The village idiot is president

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archives Thru July 2001: Topics Archived thru March 2001:The village idiot is president
By Bjacques on Friday, March 02, 2001 - 05:12 am: Edit

Aw, shucks, Martin, 'tain't nothing.

Erm...I didn't say slavery was more or less gone--only that it's no longer reputable. I know about sweatshops in the U.S. The difference in the U.S. is that they are illegal and can be shut down. The WTO, by forgoing tariffs against countries that favor peonage or slavery, subordinates basic human rights to capitalism. An earlier trade treaty, the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Iemg'aasdasdfss), which was killed thanks to protests, would have made the rest of us comlicit. It overrode local or state government refusal to trade with bad actors (but great trading partners) such as Burma or China.

Luckily, in nominal democracies and relatively free markets, public image matters. This makes officials and companies vulnerable to sustained media campaigns regardless of actual lost sales or votes. The downside is that high-profile companies and officials are attacked while their anonymous fellows slide through unnoticed. (source: No Logo)

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 02, 2001 - 02:58 am: Edit

Mr Rabbit,

"the very first thing we would have to do is make a policing body with the power of

Instead of the United Nations being an emasculated talking shop we should give them some muscle. Link the World bank (and the IMF) to the United Nations (as was the intention when it was founded). Tax international currency movements, it doesn't take much of a tax on the £2 trillion a day that floats about the world to make a big difference.

Sanctions on big corporations are a very different thing to sanctions on a nation. OK in the short term some jobs may go, but if it's not in the financial interest for a big corporation to behave in a certain manner, then they'll sure as hell act in a way that is in their financial interest. Afterall all these people care about is what is in their financial interest, that is the only value they hold, their only interest in politics, the environment, or anything else is how it can influence their bottom line.

If we are to give financial incentives and subsidies to business then give it with tight strings attached. (Nothing wrong with subsidies but the way we dish them out now is a bloody joke. For example why the hell do we aim our subsidies at the type of agriculture that causes most damage?)

We need to use both stick and carrot with these Trans National Corporations. Before we can do so we need to ensure that our governments represent the interests of its voters and not the people who buy influence. Let's have a bit more democracy and less corporate feudalism.

The future of our planet and our continued survival is the most important issue we face, it is bigger than the politics of 'left' or 'right'. This issue needs a long term view, we can't leave it with the likes of the WTO who's members rarely look further than next year's balance sheet.


By Mr_Rabbit on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 07:50 pm: Edit

'The problem with trade sanctions, as witnessed by Iraq or CUba, is that they hurt the poorest and most vulnerable far more than they do the rich and powerful. '

I think this sanction system, because it affects companies and not nations, might have less such impact. Unless the nation had one primary employer, or a totally crappy economy, the workers could get new jobs. Like, if Wendy's fast food restaraunts all got sanctioned, most of those people would end up working at McDonalds, or whatever company filled the void created in the market.

The only time this might really suck is in cases where there is no competition. Like, in heavy industry, often there is only one plant in the world that makes a particular thing, owned by one company, or maybe two or three of em. Some kinds of screws, for instance.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 07:27 pm: Edit


If people have kids and they care about their kids, and they want them to be able to have kids in good conscience, then their absolute number one priority issue should be population control. Of course, plenty of people have some kind of fuzzy faith that technology will somehow make things OK, but things just plain aren't going to be OK if people keep multiplying logarythymically. If they do, every other effort to save anything is nothing but a bandaid.

We need to shift the paradigm of political thinking (and much scientific thinking) and introduce basic systems analysis and hierarchy theory into the equation. Social and economic equality issues are only important when framing the problem on a small scale. Think of a fractal. The pattern looks really intricate and complete, but if you zoom out to a broader vantage point, you see that the previous pattern was just a little squiggle in a bigger pattern.

The problem with our governmental and economic systems is that many fundamentally important elements of everyone's life have no monetary or political value, or only obliquely assigned value. The basic elements that come to mind are clean air, clean water, and biodiverse wilderness areas. These are vitally important to everyone, yet they can be exploited by anyone who can figure out how to get away with it (i.e., without it effecting anyone immediately). This brings up the metaphor of 'THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS'.

Here's how the tragedy played out: in english history there was a situation where all the grazing lands were set up as a 'commons'. Everyone could use it, but no individual had responsibility for it or any portion of it. This created a scenario where every individual had an incentive to overgraze the land, even if they knew it meant that the land would be grazed bare, because even in the impending lean times, they would still be better off having gotten what they could, when they could. The people owned the land collectively, but there was no mechanism in place to ensure collective responsibility. Individually, they owned only their animals, which they sought to exploit maximally, the collective land be damned. Given the scenario, it was thoroughly logical for eveyone to dash headlong into barren oblivion.

Capitalism is a tragedy of the commons. Clean air, potable, non-disease causing water, and sustainable biodiverse wilderness areas belong to everyone, yet they are assigned no hard value in our current economic and political schemes. They are free to be exploited and destroyed for fun and profit, and these transgressions are perfectly logical expressions of individual self-interest. Unless we start thinking about how to incorporate the value of our 'commons' into the economy, everything we love and recognize about civilization and humanity is dooomed.


By _Blackjack on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 07:17 pm: Edit


Thats a great idea man. It doesn't even need strong international law. It just needs a government to not trade with the offender, or allow them any financial holdings within their country. If enough first world governments do that, it will work. There is no point decimating a rainforest if nobody will buy your damn lumber.

The problem with trade sanctions, as witnessed by Iraq or CUba, is that they hurt the poorest and most vulnerable far more than they do the rich and powerful.

By Mr_Rabbit on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 05:27 pm: Edit

"What our governments need to do is to make it to their financial disadvantage to behave in this way. "

Thats a great idea man. It doesn't even need strong international law. It just needs a government to not trade with the offender, or allow them any financial holdings within their country. If enough first world governments do that, it will work. There is no point decimating a rainforest if nobody will buy your damn lumber.

But how draconian shoud we make the enforcement policies? Let's say we tell Nike 'close that fucking sweatshop.' And Nike says 'no.' We sieze their US held assets and stop letting their sneakers over our borders.

Or in a situation where push comes to shove... we reaaally need some oil, Exxon is being a big bunch of bastards and we can't trade with them by our own laws. Nationalize them, do you think? Send troops to take thier oil fields and destroyers to take their tankers?

Of course, the very first thing we would have to do is make a policing body with the power of enforcement, and somehow make damn sure they aren't corrupt. It couldn't be done with existing government, because those guys often sit on the boards of corporations (or up thier assses.)

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 10:35 am: Edit

"Well hell, who wants to live in a world with sweatshops, no matter where they are? Who wants to put up with oppression? Or live in a world of damaged ecologies, or one where some starve while others complain of being simply unable to fit in their new outfit because they have too much to eat? "

Board directors of the WTO members that's who do, so long as it suits there bottom line. Long term vision is not something these people understand.

What our governments need to do is to make it to their financial disadvantage to behave in this way. Nothing wrong with having a corporate welfare state but let's use it to incentivise these companies to operate responsibly, make the pay-outs conditional on responsible behaviour. Why subsidise the destruction of our planet?

Let's give the UN some muscle link it to the World bank, tax international currency movements. Use this money to protect the long term interests of our planet,(only a very minute tax would be needed). Why should our money be used to bail out international speculators.

Who's interests are our governments, (and their various agencies) meant to protect? The interests of their citizens or the interests of the TNCs? Who is really in control, our elected governments or the CEOs of these corporations? Do we want democratic control or are we happy to leave control of our planet in the hands of these CEO's?

Only a blind moron, (or a board director of a TNC) can believe that it's in our interests to continue to screw up our planet in such a way. Its not an issue about 'right' or 'left' politics, it's about common sense and our continued survival.

(PS I didn't spend today sitting on my arse, shooting heroin. I put in a hard day's work, as I do every weekday (with the exception of vacations).)

By Mr_Rabbit on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 08:44 am: Edit

Well hell, who wants to live in a world with sweatshops, no matter where they are? Who wants to put up with oppression? Or live in a world of damaged ecologies, or one where some starve while others complain of being simply unable to fit in their new outfit because they have too much to eat?

Probably nobody here, but if you do want to live in such a world, well, fuck you. I don't.

Don is right- that's how it works. But again, so is Bjaques about slavery being more or less gone.

Things can change, things do change. And that's good, because they need changing now. And they probably always will, but that is no reason to lie down and say 'well, that's life!'

Chrissakes, saying 'that's just the way it is' will get you nowhere for sure. At least if you tilt the windmill, there's a chance, and if you fail, well, you tried.

It's true, people are bastards. But it's also true that it would be better if they weren't, right? So, start the only place you can. Don't be a bastard. Be nice, help your fellow man. Don't say 'well, people are bastards. Yep. Sigh.'

We now return you to your regularly scheduled apathy...

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 07:30 am: Edit

Oh, realpolitik is a lot older than Henry the K, it is at least as old as Bismark or Metternich.

Phillipine and Indonesian sweatshops, well, sirrah, I could show you the same thing this very day in NYC and in California and elsewhere in the Land of the Free. And it's Asian on Asian, and it's older than this century and the last. You think this is a Third World thing, you are kidding yourself. The Labor Department makes an occasional half hearted arrest. Business goes on. People bash Nike and Adidas for Indonesian factories which are merely proceeding by national standards, and make no mention of the abuses being conducted inside USA, why? Because that's not their agenda.

You don't want to know what happens in the Third World, you just want to play self righteous and posture about how it's better in USA than here. The problem is, you don't know.

I can show you exemplary factories in both places and sweatshops in both places. In both places the abusive employers pay off to the authorities.

