Gee Luv... David Duke was a republican, wasn't he? I wonder how many republican-candidates we can find that you would be ashamed to say were in your party? Pat Robertson is every-bit the fool that Sharpton is, and that's just 2 names.
Plenty of candidates frome the right I'd be ashamed of. The difference is I don't defend them. (Not saying you do)
BTW I noticed you went to great lenugths to trash Ahnold. Compared him to a Nazi and broght up pot smoking. I've heard you defend people that smoked pot. I guess it's only o.k if their from your party.
I don't know what Arnold's father being a Nazi party member has anything to do with anything. Now if Arnold had been a party member that would be different. But as we all know people can overcome their parent's mistakes. Just ask JT!!!!!
Schwarzenegger sounds like a nice guy. Compassionate.
Putting the social welfare of Californians first. That's been his initial message.
I, for one, am going to back off on him here. Take him at his word, at first.
Maybe he's the new breed of Republican. He doesn't even look like one. They tend to resemble -- in appearance and demeanor -- the father of your prom date.
Agreed, crabs -- one of the reasons I voted for Jesse was specifically because he had very little political experience. The Founding Fathers were in favor of government by the people, not by professional politicians.
I don't understand why, as a state, Minnesota or anywhere else should vote out people influential in the House or Senate just to satisfy some vision of Thomas Jeffrerson or anyone else.
Seems to me Jefferson and others spent a few years in government.
Meet a Congressman or Senator, you may see a rather average person.
For once I must agree with, Rick. I hope it is NOT the end of the world as we know it. But Thomas Jefferson and most of the presidents have been professional politicians. The most influential and effective congressmen and senators were also professional politicians. I do not know if that was a good thing then or now but the nation has prospered. It seems the citizen politician is generally the exception to the rule of professional politicians.
I'd agree in a way that professional politcians are probably more effective at getting things done. Politics requires a certain person for the job, it can be an ugly job. Jesse was a failure IMO. But I think there should be a balance. Look at a guy like Teddy Kennedy or Orin Hatch etc. etc. They have little idea what the real world is like and many have never held private sector jobs or know how hard it is to start a business or simply work in a shitty job. I think instead of term limits they ought to just limit the number of years you can be a politician so that part of their livess have to be lived in the real world.
BTW I'm only talking governors, congress, senate and prez. City councils etc are different IMO.
What about people like Thurmond and Byrd? People that spend a life time in office. Seems to me they get beholden to special interest groups, power and money in general. I am not opposed to people being in office for a couple of years, but anything over say 12 years seems to long. I really believe in term limits.
fold stated twice that Arnold doesn't have a college education or even graduated from high school.
Since I'm honored to be on his ignore list, would someone tell him that Arnold has a degree in business from the University of Wisconsin-Superior. I wonder if he tires from being wrong so many times? I doubt it.
it is a Bachelor of Arts Degree with an individualized major in international marketing of fitness and bussiness administration from the University of Wisconsin, Superior. Seventeen years later they gave him an Honorary Degree of Humane Letters for his charity work. He has also he received an honorary doctoral degree from Imadec University in Austria.
Seems to me trying throw an elected official -- who might not be the most competent guy in the world, but is not crooked or criminal -- out of office before an election is an act of despiration.
I think there's despiration aplenty on all sides. Arnnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California? If that isn't despiration, I don't know what is.
I want the courts to explain one more time how money = speech.
I've never gotten the reasoning,
I recall, quite a while ago I had read about a case in US Supereme Court on the subject. I do not recall the arguements or anything of the sort. However, part of the judgement or rather the crux of the matter/judgement was, according to judges, Speech = Expression. And giving money is form of an expression.
Anyone of a mind should check today's New York Times front page and tell me again about liberal bias in the media.
Four column, four color, top of the fold, you see the Bush team: The president, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Gen. Richard Myers walking toward the Associated Press photographer. The only two looking toward the camera are Bush and Rice. Rice looks like a frumpy policy wonk in khakis and a top.
But the president looks like John Wayne. Jeans, boots and a huge, gleaming don't-mess-with-Texas belt buckle.
Someone in the Bush press office is kicking back with a few beers in some air-conditioned Texas honky tonk tonight. I got the boss the picture he wanted.
Notably absent: Colin Powell. You can bet there's some talk around Washington about that.
