it is composed-- resolves to persuade the
public, and to be firm in its convictions, not concerned for the praise
of the Beltway-Manhattan media machine.") So republicans will be 'firm
in their convictions' but Dems were 'obstructionists.' I think that
will be fatal for them if they do that.
Whatever. I was actually sorry that Chafee didn't win. He seemed like a
good Senator to me, one of the very few republicans that I might vote
for if in his distrct. And I believe that republican arrogance (as
opposed to "overconfidence") had a part to play with the electorate
too.
My brother was a republican up until this election. The anti-science
whacko ID/stem cell/Schiavo group in the republicans (****, that
sounded like Arny. I may have to kill myself now.) was what turned him
over.