By Heiko on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 07:16 am: Edit

"Turkey's current killings of Kurds (the PKK have been murderous, but since the capture of Ocalan, many fighters have turned in their guns), because the U.S. and U.K. want to be Turkey's friend."

Not only U.S. and U.K. - Germany sold tanks and weapons to Turkey with which they attacked Kurdish villages. Now Turkey is about to become a EU member - nobody cares so much if they still torture people in jail...but on the other hand the EU was considering an embargo against Austria, only because the right-wing populist Haider was elected (I mean he talks a lot of shit, but he has not done anything yet).

Hypocrisy at its best - but that's the way it is, it's only human to lie...

By Martin on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 05:10 am: Edit


Excellent! I don't think I should post anything polically-minded ever again. You do such and excellent job yourself, far better than I. You say everything I want to say, but have the greater span of knowledge an experience to say it more effectively. You have perfectly worded all the reasons why we should fight the powers that be. Thank you very much and keep up the good work!


By Bjacques on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 04:55 am: Edit

I'm catching up, so skip if you like. This is a long one.

The problem with the WTO, IMF, and the upcoming super-NAFTA (and ICANN!) is
non-accountability, or corporate accountability only to (voting) shareholders.
But with global power comes global responsibility (to paraphrase Stan Lee). No
doubt I'm a shareholder in some bad companies--my retirement depends on a
mutual fund--but if in 2028 my nest egg goes for canned air and water, SPF100
sunblock and Soylent Green, I guess I'll be looking pretty stupid. A limited-liability coporation is a technology like any other. When it
becomes destructive, it's time to do something (did you know their charters
can be yanked?). The system needs checks and balances. It doesn't need more
power players; it just needs people with the power to stand up for themselves.

I forgot to say that the anti-WTO protesters profiled on Dutch TV are actually
*for* something: universal human rights, dignity on the job and a living wage,
and the right to decent treatment. The protesters aren't perfect, but they know
they must offer a better alternative. If you must find warts, at least use
perspective. Too many smashed windows don't invalidate protests against
whole countries being into corporate whorehouses. Today's protesters are *much*
more social and smart than the 1970s-era German radical left or the Italian radical left
and right (and don't forget the Turkish Grey Wolves!). With fewer assholes on
the streets, there's more room to talk. If there has to be a revolution
at all (which I doubt), the rpotesters want a Velvet Revolution, not a Jacobin coup.

For a good collection of hard facts on one aspect of globalization, try "No
Logo" by Naomi Klein. She did solid research and visited Philippine sweatshops
herself. As the book points out, corporate globalization is not always good for
local economies. Indonesian sweatshops are a dead end for the workers. The only
reward for hard work and abuse is more of it (unless the worker gets pregnant or
injured). The only winners are the local politicians and business leaders
pimping their fellow citizens. Why bother to improve pay or conditions? The
multinationals will only take their factories somewhere cheaper, and a pimp's
gotta eat.

Jeepers Cripes!! On CNN right now, I see China wants to join the WTO. More
slaves dumped onto the labor market...

There may not be anti-WTO protests in Qatar, much less China or Thailand, but
so what? That Chinese cops, unlike Seattle or Prague cops, use live bullets
means we should praise the latter for "only" beating and gassing protesters (and
the odd bystander or resident)? Or that we should show gratitude for our
freedoms by not actually using them? I'd rather turn that argument around. When
WTO principals and their lackeys in the media finesse all questions, what's left
but to protest? And when we can protest without being shot at, we'd be criminal
not to. Freedom not exercised is useless. The WTO didn't bother itself with the human
costs of globalization until the protests started. If the WTO meets in dictatorial fiefdoms,
we'll know them by the company they keep. Lately, though, they seem to be wising up. Let's keep the pressure on them and show we've a long attention span.

Nobody talks about the Armenian massacre (1915?) or Turkey's current
killings of Kurds (the PKK have been murderous, but since the capture
of Ocalan, many fighters have turned in their guns), because the U.S. and
U.K. want to be Turkey's friend. That's realpolitik for you.

Realpolitik (aka the Kissinger Doctrine) is the politics of convenience--the
convenience of the powerful who see the rest of us as either pets or meat. It's
a self-fulfilling prophecy of bad faith; "sure, they're sons of bitches, but
they're OUR sons of bitches." But evil puppets are ultimately unreliable and,
when the worm turns, the former peasants remember who pulled the strings.
Hence the Arab oil embargo of the '70s and bad relations between the
U.S. and Iran. (It's still illegal for the U.S. to trade with them, though. VP
Cheney, until last year the head of Halliburton, which built refineries in Iran,
has questions to answer). Realpolitikians were lucky in the past, when the rebel
groups were Soviet clients and were as murderous (e.g., FARC & Shining Path) as
the puppet regimes. A truly sympathetic rebel group, and one with media savvy,
like the Zapatistas, spells real trouble for the old cozy arrangements. If
Presidente Fox is lucky, Chiapas will only want semi-autonomy and a rousting of
the thieves milking it.

You can't get away with realpolitik these days. You can't fool the voters or
the local peasants, not when one can talk to the other. In a media-saturated first world, where most global policy
is formed, a great media campaign, a bit of research and a good lawyer can work wonders. Brands can be tarnished and official hypocrisy exposed. Don't confuse present political philosophies with future ones. There's plenty of room for improvement without requiring some magical transformation of "human nature." After all, slavery is now generally considered A Bad Thing, though people individually aren't much better or worse than before. A little smarter maybe.

No web pages were hurriedly scanned in the writing of this rant.

By Martin on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 03:09 am: Edit


How did you know I was into Nietzche? I don't remember mentioning it. I guess I did.

Yes, I can definately see my own efforts being a result of a "will to power". I can't help it, as you mentioned, it is an engrained part of human nature. But, I would really like to think that my personal "will to power" may benefit the world in some way. Really, the only thing my will really has any interest in is success in the music industry. I've set goals, and I believe I'm well on my way to accomplishing them. This, "just do it, and get the job done" attitude has of course influenced other aspects of my life and other goals.

Yeah, I really enjoy Nietzche, especially "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and "The Antichrist". "The Antichrist" is probably my favorite so far, it does such a good job of pointing out the sickening effects of religion. What's really amusing about it is that many of his examples which seemed so stretched-out and rather unbelievable during his time have become solid truth in the state of today's religion. It's almost as if he prophesised what religion would be today. It's frightening to think about.


I have personally felt the effects of out-of-control organized labor. It really is a problem. I really believe organized labor is a good thing and that unions are essential to keep the common workers from being screwed, but this shit that's going on today, especially in America, is totally out of hand. There's no way in hell a moderately skilled worker with a high school education should be making more money than a highly-trained engineer with a master's degree, but that's how it is many times. There really needs to be serious reform.


By Don_Walsh on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 12:45 am: Edit

Hey luvlite68

I don't think anyone would ever mistake me for being in the PR business.

Which is just how I like it. I'm as far from an ass-kissing Madison Ave. feather merchant as one can get.

By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 08:14 pm: Edit


I'm disappointed. I was hoping when you got around to attacking me, it wouldn't be such an incoherent and shrill morass. You sound like Limbaugh strung out on white crosses with the "on air" sign dormant. You've certainly been in more entertaining lathers, and definitely in more substantive ones. I'm even more disappointed that all those months Bob spent with his nose up your ass actually paid off. I guess a good, persistent rimjob can really swell up those pleasure centers, and override the cortex. Personally, I've never been fond of Chihuahuas. Realpolitik indeed.


By Grimbergen on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Don said: "EU would like to impose 'social' criteria in Third World not because it is better for workers but because it would
make the Third World less competitive to the ridiculously overpriced, overtaxed, overregulated European Union."

A good observation and a common phenomenon. The most irritating instance of this in my mind are labor unions. They espouse policies to help workers, yet the policies serve to help only union workers at the expense of non-union workers. Legislate higher wages to price non-union workers out of the market--make them less/uncompetitive. Next time you hardcore liberals want to cry about something, cry about the REAL people losing REAL jobs due to the self-serving ploys of organized labor. (for the record I am much more sympathetic to the labor movement in undeveloped countries).

It is fairly easy to tell when people are suggesting "liberal policies" for their own benefit. Instead of listening to what they say, see if the effects of their policies are in accord with the hype. To stick with my organized labor example, unions supposedly support increases in the minimum wage so that all workers earn a living wage. As noted above, this just screws non-union workers out of jobs. If they were actually concerned for labor as a whole, they should support other policies, such as a negative income tax (the earned income tax credit in the US). Negative income taxes ensure that workers make a living wage without providing disincentives for companies to employ people.

By Heiko on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 04:30 pm: Edit

-- In a need to negotiate I list some of the thoughts that made me move from the left side to the middle in politics:

Consider all governments we ever had on this planet - what were their goals? Power. What are the goals of everyone in this world? Power. You might argue that someone like Ghandi was not trying to obtain power - but he was. Read Nietzsche (Martin, I thought you did?), his arguments for the will to power in every one of us are really convincing.
Some of the environmentalists today are so full of the will to power, I would not want them to govern my country btw (because they are dogmatic egoists)

Philosophical dreams about how nice this world could be if we only changed everything have always existed, but mostly they led to something worse (take Stalinism as an example...).

Only through accepting that everyone, the companies, the governments, Europeans, Americans, people from third world countries, want power of some kind and that this is not bad but only human, we can make a nice place to live out of this world.

If you don't have power, don't try to demonize those who have - do something for yourself to obtain power, maybe you will be better than others - then you can change things as you want, but don't expect others to like it...