BY NOW, Majority Leader Bill Frist and other Republican leaders in the Senate must know there's no way their current plan is going to work to get several of President Bush's nominees to federal appeals courts past Democratic filibusters.
Miguel Estrada, a highly intelligent, self-made Hispanic candidate nominated to the appeals court for the District of Columbia, has been refused a simple up-or-down vote seven times.
Priscilla Owen, a current member of the Texas Supreme Court and a well-respected jurist nominated to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has been denied five times.
William Pryor, Alabama's attorney general nominated to the 11th circuit, was blocked last month.
All are being filibustered by a minority. That is, a group of 44 or 45 Democrats is using procedural rules to block confirmation votes from occurring, even though only 51 votes are needed to confirm a judge, which each of these nominees would easily get.
"What states, governors and legislatures do may not always please us. But they're too important to be subjected to the whimsy of self-interested panacea peddlers.
"Government by tantrum is unworthy of a free people."
Sorry, but I have been consistent in that the "War on Pot" is stupid, but I don't remember saying that it was only stupid for certain people. However, that isn't the point... The point was that the Right SO often shit-hammers the Left for supporting the legalization of Pot, and then they turn right-around and defend Ahnold...?
I don't hear conservatives defending Arnold. He only appears the best of very poor alternatives.
They say that Abortion is "Immorality", yet they now support Ahnold, who defends abortion rights. They rail against traitors, yet here is a guy that deserted his post and went to jail for it, yet they support him now, in spite of that fact.
I don't hear conservatives defending Arnold. He only appears the best of very poor alternatives.
And it was his PARENT, his FATHER, who was a Nazi official, and it seems to me that taken together, ALL of these things would disqualify ANY other politician, in any other race, except THIS ONE. No matter what he has done, or not done in fact, Republicans will now sell their collective souls, just to see him become Governor, and in spite of the fact that he is GROSSLY ill-equipped to deal with the responsibilities of running and managing the 5th largest economy in the WORLD.
As if Gray Davis is equipped. He has done an extraordinarily bad job.
"What states, governors and legislatures do may not always please us. But they're too important to be subjected to the whimsy of self-interested panacea peddlers.
"Government by tantrum is unworthy of a free people."
Are you talking about your heroes in Texas that fled the state instead of doing the job they were hired to do?
The job was never done in Texas. Anybody that's looked into it knows the people are not being represented correctly and Democrats distinct and unfair advantage.
It would be unethical to leave the Texas districting in it's current state. Too many peoples voices are not being heard.
Now, as far as CA. If the voters don't want to recall Davis, they don't have to. It's as simple as that. If Davis is such a great and wonderful Governor, he's got nothing to fear.
You're not getting a little dramatic there, are you? Nothing is forcing Republicans to stay in the Democatic hellholes. They can move to another district if they find it too upsetting and oppressive.
I remember Newt Gingrich did that in Georgia one year he damn near lost an election.
Nothing is forcing Democraps to stay in the Republican hellhole otherwise known as the Texas legislature. I suggest that the Democraps resign and relocate to California or New York. It shouldn't be a problem for them since they have a lot of practice leaving the state.
The districts are such where they simply give the Democrats an unfair advantage.
To Rick and other Democrats, that is fair and the way it should be. When the Republicans get in charge and start to change things, all of a sudden it's a problem. Same thing goes for the judicial nominations. It is for this reason that Democrats are in the minority.
How, then, can decent and often very smart people hold liberal positions?
There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. Each alone causes problems, but when combined in the same person, they are particularly destructive.
The Republicans approved a resolution to fine each lawmaker starting at $1,000 a day, with the fine doubling for each missed day, but not to exceed $5,000 a day. Fines would begin Thursday.
It's in the hopper. In the last Congress, the number was HR2525. This time, it's HR25. When I speak of HR25 on my show, the residual phone calls continue for days. When I talk up HR25 during a banquet speech, the deserts remain uneaten.
HR25 is called the Fair Tax Act of 2003, and its stated purpose is To promote freedom, fairness and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the states.
Here are the highlights. If The Fair Tax Act were to become law, the following would happen.
1. The law establishing the federal income tax would be repealed, both for individuals and for businesses.
2. A constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment would be sent to the states for ratification.
3. All laws providing for payroll taxes for the funding of Social Security and Medicare would be repealed.
4. A sales tax would be instituted on the sale of all goods and services at the retail level. This retail sales tax would replace all payroll and federal income taxes.