In my opinion, this world has never been so fair and 'politically correct' as it is today - the things we love to complain about now (that a rich person has more influence a.s.o.) have always been normal amongst humans. Most historic personalities we admire today have been unfair egoistic assholes (otherwise they would never have made it to become historic personalities...)

Maybe genetics can some day change humans to become altruistic, so sth. like communism could be achieved ;-)
As long as we are the brutal beasts nature has made us, no one will be totally fair to others.

How could we expect company executives to be saints, they are the same as the rest of us - but at least they need wealthy consumers to live, so I don't fear them too much.

-- Without considering all this, my feelings usually made me think different, more kind of "fight the assholes at the top..." I guess this is just juvenile need for revolution (or 'will to power'...). Think about it...

By Martin on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 04:24 pm: Edit

I would post something long and pointless, but I don't have time.. I have to go to work.


By Mr_Rabbit on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 03:13 pm: Edit

The problem I see is that corporations are in business to make money, as are the people who work for them. Corps that don't concentrate on profit and survival die, because the competition will kill them. Individual employees that don't meet the bottom line are fired, and so you will naturally end up with a large group of people who care only for that bottom line.

So whether or not that multinational rapes the land or sea depends entirely on their business model. Not on whether or not it's a good idea for the people who live there, or even for the world in general. Joe CEO lives in New York, and he doesn't give a shit if you love the pine forests in Oregon. He doesn't even give a shit if his lumber company will go out of business when there are no more trees, because he already has a plan to convert or sell his assets. He cares about playing the game well, about his paycheck. If he doesn't, then the board will find someone who does.

So I say the social convention of corporations tends to produce negative results for anything but the bottom line. Not always, far from it, but that is the central thing, not doing good for humanity or the environment, and they cannot serve two masters.

Groups of corporations with power are bad. I think we need a different way of doing things, as the corporate model no longer serves our needs as a species.

They might be to the good if they had other goals than making money.

By Luvlite68 on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 02:27 pm: Edit

The mighty Don has spoken!!! You people are all assholes and lazy sons of bitches.

Nice public relations there, Don. Are you expecting to insult people into buying your absinthe, too?

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 02:15 pm: Edit

"Most of you assholes who go on and on about the 'workers' have never done an honest day's WORK in your lives, you are typical fucking wannabe intelligentsia, nomenklatura, bourgeouisie sukem-sim"

Speak for yourself Don, you don't know enough about the rest of us to make such a judgement.

And what is so bad about the idea of creating a democraticaly accountable link. Trans-National Corporations control 60% of the world's resources and our governments act as their lackies. Who should governments represent the people who vote for them or it's shareholders? These shareholders will up sticks and bugger off when it suits, leaving the countries taxpayers to pick up the tab. We spend enough on the Corporate Welfare State as it is, if TNC's are to benefit from this then this benefit should be conditional on them acting in our long term interests.

Sustainable development for the Third World is in our own long term interests, otherwise we will continue to see population movements which are to our detriment. The environment also needs a long term responsible approach, this is also in our interests. As TNC's control so much of everything on the planet at least lets use some of our democratic power to compel them to act responsibly.

Give the UN teeth, link it to he World Bank (as was the intention when it was founded). Our governments should quit contributing to the World Bank and let instead fund it by a tax on international currency movements. Every day over £2 trillion worth of currency moves around the financial markets, we only need a minute shaving of that to address the needs of the planet. This would benefit all of us (except of course the board directors of TNC's).


By Heiko on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 11:02 am: Edit

We, the "first world", obviously have not enough problems, so we make up problems we can deal with. I sometimes wish we had more difficulty in making our living - look at people in third world countries: as long as they have enough to eat, they are usually more happy and positive thinking than all the depressed people in Europe and the States.

I saw a short interview recently with the Greenpeace negotiator at the Davos WTO meeting. He said that most of the executives were really open to what he told them. In his opinion, most executives of big companies are not really informed about environmental or social problems because they have been working 80 hours a week ever since and never had time to do anything else but business. They mostly weren't aware of how big their role in global politics is, either..
So, his message was more or less that we should try to convince the CEO's in a friendly way of the significance of changing some things. It would be the wrong way trying to fight the companies - because if they start to see their worst enemy in protestors, there's no way of talking to them anymore.
Good luck if you want to fight the WTO - but you're not going to win.

Globalized business will be a major factor in the future, but this does not have to be a bad future. Companies rely on people who buy their products, so they should be interested in a world where everyone has enough money to consume.
The non-profit-organizations can help to make environmentally friendly decisions a marketing factor - right now, the consumer seems not to be interested.

Most consumers are much more ignorant and egoistic than the companies. As a good example I see people in Germany feeling tortured by high oil prices: they are whining about a few bucks they have to spend more on gas, they claim that this is "unbearable" and it "ruins" them - Do they care about environment? - Only if they can blame someone else for destroying it!
What would a hard working third-world laboror who dreams of maybe owning a car some day say if he heard this?

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 09:43 am: Edit

As someone who has spent the better part of a lifetime dealing in realpolitik, it is amazing to me the extent to which otherwise intelligent individuals have their heads up their asses about how the world works.

Do the multinationals have power? Bet your ass they do. Do the national governments have power? Bet your ass they do. Some more some less.

These days the armchair liberals (and worse) who bleat about the WTO are in a quandry. The Third World is not interested in Sustainable Development although they occasionally give it lip service. They are interested in wiping out the timber reserves and rain forests and so on, witness Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Brazil etc. Those are SUBnational entities raping the environment. TRANSnational organizations are often doing their best to stop this.

EU would like to impose 'social' criteria in Third World not because it is better for workers but because it would make the Third World less competitive to the ridiculously overpriced, overtaxed, overregulated European Union.

Meanwhile millions of ordinary business people would like to just get on with their daily struggle to turn a profit and make a living for themselves and their employees.

Most of you assholes who go on and on about the 'workers' have never done an honest day's WORK in your lives, you are typical fucking wannabe intelligentsia, nomenklatura, bourgeouisie sukem-sim. That last is Russian slang for Sons of Bitches. Take that in the spirit in which it is intended, and that means you, martin, and you, kevin, among others. VERY typical couch commandoes. You make me sick. You know NOTHING of the world and you pontificate ad nauseam. Fuck you! Bleat your hearts out, the world goes on. Bob has more heart in his little finger than you will ever have, jointly or severally. Some people create wealth, and some just sit around and pule.

By Mr_Rabbit on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 09:00 am: Edit

The WTO represents corporations that own as many resources as possible, tangible, intangible, and natural. And control of those resources is where the true power is. A chancellor or president, for instance, cannot make war without weapons, and he cannot make weapons without the money from the WTO. He cannot make the factories that the WTO members own run without their say.

By the legal conventions of most every nation (which are defended by the governments in their nations)corporations (and private citizens) are given protection to help them keep the things they own. And it is important for governments to encourage the economy, so they make way and help corporate interests.

So the WTO, and organizations like it, have used the existing power structures to defend and aid in their usurpation of that power.

And now the king must bow to the bean-counter. This is a bad situation, in fact untenable. In a mediocre-to-good political leader, sustainable economic models, prosperity, the happiness and defence of The People are primary concerns.

In a mediocre-to-good corporation, profit is the only concern, knowing no boundaries of nation, creed, or god.

So the guy who would sell his mother if the price were right is now in charge, as opposed to the dude that says things like 'give me liberty...'

By Bob_Chong on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 08:48 am: Edit

Meow meow meow.

By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 07:19 am: Edit


Sorry if you find a simple hypothetical illustration baffling, I'll try not to move so fast in the future. Believe me, I would like to stop being annoyed by you, but you just can't seem to stop being an annoyance. Always the same pattern: you throw out something with obviously insulting or absurd implications, and then, when called to account for it, you duck down, put on your rubber vulcan ears and give us an impeccably logicalistic dissection of your exact statement syntax and a complete disavowal of what you obviously meant in the first place. I don't know why I feel compelled to serve as the Forum bullshit detector, I guess I'm afraid other onlookers can't see through you as easily as I can.


By Martin on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 04:50 am: Edit


You pride yourself on being a jackass... and a slave.

You love being a slave, don't you?


By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 03:46 am: Edit

Heiko, I am not one of those crocodile-tear jerkers about the 'holocaust'. I'm quite sick and tired of having to hear about events that happened long before I was born, and I am especially tired of having the plight of the European Jews singled out, while the 4 millions that Hitler killed who weren't Jewish are ignored, and the 20 millions that Stalin killed are totally out of the discussion -- including a whole lot of Jews as the Russians are far worse antisemites than the Germans ever were or will be. And the Russians can't hold a candle to the Ukrainians or Georgians (Stalin was a Georgian) in that regard. No offense to my Jewish friends on this forum or anywhere else is intended, and I am not 'denying' anything, or defending the 'endlosung', I am just saying that it wasn't the only such incident in the 20th century and it has been milked out of all proportion for sympathy and special treatment. I suspect that if the Armenians controlled the media and the movie industry the Turks and the Kurds would be demonized for the Armenian genocide, however as it is, unless your family name ends in -ian you probably don't know what I am talking about. I happen to have an Armenian uncle, by marriage, and his father watched the Turks slaughter his wife and children. He was the only survivor and he restarted his family in the USA. Who speaks for the Armenians? There is no Armenian Holocaust Museum, there is no Armenian version of 'Exodus' or 'Schindler's List'. All I mean is that the Jews don't have a patent on suffering, they just see to it that we are taught to believe they do.

Tell it to the Cambodians.
Or the Chinese.
Or the Hmong.
Tell it to the (pick a side in the Balkans).
Don't tell it to the Irish, we'll get mad.

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 01:08 am: Edit

Trusting the WTO to be responsible for sustainable economic development in the 3rd world or for responsibly managing the environment of the planet is like trusting a sex offender to baby sit your children.

The WTO and the Trans-National Corporations that they represent have no interest whatsoever in striking any balance, there only concern is the profits (by whatever means necessary) they can generate for their shareholders.

The very nature of the WTO means that they have no interest in sustainable development in the 3rd world. Their only interests in the third world are to use its workers to produce goods they can't afford to buy themselves, to be sold to workers in the West who are judged to be too expensive to produce the goods for themselves. And then while they're at that they dump surpluses on the third world, screwing up it's agriculture.

As for the environment, this is viewed as a resource to generate short term profit margins. They have no interest in the long term effects of increasing fossil fuel use or the environmental impact of GM crops.

And the WTO meeting at Seattle was not an open affair. Delegates from third world countries were left outside on the pavement, after all why should the WTO listen to them, they're not shareholders of the WTO. Its a sad state of affairs when the Seattle police are used by politicians to stop people voicing legitimate protest, these politicians had the police acting as a private thug security firm for the WTO. The demonstrators at Seattle were not mainly a bunch of un-washed anarchists wielding molotov cocktail and bent on destruction of all they see. Unless you classify the Churches, the Women's Institute and Environmentalists as dangerous radicals who threaten the breakdown of civilization.

TNC's currently control over 60% of world trade, with about half of it being between themselves. With such power we need a trade agreement to link democratic accountability and environmental sustainability. The WTO is not the organisation that can do this. Perhaps with a radical change and the introduction of a tax on international currency movements rather than contributions from the industrial economies the World Bank could be used to do it.

After all we spend so much money on the corporate welfare state maybe we should make this welfare conditional on those who reieve it acting in our long-term interests.

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 10:50 pm: Edit

You are always the Drama Queen.

M said, "The only people who have any control are the CEOs and shareholders."

I said that shareholders are everyday folks.

That's it. Just debunking the myth that you have to be Warren Buffet to be a "shareholder." That being said, you pretty much do have to be a Warren Buffet type of shareholder to have any real say, however.

John Q. Shareholder and Average Joe are often the same guy. Does that mean they have "power"? Not necessarily.

Where you come in with non-sequiturs about copper mines and the rest of your mental defecation is beyond me.

But you do a fine job at attacking me at every avenue. Kudos to you for your inability to let bygones be bygones: your "tenacity" is commendable.

BTW--I don't "pride myself" on anything.


By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Oh, so I see how this works now: Exxon wants to build a giant copper mine upriver from my farm which will poison the water and destroy my livelihood. Instead of political activism, I just go out and buy a couple thousand dollars worth of Exxon stock. Now, I'm a full 1/100,000,000th owner of the company. No way are they going to build that mine now... Jesus, Bob. For someone who prides himself on being "rational" you say some of the most cockamamy bullshit I've ever heard.


By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 09:12 pm: Edit


Who do you think these magical shareholders are? The include me and--if you ever get a real job-- you.


By Martin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 05:36 pm: Edit

"I heard on the radio that they scheduled the next meeting in Qatar, where political protests are completely outlawed..."

That's what I'm talking about. Those filthy bastards.

The only interests the WTO represent are the interests of the big corporations. Is that who you want making all the decisions? Don't you realize that as long as we allow these huge corporations to run the planet, the average schmo like you has no real say in any of it? You can vote and vote for whoever you want, and it won't get you shit. The only people who have any control are the CEOs and shareholders. If you like all that, then fine, but it really bothers me.


By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 04:39 pm: Edit

The primary issue brought to bear by the protestors at the WTO wasn't any particular position of the WTO, it was and is the nature of the organization itself: the meetings are held in secrecy and no ordinary citizen of any country has any access or input to what goes on therein. Preventing the meeting was all they could do -- letting the meeting go on wouldn't have helped. There is no way to 'use the organization to try to create a balance' if one has no access and no input. I heard on the radio that they scheduled the next meeting in Qatar, where political protests are completely outlawed...


By Artemis on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 04:29 pm: Edit

"I knew what you meant. I am simply suspicious of the unwashed masses (used literally rather than metaphorically in this instance)."

Yes, I suspect that any number of rebels without a clue showed up for the spectacle, but after reading that article in The Sun, I was impressed with the planning and organization of the protesters. Of course, the author of the article was probably far above the average protester in his knowledge of the WTO and the issues relating to it, and of course The Sun has an extreme liberal bias, so I no doubt got a skewed perspective by reading that piece. But the behavior of the cops was shameful all the same. To say they would have acted more brutally in Thailand, China, etc., well DUH! I do remember Tian An Men square. But Seattle is not in China!

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 03:47 pm: Edit

As for the WTO, international trade and economics are arcane and abstruse subjects. I'm bloody clever and I don't claim to understand them. It's certainly not black-and-white. I don't think the developing world should be sold off wholesale to corporations, but neither should they be left in the dark ages. I think treating the WTO (or especially the World Bank) like bugbears is counter-productive. These organizations should be used to try to create a balance. Preventing them from being able to meet (which was the expressed intent of the World Bank/IMF protesters in DC last year) will only make things worse. Corporations are going to use the resources of the third world. There is nothing to do about that. I would much rather have them doing it above-board, where the various concerns can be addressed.

Shit, I'm being the token moderate again...

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 03:35 pm: Edit


Comparing the republicans and democrats 100 years ago to the parties today is silly. There has been a fundemental shift in both parties, beginning with Strom Thurmond's post-war defection and continuing through the sixties, as the pro-labor policies of the democrats began to embrace other marginalized groups, and to a great extent, alienating the white southern working class. The transition was complete when Reagan('s puppet-masters) fully embraced the religious right. Modern republicans are not the party of Teddy Roosevelt, and modern democrats are certainly not the party of James Buchanan.

At this point, both parties are such a complete mish-mash of conflicting ideas it's a wonder they get anything done. Oh, wait, they don't...

There's a neat site at that allows you to search through the resuls and maps of various elections. It's interesting to see how party allegiences have shifted. For recent elections, they also have county-by-county maps, which give an even better picture of urban v. rural trands.

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 01:18 pm: Edit

I knew what you meant. I am simply suspicious of the unwashed masses (used literally rather than metaphorically in this instance).

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 11:58 am: Edit

The WTO and TNC's are in the driving seat, the future of the planet is in safe hands.

By Artemis on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 11:37 am: Edit

Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood ...
Who sang that? Was it Eric Burden? Anyway, when I said I thought Chong was wrong, I only meant he was wrong about:

"90% of those gutterpunks have no idea what they were protesting"

I was left with the impression that the vast majority of protestors knew exactly what they were protesting.

And they were not all of the left. And even if they were, there was no excuse for the behavior of the police. I don't give a shit what happens in the Magoola republics and thinly disguised dictatorships (China, etc.), and that's utterly beside the point. What happened in Seattle, in the United States of America, should have seen the mayor of Seattle and those in charge of the police forces in prison.

By Heiko on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 10:29 am: Edit


I guess you addressed me with "As for our Euro brethren who cry less than salty tears for native-american causes celebre just because they are native americans: it must be nice to have a hobby."

It's not my hobby...but my hobby is to spot any hypocrisy and to piss people off about it. I wouldn't give a damn about any minority's rights, if not all this political correctness-crap was told. No one acts according to what he says, that's what I like to criticize.

What about our American brethren crying less than salty tears for former concentration camp inmates?
I guess many will now angrily response that "this is something completely different" - Why?
It's all the same, we're all human, and we're all doing the same shit - the ones who are the victims today might be at power tomorrow and just do the same to other victims...

Of course the GSG9 doesn't behave different from the FBI.
Before we had the GSG9, terrorists were able to easily threat our government (and did so, as at the Munich Olympic games). Every leftist should accept that he would not want our state to be without any protection.
Everyone behaving totally fair and politically correct will not be able to protect himself from others who are -and this is the way it is- not fair and PC.

I don't know anymore what my opinion about politics is, it all leads to "nothing is true, everything's allowed" - this is my 'dogma', at least it's not possible to be a hypocrit with that one ;-)

By Mr_Rabbit on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 09:57 am: Edit

Bob, I think the WTO brings economic prosperity. It also brings more power to the corporations, which by their very nature are going to use that power for, and only for, their own profit, at the exclusion of environmental and human factors. The bad things about corporations are more or less a direct result of their structure.

I think they offer you a full food bowl, and a shiny new collar. If you are good they will let you out in the yard once in awhile, and if you are bad they will put you to sleep.

Am I wrong?

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 09:34 am: Edit

That's what I thought--you have no idea what the WTO does or doesn't do.

By Martin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 08:34 am: Edit

I don't hang out with greasy, drunken, pot-smoking adolescents.

Whatever demagoguery I engage in is my own business, and something you haven't got a clue about.


By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 08:22 am: Edit


I believe the cranial-rectal inversion was yours, not mine.

Name three things bad about the WTO that (a) you gleaned from original sources, not just drunken hearsay from fellow greasy adolescents who think doing a few bonghits is akin to radical activism, and (b) you haven't had to go look up right now on the Web.

Stick to facts, not demagoguery.


By Martin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 07:12 am: Edit

Damn straight about the Democrats, Walsh. I've known that the whole time. My parent's weren't fools, they raised me right.. they let me know what's really goin' on. That's why it always sickens me to see left-thinking "liberal" folk supporting Democrats.... the Democrats are bigger Nazis than the Republicans ever were! My parents are about as liberal and leftist as you can imagine, and they've ALWAYS voted Republican!

All these lies and treachery...