5. Government funding would remain at present levels, and no changes would be made to Social Security and Medicare other than the method of funding those programs.
Please read this article and post any comments you have on it. This idea interests me. The only problem I see is when it come to cars and houses. Any thoughts?
It's working its way through talk radio tonight on a local station.
"This idea interests me"
The idea of getting out of paying income taxes insterest you. Hell, it interests everyone.
"Government funding would remain at present levels, and no changes would be made to Social Security and Medicare other than the method of funding those programs. "
Lies. Thankfully, harmless ones, because it's not going to happen.
With the passage of HR25, you would receive 100 percent of your bi-weekly paycheck. If you make $1,000 a week, your paycheck would be $2,000 every two weeks. Of that $2,000, you would only pay tax on the money you spend at the retail level. All savings and investments would be tax free. Any money you spend at the retail level would carry a 23 percent sales tax.
Which means the rich would become even richer, and those simply struggling to keep afloat, would drown.
'Bill - Fold' 8/8/03 5:09am
Plenty of candidates frome the right I'd be ashamed of. The difference is I don't defend them. (Not saying you do)
BTW I noticed you went to great lenugths to trash Ahnold. Compared him to a Nazi and broght up pot smoking. I've heard you defend people that smoked pot. I guess it's only o.k if their from your party.
I don't know what Arnold's father being a Nazi party member has anything to do with anything. Now if Arnold had been a party member that would be different. But as we all know people can overcome their parent's mistakes. Just ask JT!!!!!
you Republicans gonna vote for a pro-choice candidate if he's in some bitchin' movies?
crabgrass 8/8/03 8:45am
If I lived there I wouldn't vote for him.
you Republicans gonna vote for a pro-choice candidate if he's in some bitchin' movies?
That would depend on what the choices were. But since I am not a resident of California it doesn't matter to me.
Schwarzenegger sounds like a nice guy. Compassionate.
Putting the social welfare of Californians first. That's been his initial message.
I, for one, am going to back off on him here. Take him at his word, at first.
Maybe he's the new breed of Republican. He doesn't even look like one. They tend to resemble -- in appearance and demeanor -- the father of your prom date.
he also doesn't seem to have much of any experience or training with regards to politics (his in-laws notwithstanding)...which is always a plus.
Agreed, crabs -- one of the reasons I voted for Jesse was specifically because he had very little political experience. The Founding Fathers were in favor of government by the people, not by professional politicians.
But as we all know people can overcome their parent's mistakes. Just ask JT!!!!!
LOL
Yes, therapy is helping.
But seriously, my parents actions have nothing to do with me or my character.
"The Founding Fathers were in favor of government by the people, not by professional politicians. "
That's my motto: Leave it to the amateurs.
in this case, it's like the difference between amatuer and pro wrestling
Maybe he's the new breed of Republican.
No not at all. He is just another liberal.
and yet he's on the Republican ticket.
and yet he's on the Republican ticket.
Yes the Republicans are inclusive unlike democraps.
"liberal" Republicans
you call it "inclusive"...I call it hypocricy
what hypocrisy? Arnold joined the party the party has not joined him, although some will.
The Founding Fathers were in favor of government by the people, not by professional politicians.
Anyone else think this country might be better off with the average person running things? I have thought so from time to time.
I don't understand why, as a state, Minnesota or anywhere else should vote out people influential in the House or Senate just to satisfy some vision of Thomas Jeffrerson or anyone else.
Seems to me Jefferson and others spent a few years in government.
Meet a Congressman or Senator, you may see a rather average person.
For once I must agree with, Rick. I hope it is NOT the end of the world as we know it. But Thomas Jefferson and most of the presidents have been professional politicians. The most influential and effective congressmen and senators were also professional politicians. I do not know if that was a good thing then or now but the nation has prospered. It seems the citizen politician is generally the exception to the rule of professional politicians.
I'd agree in a way that professional politcians are probably more effective at getting things done. Politics requires a certain person for the job, it can be an ugly job. Jesse was a failure IMO. But I think there should be a balance. Look at a guy like Teddy Kennedy or Orin Hatch etc. etc. They have little idea what the real world is like and many have never held private sector jobs or know how hard it is to start a business or simply work in a shitty job. I think instead of term limits they ought to just limit the number of years you can be a politician so that part of their livess have to be lived in the real world.
BTW I'm only talking governors, congress, senate and prez. City councils etc are different IMO.