We'd probably get along pretty well if we met in person, Walsh. Too bad you're so much a part of "them"... you'd probably do well on my side. We need some folks like you who are good at getting "the job done". C'mon, you know as much as the rest of us, that Capitalism is the cause of 90% of the world's problems. Democracy would be so much better without Big Capital pulling all the strings. You know I'm right, but you're too entrenched in the "system" to want to do anything about it.

Oh well, I guess I'll continue to hate you, except on those shocking occasions when, by some sick twist of fate, we agree on something.


By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 06:48 am: Edit

And if you tried that shit in Afghanistan you'd wish that the Chinese police and military had charge of your personal liberty every day of your life.

But this fact still doesn't mean the police in Seattle acted correctly and in the interests of justice.


By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 06:45 am: Edit

By the way, historically, the principle opponents of an open immigration policy, the party that has consistently shat on the Irish, Italians, etc., at the behest of organized Labor, are the DEMOCRATS.

It's only after their policies failed, and the Irish and Italians became entrenched in America and were unfortunately wooed into the very same party that crapped on them, that the Dems looked for other targets.

Next were the Asians. Japanese. Chinese.

The Asians were smarter. That's why they overwhelmingly vote Republican.

Now the blacks, they are mostly still seduced by Democrat nonsense. They have forgotten that Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN and that the Dems historically supported slavery, states rights, segregation, etc. The Democrats didn't favor integration and voting rights for blacks till they had figured out how to corral those votes for themselves. Upwardly mobile blacks know better. They vote republican. They remember which party Lincoln was from. The power of the Dems on a national level used to rest on one thing only, the Solid South, and that was a Solid White Segregationist South. The backbone of the DEMOCRATIC Party. The party of the Klan and the Citizens Councils and the night riders and church burners and synagogue desecrators and enemies of the Catholics. Live loing enough and you might not have to be spoonfed history by liars -- you can remember it for yourself.

By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 06:30 am: Edit

Hey martin:

I agree with you on this one.

Clinton WAS And IS a worthless fuck.

However, I reserve the right to call everything else you say worthless puelling drivel from a snotnosed wannabe-anything asshole.

Nothing personal!

By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 06:25 am: Edit

I'll stand with Bob on this one.

Try that shit in Thailand and you'll wish the cops in Seattle had charge of your personal liberty every day of your life.

Try that shit in CHINA and you'll wish the Thai police and military had charge of your personal liberty every day of your life.

The Left: marginalized assholes, whose organizations would have no budget if only the FBI informants and agents inside them would stop paying their dues. You can always spot the Bureau plants: they are the only ones who pay dues on time.

(Also true for a whole lot of the Right. For sure the Klan. Probably the militias, the Aryan this and that etc.)

As for our Euro brethren who cry less than salty tears for native-american causes celebre just because they are native americans: it must be nice to have a hobby. In Germany people who shoot statspolizei or BGS (Bundesgrunzshutz -- Border Patrol Police) officers rarely make it to trial alive. General Ulrich Wegener of GSG9 fame is/was an old friend.


An Unrepentent Fascist Running Dog Lackey of the Imperialists

By Martin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 06:05 am: Edit

Clinton was a worthless fuck. The worst kind. The kind that seemed so much to appeal the more liberal-minded ex-hippy baby boomers. But in reality, he was every bit the evil shit that the new guy is. Just a different flavor of shit.. one that looked better on the outside.

Don't vote for ANYONE.

Damn straight Artemis, those fucking dogs that dare to call themselves "defenders of the peace" have don't more violence to this poor country than all the protesters, serial killers, and gangsters combined.


By Martin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 05:58 am: Edit


Glad to see another anarchistic-minded person on the board.

I seriously doubt Bush or his henchmen would be capable of outlawing abortion or anything else. They don't have enough support from the masses to even consider doing something so drastic. He won by such a slim margin, he knows he can't do anything big. What we're looking forward to is four incredibly boring years and far as executive action is concerned.

It's good that stuff like "Smoke Signals.." is getting shown where you're at. Anti-governament and anti-Capitalist groups get very little good press here (as far as I can tell anyway). It's usually portrayed as a bunch of hippies getting pissy and busting up a Starbucks. Of course, we know there's alot more going on than that.

I really hope the anti-WTO actions get more... effective. It'll be really nice to see some huge horrible corporations brought to their knees. Sure, that's no easy task, but by God, it won't happen if no one tries.

Big demonstrations like Seattle are great, but I don't think it start to be really effective until things like that start happening on a weekly basis. Fuck, daily would be even better. Riot until they can't take no more! That's a good motto. The fucks in charge need to be shown that we're sick of their shit and there's no excuse to put up with it anymore.

I look forward to being as vocal and outspoken as I can to try to make the world a better place... something like that. If I can influence one person towards my side, it'll all be worth it.


Shit, I just spilled half my French Martini in my lap. Don't drink and type.

Chong, get your head out of your ass.

By Artemis on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 05:35 am: Edit

"But who actually started the violence at Seattle?"

The police. They not only started it, but except for a handful of anarchists who had planned all along to do some property damage, the police carried out nearly 100% of it. Many passers-by who had nothing to do with the protest were gassed, shot with rubber bullets, beaten, etc.

I think Bob is wrong on this one. The protestors in Seattle represented a very wide range of political beliefs, and were for the most part extremely well informed and organized. I just read a fascinating piece on this in "The Sun" (formerly Dharmadhatu Sun) magazine. The piece implies that the cops became very much more brutal after our hero of the people, Bill Clinton, privately expressed his disgust and anger at the way the protestors were sullying the event. Coincidence?

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 04:33 am: Edit


But who actually started the violence at Seattle? Are the interests of the WTO delegates so important that citizens are not permitted to demonstrate their opposition to the WTO? Should the Constitutional right to demonstrate, be cast aside by the City of Seattle authorities so that they can act in accordance with their own view on what is in the public interest?

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." Justice Louis Brandeis.


By Bob_Chong on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 09:57 pm: Edit

Seattle was a joke. 90% of those gutterpunks have no idea what they were protesting unless Susan Sarandon told them first.

"What do we want? An end to the projects bringing potable water to third world countries! When do we want it? Now!"


By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 11:01 am: Edit


The SWP aren't such a bad lot, just a bit dull.


By Bjacques on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 09:52 am: Edit

Those of you kicking the dead Clinton horses, aren't your feet getting sore? Shrub may have cleaned up his act after it became impolitic, he doesn't seem willing to extend the indulgence he once enjoyed to today's druggies (neither did Clinton, nor would Gore have). I voted for Ralph, natch. He wasn't perfect, but he was the best of a bad lot.

If I were back in the States, I'd try to do more to make Bush Jr.'s political life a holy hell. As it is, I can only cheer from the sidelines. A wonderful TV program here, "Smoke Signals from the New World," profiled the coalitions against global capital, and I was hugely encouraged. The different groups were actually learning things from each other and getting their stories aired, mostly thanks to the Internet and Contrast that with some of the sectarian antics of just 10 years ago, when anarchists wouldn't even talk to Trotskyites and few groups could organize so much as a bake sale. Now, even the Socialist Workers Party get to play, even though nobody likes them.

Shrub and his Witchfinder General are welcome to try to outlaw abortion and/or contraception, but they're gonna face millions of active women (and men) who will make the Furies look like Kathy Lee Gifford.

It's gonna be fun. Back in the day, I defended women's clinics, went to see Bill hicks live, mocked Klansmen, and waved a papier-mache Chaos goat, bearing Hexagram 59 of the I Ching, in a (successful!) attempt to unseat Bush during the GOP convention. God, that was fun! If the Seattle and London anti-WTO parties are any indication, it'll only get better. Or as Molly Ivins (Texas columnist, author of "Shrub") once said, nothing but good times ahead!

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 06:59 am: Edit


Don't you know that the lives of policemen are more valuable than the lives of the rest of us. Also being wealthy or having friends in high places naturally gives you more entitlement to leniancy. The rest of us are mere fodder.


By Heiko on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 06:28 am: Edit

Ok, I see: if a policeman or FBI agent is shot, somebody gotta go to jail for it: if this poor somebody then can't actually prove he didn't do it (which is hard to do if you're against the testimony of 10 cops) - bad luck...

About the hypocrisy of politicians: Our conservatives (the CDU) are right now very busy 'playing K. Starr' - every week they bring up new photos and evidence from '68 where one of our secretaries of state (from the Greens party) was fighting a cop in a demonstration or shaking Arafat's hand at a PLO-conference. This is really getting silly and a german comedian brought it to the point when she said that there was only once in German history a politician who was really PC: he did not smoke, did not drink alcohol, loved animals, never had affairs and was a hard working man - pretty cool you think? Yeah, only...his name was Hitler - I guess we rather have better politicians and don't care so much if they have affairs, or drink too much alcohol, or smoke, or whatever.

By Bob_Chong on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 11:45 pm: Edit


Click on the formatting tab over there on the left to see the tags.


By Cheese on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:28 pm: Edit


but I don't think it can be proven that Peltier was innocent

Man, that's a problem with out justice/court system today (however, from what I know of the Peltier case, he doesn't sound too innocent, but don't forget "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"). Unless you've got some cash, you have to prove yourself innocent. Somewhere along the way everyone seems to have forgotten the burden of proof is on the state, not the defendant (look at our forfeiture laws for some good examples). You know, innocent before proven guilty?! I've dealt with the courts a few times and I've never had a public defender that gave a shit or helped me in any way.


Kinda hard to forget about the guy who's leaving when he pulls some pretty big stunts before he goes.


Your mention of Lisl made me think of HST. Not sure if many know it, but the good Dr. is writing for ESPN on-line (this is where I first heard of the Lisl story). Just do a search and you'll find his articles.....they keep him on page 2.


[edit] what tags work on here? I've tried both html and ubb? Can anyone give me a quick run down of the basic ones?

By Bob_Chong on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 09:13 pm: Edit

Did anybody even notice that Clinton is no longer president?

Well, did Clinton notice? He is "not going anywhere," remember? Now I know what he meant by that utterance, made as he was actively profaning another man's inauguration day.


By _Blackjack on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 08:47 pm: Edit


He also pardoned a dude who had 800 lbs. of cocaine.

He pardoned George W. Bush? <rimshot>

Thank you, folks! I'll be here all week.

By Bob_Chong on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 08:45 pm: Edit

I spent the last 8 years defending Clinton.

Your knees must be tired.


By Bob_Chong on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Quote: Clinton pardoned...people who were given draconian prison sentences for possessing or selling pot and LSD.

He also pardoned a dude who had 800 lbs. of cocaine.


By Anatomist1 on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Unfortunately, even Clinton couldn't pardon Peltier. If you're convicted of shooting FBI agents, not even Jesus Christ is going to get you off the hook. I don't remember the details, but I don't think it can be proven that Peltier was innocent. I think it has been conclusively shown that his trial was unfair and he was therefore wrongfully convicted. This isn't the same as proving he didn't do it.

As far as anti-Clinton mania goes, what gets me about it is the hypocrisy of people who foam at the mouth about Clinton's failings, yet turn a blind eye to all of the well-documented evil deeds of Republicans. How can people be so gullible as to fall for this tired scapegoating agitprop? Clinton is a slimy weasel, and so are nearly all the others - Demicans and Republicrats alike. The disproportionate outcry and attention given to the Clintons' every fart and burp are obviously fueled by pundits, spin-sters, and demogogues because it diverts attention away from matters of importance. Did anybody even notice that Clinton is no longer president?


By _Blackjack on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Well, at least Peltier was convicted of a crime he could have possibly commited (meaning he was present at the shootout, and armed.) Poor Lisl Auman is going to spend the rest of her life in jail for a murder commited while she was handcuffed in a police car.

By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Hear, hear.

A local poet/alcoholic of my acquaintance tells of the days when he used to hang out at a pub -- long since too trendy -- which featured free (nasty American tap) beer from 3-4 PM.

They eventually started charging a dollar because they were getting swamped with homeless people who wanted a drink to ward off the cold, in addition to starving poets.

This, and a lot of other things, inspired your man to write a poem entitled "Beer Is Free And So Is Leonard Peltier".

So now Peltier waits for the next parole board, who will no doubt pay every bit as much attention to those esteemed persons as the last one did.

Damn you, Clinton.

By Heiko on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 03:12 pm: Edit

Clinton could at least have pardoned Leonard Peltier, who is proven not to be guilty and nevertheless spent the last 25 years in prison...
this would've been the best way to say "screw you guys, I'm out of heah!" - but I guess he was too afraid of the FBI.

I don't want to criticize too much here as I'm not an American, but this case has gone around the world and even H. H. the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and many others have stood up for Peltier's release.
A poor way to tell the world how much even liberal American politicians care for the sake of rich criminals while they don't give a shit for Native Americans...

By _Blackjack on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Well, I spent the last 8 years defending Clinton, but this pardon thing has me pretty diappointed. I don't think it was, necissarily, any more corrupt than most of the stuff most presidents do, but it felt very petty to me, like Clinton was going "screw you guys, I'm out of heah!"

I don't mind dishonest hypocritical politicians. As far as I know, that's the only kind there are. But I prefer the kind who are dishonest and hypocritical in ways that benefit the things I believe in. I would have much rather seen Clinton pardon more drug offenders and less billionaires...

But I agree with Dubya that we should just leave this alone. It's over, Bill's gone, let it lie. If we're going to did this up, we'd better be prepared to re-start the Iran-Contra thing too...

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 09:42 am: Edit

Marc, it's their hypocrisy which gets me.

You recognize I'm sure that under the right circumstances, not so disparate from present reality, Hill & Bill would have happily presies over your legal cruxifiction in the name of the War on Drugs, or any one or more of a number of other Wars, and never blinked an eye?

The 'Bill, just another rampant prick like me, mindless heat seeker looking for any old cave' defense is kind of thin. Does it extend to Hill's brother and are we expected to swallow that she knew nothing of it in an administration run by her with her arm up Bill's ass to move his mouth and allow her to throw her voice?

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 04:03 am: Edit


We're all sluts, it's just that most of us like to live in a world of self-righteous self-dellusion. I'm trust you're enjoying yourself in that karmic cesspool in the desert.


By Marc on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 03:18 am: Edit

Don and Lord,

I guess I'm getting old. None of this shit really means that much to me anymore. I'm in Las Vegas,
a karmic cesspool, and I ain't entitled to get self-righteous about anything. I went from being
a hippie freak to a a money grubbing opportunist.
I'm a fucking whore. That's probably why I like Bill Clinton. We're both sluts.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 03:11 am: Edit

Clintons list of pardons included, armed robbery, money laundering, fraud, embezzlement, conspiracy to defraud the government, and that's before including Marc Rich. Only a small percentage of the pardons were for drugs offences.

If the President exercises the right to pardon all these convicted criminals he should at least give a good explanation of his reasons in each case.

The true reasons for some of these people would make interesting reading.

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 02:39 am: Edit

You guys don't no much about the federal pardon process. It is handled by the General Counsel's office and the President isn't notmally involved at all. Some recent presidents pardoned NOBODY. It is not supposed to be for sale.

So $800,000 to Hillary brother, shows Hillary to be as corrupt as Bill and Bill to be as corrupt as we always thought.

I've known federal employees who were succesfully prosecuted and convicted of a federal felony or three for 'accepting a gratuity' not cash, just some desk ornament or a plaque to hang on their wall, if it was deemed to be worth more than the statuatory maximum.

The Clinton's a crooks and hypocrits.

But we already knew that, from other matters.

Mr Rapist Governor and Mr Screwer of Interns President, presided over an administration which crucified military personnel for 'sexual harassment' offenses.

Clinton cut a smarmy deal with the Arkansas Supreme Court to keep from being disbarred, that's how he spent the day before the last day of his term, which is when he peddled his pardon power. Brokered by his brother in law.

These people suck, Marc. Don't narrow your field of view to a pardon or two you might find sympathy with. That's just tunnel vision.

By Marc on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 02:05 am: Edit

Clinton pardoned a number of people who were given draconian prison sentences for possessing or selling pot and LSD. Is that a bad thing?

For a forum devoted to a beverage associated with the arts and creative thinking, there sure are alot of bloodthirsty, narrowminded, rightwing, gun-toting, macho white boys posting here. In some respects, this is the among the squarest websites I visit.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 01:37 am: Edit


"LH... you chaps need to bring back the Iron Maiden... we haven't had any Brits to villify for a long time now."

Neither have we, we love to have one of our own to villify.


By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 01:33 am: Edit


"Clinton hasn't pardoned any more convicts than other presidents".

You're right he probably hasn't and many of his predecessors have no doubt pardoned more heinous criminals.

Pardoning 140 or so convicted criminals, (including his brother) on his last day in office, is that in the interests of justice or an abuse of power?

The Constitutional right of a President to pardon anyboby he/she wishes was as you say originally meant to serve the interests of justice. I'm sure it wasn't set up as a means to buy political favours, get oneself off the hook and generally make a mockery of the justice system.

As far as I'm concerned a President can ball who he likes and get blow jobs from whom he pleases, but don't abuse the powers given to him by the people he's supposed to serve.

But then what more should we expect? Most politicians are a bunch of self-serving sleazebags whose only interest is personal wealth and power. No doubt they see nothing wrong with using all the tools at their disposal to satisfy their own greed. Survival of the fittest and all that, but then it's us poor saps that willingly give them the power to shaft us.

Clinton was no worse than any other President in recent history.


By Bob_Chong on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 10:21 pm: Edit

Quote: ...he voided a bunch of national forest protecting exec. orders

This could also be stated: he corrected a series of abuses of executive power which had ignored due process.

Of course, Clinton was never long on due process.


By Pikkle on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 09:18 pm: Edit

LH... you chaps need to bring back the Iron Maiden... we haven't had any Brits to villify for a long time now.

By Marc on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 01:41 pm: Edit

S. Clay rocks! A man ahead ( a head) of his time.

By Artemis on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 01:13 pm: Edit

for an S. Clay Wilson fan, you sure are sounding pretty straight."

Yeah, I know it. I'd rather talk about the Checkered Demon than politics, if that's worth anything.

By Anatomist1 on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 01:06 pm: Edit


Don't believe the hype. Clinton hasn't pardoned any more convicts than other presidents. Pardoning a current fugitive is a little weird, but other presidents have done weird ones too -- the power is the last vestige of monarchy left in our system. In its original intent, it was supposed to be reserved for cases where undoing what the justice sytem had done would be good for the country regardless of fairness. Ford pardoning Nixon is widely considered to be such a case.

If you want to see a seedy pardon, check out Bush Sr.: he pardoned Weinberger and several others in the middle of an ongoing Iran-Contra investigation, thereby ending it. If allowed to continue, the investigation may well have seen Bush himself behind bars. So he basically pardoned his way out of taking responsibility for his own role in drug dealing, illegal arms trading, lying to congress, and conducting a private war... and possibly rigging an election.


By Anatomist1 on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 12:51 pm: Edit

W is already kicking ass. He bombed Iraq the other day so no one would notice when he voided a bunch of national forest protecting exec. orders and appointed a politically motivated census cheif to rig the numbers in favor of the Republicans.