What about people like Thurmond and Byrd? People that spend a life time in office. Seems to me they get beholden to special interest groups, power and money in general. I am not opposed to people being in office for a couple of years, but anything over say 12 years seems to long. I really believe in term limits.
fold stated twice that Arnold doesn't have a college education or even graduated from high school.
Since I'm honored to be on his ignore list, would someone tell him that Arnold has a degree in business from the University of Wisconsin-Superior. I wonder if he tires from being wrong so many times? I doubt it.
I think it's a master's degree.
Isn't everyone incorrect once in a while, torpedo?
What the hell was he doing ins Superior, WI?
it is a Bachelor of Arts Degree with an individualized major in international marketing of fitness and bussiness administration from the University of Wisconsin, Superior. Seventeen years later they gave him an Honorary Degree of Humane Letters for his charity work. He has also he received an honorary doctoral degree from Imadec University in Austria.
Is it me, or can you smell the desperation?
Maybe you can explain what you mean.
Seems to me trying throw an elected official -- who might not be the most competent guy in the world, but is not crooked or criminal -- out of office before an election is an act of despiration.
I think there's despiration aplenty on all sides. Arnnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California? If that isn't despiration, I don't know what is.
Rick 8/6/03 6:58am
I recall, quite a while ago I had read about a case in US Supereme Court on the subject. I do not recall the arguements or anything of the sort. However, part of the judgement or rather the crux of the matter/judgement was, according to judges, Speech = Expression. And giving money is form of an expression.
Anyone of a mind should check today's New York Times front page and tell me again about liberal bias in the media.
Four column, four color, top of the fold, you see the Bush team: The president, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Gen. Richard Myers walking toward the Associated Press photographer. The only two looking toward the camera are Bush and Rice. Rice looks like a frumpy policy wonk in khakis and a top.
But the president looks like John Wayne. Jeans, boots and a huge, gleaming don't-mess-with-Texas belt buckle.
Someone in the Bush press office is kicking back with a few beers in some air-conditioned Texas honky tonk tonight. I got the boss the picture he wanted.
Notably absent: Colin Powell. You can bet there's some talk around Washington about that.
You have something against beer and belt buckles?
BY NOW, Majority Leader Bill Frist and other Republican leaders in the Senate must know there's no way their current plan is going to work to get several of President Bush's nominees to federal appeals courts past Democratic filibusters.
Miguel Estrada, a highly intelligent, self-made Hispanic candidate nominated to the appeals court for the District of Columbia, has been refused a simple up-or-down vote seven times.
Priscilla Owen, a current member of the Texas Supreme Court and a well-respected jurist nominated to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has been denied five times.
William Pryor, Alabama's attorney general nominated to the 11th circuit, was blocked last month.
All are being filibustered by a minority. That is, a group of 44 or 45 Democrats is using procedural rules to block confirmation votes from occurring, even though only 51 votes are needed to confirm a judge, which each of these nominees would easily get.
Link to Editorial
"By the way, what side of the political fence are you on?" Bob Dylan (aka) Jack Fate in Masked and Anonymous
The movie is tough to figure out, but some great, wild, over the top performances and a killer soundtrack.
Republicans in California must be nostaligic for the 60s.
"What states, governors and legislatures do may not always please us. But they're too important to be subjected to the whimsy of self-interested panacea peddlers.
"Government by tantrum is unworthy of a free people."
Sorry, but I have been consistent in that the "War on Pot" is stupid, but I don't remember saying that it was only stupid for certain people. However, that isn't the point... The point was that the Right SO often shit-hammers the Left for supporting the legalization of Pot, and then they turn right-around and defend Ahnold...?
I don't hear conservatives defending Arnold. He only appears the best of very poor alternatives.
They say that Abortion is "Immorality", yet they now support Ahnold, who defends abortion rights. They rail against traitors, yet here is a guy that deserted his post and went to jail for it, yet they support him now, in spite of that fact.
I don't hear conservatives defending Arnold. He only appears the best of very poor alternatives.
And it was his PARENT, his FATHER, who was a Nazi official, and it seems to me that taken together, ALL of these things would disqualify ANY other politician, in any other race, except THIS ONE. No matter what he has done, or not done in fact, Republicans will now sell their collective souls, just to see him become Governor, and in spite of the fact that he is GROSSLY ill-equipped to deal with the responsibilities of running and managing the 5th largest economy in the WORLD.