By Marc on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 12:31 pm: Edit


for an S. Clay Wilson fan, you sure are sounding pretty straight.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Give the man a chance he's only just got into office, plenty of time yet to ball a few whores and dish out pardons to a load of convicted criminals.

By Artemis on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 11:45 am: Edit

"Nice to know the leader of the most influential and powerfull country on the planet is on the ball."

Agreed. It's nice to know that for the first time in eight years, he is on the ball, as opposed to balling some whore.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 11:36 am: Edit

Well before old Dubya starts going around kicking ass, perhaps one of his advisers should take the time to explain to him exactly what NATO is and tell him that the USA has always been it's most active participant.

Nice to know the leader of the most influential and powerfull country on the planet is on the ball.

By Artemis on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 10:47 am: Edit

"What planet is he on?"

The planet whereon if there's any serious ass to be kicked, the U.S. military will have to do the kicking because nobody else is up to it. The U.S. wasn't up to it either for much of the last eight years, but that will hopefully change now, thanks to W.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 10:29 am: Edit

UK dentists are glad of people like Tony, he keeps them in business.

Too bad very few of the rest of can now find a National Health Service dentist anymore thanks to New Labour, perhaps this was deliberate on Tony's part so that he could keep them all to himself.

By Pikkle on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 09:49 am: Edit

Sometimes you have to say things twice for those who dwell in the land of the dentally challenged.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 04:46 am: Edit

"I assured him that the United States will be actively engaged in NATO"

Dubya reassures us all of this at a press conference with Tony Blair broadcast on UK TV yesterday. Startling news indeed!

What planet is he on?

By Malhomme on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Nothing to add really, but wanted to keep this one going as a kind of reminder to some as to who's really president.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 03:12 am: Edit

Not 4-5 parties a week, parties lasting for 4-5 weeks. You can rest while your empty glass is being refilled.

By Don_Walsh on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 11:42 am: Edit

Down with the two party system!

I want 4-5 parties a week, with some rest in between. (hic)

By _Blackjack on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 12:21 am: Edit


Down with the two party system. Give me Nader over a corporate lackey any day.

You are aware that Nader is owned outright by the trial lawyers, right? A lackey is a lackey...

Hagelin in 2004

By Corsetgirl on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Down with the two party system. Give me Nader over a corporate lackey any day.

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 10:32 am: Edit

Too moderate and too dull.

By Bob_Chong on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 02:40 pm: Edit


Gotcha. I figured you didn't like either--way too moderate for your tastes.


By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Bob, Bob, Bob...

You misunderstood me I wasn't junping to the support of Gore.

Just commenting that Gore wasn't at the front of the queue when personality was being given out, and Bush wasn't at the front of the queue when brain cells were given out.

Neither however are overly endowed with either personality or brain cells.

The Democrat and Republican candidates that impressed me were the Vice-Presidential, not the Presdential candidates.

However if I'd have been a citizen of the USA you wouldn't have caught me voting for Democrats or Republicans.


By Bob_Chong on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:41 am: Edit

Hob, Hob, Hob...

RE: Gore--I was mocking his credentials as a "journalist." Thirty years ago, he spent a few months working for a podunk Tennessee newspaper. That qualifies him to be a "professor" of journalism at Columbia? Forget politics--as a fellow educator, I thought you'd be with me on this one.

I could see Gore being a political science teacher, though. He has been a career politician and has much knowledge to share in that area. But his knowledge of journalism is old and was probably never very good anyway.

It would be like the Berklee School of Music hiring Clinton to give saxophone lessons. (FWIW, I think Clinton should/could easily work at a law school. A perfect match.)

I think if folks are going to teach, they should at least have some real knowledge and experience in their content area. This is not too much to ask.


By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:17 am: Edit

Well Bob,

At least the dull wooden man with the personality deficit can string a few words together, maybe he should lend Dubya a dictionary, and while he's at it he should lend him an atlas of the world as well.


By Bob_chong on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Al Gore is now a professor of journalism? LOL. Creative writing would have been a better fit.

Or maybe an A&M school could have hired him to be a professor of agriculture, since he has such an extensive knowledge of farming.


By Melinelly on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Pikkle, i meant, as you said, not to add to the debate, but to simply point out that the only way either of us is going to agree other than to disagree would be to change the core essence of the other... which as you said ain't gonna happen =)




By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 01:06 pm: Edit

I'm off to get some sandpaper.

By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 12:12 pm: Edit

Ooh, Goblin... yer gettin me so hot!

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 12:06 pm: Edit


"How would you like someone to shove explosive devices in your orrifices?...squeeze your trigger?... bristle brushes shoved in and out of your holes...oiled inside and out on a regular basis?...sheathed in rough leather..."

Some people pay good hard-earned money for such services.


By Pikkle on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 07:40 am: Edit

Well Melinelly, I am a capitalist and patriotic
and all that but I'm done with this thread, it's a
debate that's undebate-able in my book.
Good day sir!

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 07:17 pm: Edit

I am in the Washington, DC suburbs, which is a very different world from the rest of Virginia. It's a little haven of Yankee liberalism a half-hour drive from the Old South. It really gives me the best of both worlds: Arlington County hands out social services on a near-European level, but I can still get a permit to carry a concealed handgun by just asking.

By Rupert1029 on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Blackjack, the land of your birth is Alabama, and so is mine. But according to your profile, you reside in Virginia, the land of Pat Robertson and the born agains. Is that much better than Alabama ? Of course, as I scold you, I realize that I live in Texas....the land of the Village Idiot...who is now President.

By Melinelly on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Pikkle wrote:
also think it should be regulated so as not to
overburden our resources. That is my thought
on the matter, please let it die now!!! "

immigration aside, i might agree with your views if i were at all capitalistic... however, what strikes me upon hearing statements such as these is: Why not simply work at redistributing said resources so that human beings are not seen as burdens?

on another note...

as for gun-rights... i too believe in the right for guns to exist. i'm outraged at the historical and present-day infringement upon freedom of choice when it comes to guns!!!

when a gun is bought, sold, fired, loaded, cleaned, USED... WHERE... I SAY WHERE... IS THE DECISION OF THE GUN in this matter?


And to those who deny guns their basic right to exist unmolested by humankind, to those who say "I don't hear the guns complaining." : Maybe you're just not listening. Maybe we simply don't speak the same language. How would you like it if you were bought and sold like a piece of meat? How would you like someone to shove explosive devices in your orrifices? Hold you by the handle and squeeze your trigger? Force you to detonate small explosives, often killing innocent beings. How would you like to have bristle brushes shoved in and out of your holes and be oiled inside and out on a regular basis? How would you like to spend most of your life locked in a box, sheathed in rough leather, or displayed upon someone's mantle?

How long will we, as intelligent sentient beings, stand for the mistreatment of our fellow earthly existors? I say NO MORE! FREEDOM FOR GUNS! SUPPORT THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF ARTILLERY! GUN RIGHTS NOW!

Vive La Resistance!

For more info on how you can help, write to:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Artillery (aka the other PETA)
69 Desolation Blvd. #2
Shit Creek, AK 47666



emiliano lee

disclaimer: it's a joke duh.

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 01:18 pm: Edit


As to Bushes view on abortion, I'm afraid I agree with him.

The thing is, you probably don't. There are secular arguments against abortion (with which I don't agree) but even those are usually at odds with the religious-right anti-abortion forces in the US. The religious pro-lifers ground their opposition to abortion in a religious belief that sex is evil, and, moreover, that women shouldn't need reproductive control because they should be content with staying in the home. They won't usually admit it on camera, but if you check their internal literature, they also want to ban oral contraceptives and IUD's. They basically want to return women to the social position they held pre-1950. Most socialists would have a problem with that part of the equation.

I imagine it's a difficult situation, something akin to my being a liberal who supports gun-rights...

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Ah, Alabama, land of my birth. Had my father not broken his leg and decided to give up farming and get his degree in physics, I might have grown up there. That would not have been pretty.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 01:08 pm: Edit

I totally agree with Melinelly about the ultimate elimination of borders and nationality. I view borders as unnatural artificial barriers set up to control us all.

As to Bushes view on abortion, I'm afraid I agree with him. I'm an atheist and a Marxist who is also opposed to abortion. You don't get many of them. Fellow Comrades are shocked and assume that being left-wing means being pro-abortion. I also once belonged to a pro-life group and had to leave because their position was all based around religion (either Catholicism, Judaism, Evangelical Protestantism, or Islam). There seems to be no place for a secular pro-life position. There's no need for the debate to be all about various Religions or the Conservative Right versus the Liberals or the Left.


By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:33 pm: Edit


No problem, I just felt that not living in the USA my implied comments on immigration into the USA was something that I had no real right to comment on. Also the Irish thing is proably best discussed over a dozen pints of Guinness, (each). Although my days of being able to drink a dozen pints are long since gone, (lucky to manage half that these days).


By Pataphysician on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 07:32 am: Edit

"...miscegination laws were..."

"Were" meaning up until three months ago, when the last miscegination law was stricken in Alabama. A whopping 41% voted to keep the law in place. Gives one pause, doesn't it?

By _blackjack_ on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 06:12 pm: Edit


My wife and I would not have been able to be legally married only 35 years ago when anti-miscegenation (marrying outside your recognized "race") laws were finally repealed... I'm half mexican half chinese

Which, of course, shows how absurd miscegination laws were. I mean, would you only be able to marry other half mexican, half chinese people?

A good friend was just in the process of enrolling his son in kindergarten. My friend is Black, Irish and Cherokee. His wife is Japanese and Hispanic. Their son, Tetsuo, looks white. They were asked to put a race down on his forms. There was no choice for "All of the above..."