As if Gray Davis is equipped. He has done an extraordinarily bad job.
"What states, governors and legislatures do may not always please us. But they're too important to be subjected to the whimsy of self-interested panacea peddlers.
"Government by tantrum is unworthy of a free people."
Are you talking about your heroes in Texas that fled the state instead of doing the job they were hired to do?
Z-Z-Z-I-I-I-N-N-N-G-G-G!
"Are you talking about your heroes in Texas that fled the state instead of doing the job they were hired to do? "
That job was done two years ago. You just don't like the outcome.
I like to consider it a strategic retreat.
To Rick: The recall is happening per California law. You just don't like the outcome.
The job was never done in Texas. Anybody that's looked into it knows the people are not being represented correctly and Democrats distinct and unfair advantage.
It would be unethical to leave the Texas districting in it's current state. Too many peoples voices are not being heard.
Now, as far as CA. If the voters don't want to recall Davis, they don't have to. It's as simple as that. If Davis is such a great and wonderful Governor, he's got nothing to fear.
"Too many peoples voices are not being heard"
You're not getting a little dramatic there, are you? Nothing is forcing Republicans to stay in the Democatic hellholes. They can move to another district if they find it too upsetting and oppressive.
I remember Newt Gingrich did that in Georgia one year he damn near lost an election.
You're not getting a little dramatic there, are you?
No more so than the Democrats in Florida during the last Presidential election.
Nothing is forcing Republicans to stay in the Democatic hellholes. They can move if they find it too upsetting.
The districts are such where they simply give the Democrats an unfair advantage.
Nothing is forcing Democraps to stay in the Republican hellhole otherwise known as the Texas legislature. I suggest that the Democraps resign and relocate to California or New York. It shouldn't be a problem for them since they have a lot of practice leaving the state.
The districts are such where they simply give the Democrats an unfair advantage.
To Rick and other Democrats, that is fair and the way it should be. When the Republicans get in charge and start to change things, all of a sudden it's a problem. Same thing goes for the judicial nominations. It is for this reason that Democrats are in the minority.
How, then, can decent and often very smart people hold liberal positions?
There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. Each alone causes problems, but when combined in the same person, they are particularly destructive.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml
Texas GOP Senators Vote to Fine AWOL Democrats
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94547,00.html
The Republicans approved a resolution to fine each lawmaker starting at $1,000 a day, with the fine doubling for each missed day, but not to exceed $5,000 a day. Fines would begin Thursday.
It's in the hopper. In the last Congress, the number was HR2525. This time, it's HR25. When I speak of HR25 on my show, the residual phone calls continue for days. When I talk up HR25 during a banquet speech, the deserts remain uneaten.
HR25 is called the Fair Tax Act of 2003, and its stated purpose is To promote freedom, fairness and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the states.
Here are the highlights. If The Fair Tax Act were to become law, the following would happen.
1. The law establishing the federal income tax would be repealed, both for individuals and for businesses.
2. A constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment would be sent to the states for ratification.
3. All laws providing for payroll taxes for the funding of Social Security and Medicare would be repealed.
4. A sales tax would be instituted on the sale of all goods and services at the retail level. This retail sales tax would replace all payroll and federal income taxes.
5. Government funding would remain at present levels, and no changes would be made to Social Security and Medicare other than the method of funding those programs.
Link to article
Please read this article and post any comments you have on it. This idea interests me. The only problem I see is when it come to cars and houses. Any thoughts?
It's working its way through talk radio tonight on a local station.
"This idea interests me"
The idea of getting out of paying income taxes insterest you. Hell, it interests everyone.
"Government funding would remain at present levels, and no changes would be made to Social Security and Medicare other than the method of funding those programs. "
Lies. Thankfully, harmless ones, because it's not going to happen.
Rick the tax lover.
By no means do I love taxes, but the idea of no income tax sounds crazy to me. I'll have to read Wolvies link when I have more time.
The idea has been floated before. Rick is right. It will never happen.
With the passage of HR25, you would receive 100 percent of your bi-weekly paycheck. If you make $1,000 a week, your paycheck would be $2,000 every two weeks. Of that $2,000, you would only pay tax on the money you spend at the retail level. All savings and investments would be tax free. Any money you spend at the retail level would carry a 23 percent sales tax.
Which means the rich would become even richer, and those simply struggling to keep afloat, would drown.