(My friend's wife is also blind and occasionally in a wheelchair. Both of them are bisexual. They ARE the Rainbow Coalition!)

By Pikkle on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 05:48 pm: Edit

I never implied that there weren't laws years
ago that made no sense or had no basis... I'm
saying in the whole scheme of things in
present day America, the one I live in now, I
support tough immigration standards
because to me, they make sense. I'm not
saying others should believe as I do nor am I
arguing that we should be isolationist. I think
immigration has been great to this country. I
also think it should be regulated so as not to
overburden our resources. That is my thought
on the matter, please let it die now!!!
See you in NOLA!

By Melinelly on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 05:41 pm: Edit

P.Verte wrote:
"Hee. We do carry on, don't we.
I voted for neither Gush nor Bore. I don't feel quite the pain that Marc apparently
does. I predict four years of through-the-ceiling growth for punk rock, political art
in all media, radical direct action, tree-sitting, squatting, monkeywrenching and
hell, even union organizing.
Beware. When we're fucked, we multiply. "


That is indeed one plus for the next four years of Shrubery! Hrm... not even two days into his term and he's taking a strong material stance against "funding abortion". Yay! and this comes two weeks before i take on a new position at a women's clinic hehe!

My goddess, this thread has been incredibly inflammatory. All I can say is on March 3rd, please everyone check your politics at the door and let's enjoy Ted's fire water in peace =)

As for immigration... ***sigh*** I'm not going to get into it. I'm a radical, a socialist, and I'm for the ultimate elimination of borders and national soverignty let's leave it at that. Please don't argue against that statement. It is simply where I stand. I am fully aware of the work involved to get us to a place in this world where borders mean nothing... where skin color means nothing... where language means nothing... etc... and I understand that such a world may never exist, and it will certainly not be seen in any of our lifetimes... but I am willing to put in the effort, time, and conviction to propogate the belief that such a world is possible if not probable.

now to clear up some immigration issues...

Pikkle wrote that "there are immigration laws for a reason, not because the U.S. is mean spirited"

to which i simply wish to point out that until 1965, barely a generation ago, every single immigration law was enacted as a reaction against one or more ethnic/national group(s). The very first law dealing with immigration (in 1780) set down the basis upon which all laws followed until the mid-20th century: Only FREE "WHITE" MEN are eligible for naturalized citizenship. This law stood in its entirety until 1954! In the 1800s several immigration laws were enacted in reaction to the waves of illigal labor being imported from Asia and Ireland. My wife and I would not have been able to be legally married only 35 years ago when anti-miscegenation (marrying outside your recognized "race") laws were finally repealed.

BAH! I'm stopping now. This was my one of my areas of study in college and I'm half mexican half chinese, on both sides my forefathers were technically what today would be called illegals. I can go on for days. I don't know if i'm making any sense, but I'm leaving this thread before I get too involved.

Down with Shrub!

See y'all on the frontlines =)

-emiliano lee

By Pikkle on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 04:58 pm: Edit

I didn't think we were at war Mr. Goblin... I have
the utmost respect for your opinion would
gladly welcome the idea of entering into lively
debate with you anytime, as long as it was
productive... I'm sure you know more than I do
the sensitivity of the Irish question, so you are
correct, best left alone in friendly circles. I
raise my glass to you sir!

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:21 am: Edit


I'll call a truce with you on this Irish thing and on immigration. No point in us all pissing each other off with bad vibes. I'm off for a glass of Serpis.


By Pikkle on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 07:22 am: Edit

Well, if they were jumping over the fences at
the border, they'd be in the olympics instead of
washing dishes... my bad.
Can we two-step?

By Head_prosthesis on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 07:17 am: Edit

Pikkle "they didn't have a river
they could swim across or a fence they had to
jump over to get here either."

They danced over. River danced...

Blackjack, dear brother, this land does not belong to us. We belong to it. Now take your stinky buffalo grunders and get to steppin' before I get "Rolling She Bull" after you.

By Pikkle on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Well at least I'm on Chippewa/Ojibwa/Wyandot
land here... when i leave, I'll just cut off my left
arm below the elbow and leave it here...

By _blackjack_ on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 03:22 pm: Edit


I'm 1/16 Cherokee. YOU get off MY land...

By _blackjack_ on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 03:22 pm: Edit


By Pikkle on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 03:09 pm: Edit

I don't think anyone is being prejudice
againsth certain ethnic groups so much as
they're trying to protect what they have gained
through the years. It's a hard thing to see
when you've worked your knuckles to the
bones for generations to finally get
somewhere only to see somebody else just
walk on in and put on par with you, that's
where the prejudice lies. But I can't say it's
attributable so much by one ethnic group to
another. Yes, Anglo-America is protectionist
to a point, but it's always been tolerable if
grudgingly so, but much more so than most
other ethnicities in the world today. Really, try
to get citizenship in Japan. Unless you were
born there and are of Japanese ancestry, it's
impossible. Now talk about some

By Absinthesque on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 03:08 pm: Edit

I find it odd that those who would defend our new idiot-in-thief seem to forget one significant fact: Clinton wasn't running this time!

And if you think an attorney general who neither drinks, smokes nor dances is going to be a friend to you, absinthe has more secondary effects than I've ever dreamed of.


By Perruche_verte on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Correct, of course, Kallisti. The first wave over always gets it hard. Irish-Americans were used as cannon fodder by the Union side in the Civil War and this led to the shameful events of the Draft Riots, in which a pogrom was committed on African Americans.

But subsequent generations benefited enough from hard work (and the sort of ethnic nepotism I mentioned) to where they can afford those hefty prices for memorabilia of their former plight.

I am certainly not denying Irish Americans ever had it hard. What I object to is that sort of "us too" sentiment by which some Irish Americans, and other (mostly white) folks too, justify their own prejudice against more recent immigrants, many of whom have English as a second language (if at all) and can't simply melt into the Caucasian masses.

FWIW, I've had Norwegian American friends do the same thing, telling me they were slaves of the Swedes hundreds of years ago -- as if that compared to the African American experience somehow.

By Pikkle on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 02:41 pm: Edit

If you ever get a chance, please, come to
Dearborn Michigan, I'd like you all to see an
example of why this Anglo-immigration idea is
such a myth. We have the largest
concentrated Arabic population in the U.S.
This is right in the bedroom of Mr. Henry
Ford's little white sanctuary. These people are
all very productive members of this society
and faced little or none of the discriminatory
behaviour you seem to think is bestowed
upon people who immigrate here who are not
white. I find it a very flimsy arguement
personally. Throughout history, the Irish have
been considered shit no matter where they
went in the world. And they didn't have a river
they could swim across or a fence they had to
jump over to get here either. The times were
different when the Irish were immigrating to
America en mass, we were clamoring for
bodies, any bodies as we were in a time of
rapid expansion and industrialization. Now,
as we face the prospect of jobs being lost
once again, we're supposed to keep the
floodgates open? If a healthy citizen doesn't
want to work, shame on him/her. I say it
should be mandatory to be employed in some
manner, even if it means picking up garbage
on the side of the road. Welfare is bullshit
except only in the most extreme cases. One of
the best things the Republicans did was start
dismantling that wasteful archaic system, at
least on the state level. Get rid of the
handouts, shit or get off the pot, then we can
determine what kind of manpower we need to
keep this country going.

By Artemis on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 02:39 pm: Edit

There's an episode of The Simpsons where Grandpa Simpson fondly remembers the year they ran the Irish out of town.

"And a fine job ye did, too" pipes up a leprauchan in the crowd.

By Admin on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 02:35 pm: Edit


But as immigrants they have enjoyed certain privileges in American society -- mostly due to being white and English-speaking -- that are the envy of other ethnic groups.

Maybe someone else here can explain it better, but following the throngs (was it millions?) of Irish that flooded the east after the potato famine in the 1840's there was an incredibly strong and violent backlash against anything Irish. There were just as many "No Irish Allowed" signs (the fetch hefty prices on ebay) as there later were following the Jim Crowe laws against african americans. Clannish Prejudice is not always related to the color of your skin, though it perpetuates longer due to the fact mentioned that after a generation it is easier to blend.

By Perruche_verte on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Re Clinton:

Thanks Don, for providing more confirmation that the real issue was neither Clinton's fooling around, nor his trying to cover it up. You make this clear by bringing up his wartime activities while at Oxford. (Never mind that he also turned over names of his fellow demonstrators to the FBI -- wasn't that patriotic enough for you?)

The people who claim to be so offended by Clinton's immorality mostly wanted him out for other reasons. When the Monica story came out, they thought, "Hot damn, we've got him." He was supposed to quit, and when he disappointed them by not doing this, that's when he "disgraced the office."

The only people who wouldn't disgrace the office IMO are never going to run, let alone win. Clinton should have resigned when his "smart bombs" took out Iraqi daycare centers.

By Perruche_verte on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 02:20 pm: Edit

I play Irish music. The definitive collection of Irish dance tunes is "O'Neill's Music of Ireland", compiled by Chief Francis O'Neill of the Chicago Police Department in the late 19th century. One of his less savory accomplishments was helping break the Pullman Strike.

O'Neill was born in Ireland. He was crazy about playing the flute and made a habit of packing his force with novice policemen who happened to be traditional musicians. He would assign them light duties and bring them into his office so his brother James could transcribe tunes from them (often incorrectly -- James was classically trained and didn't understand the idiom of trad music that well -- not to blame him since no real standard existed at the time for transcription).
Probably hundreds of Irishmen got jobs on the force the first week they arrived in America.

There is no denying the Irish have been shit on since Elizabeth took it into her head to cross over. But as immigrants they have enjoyed certain privileges in American society -- mostly due to being white and English-speaking -- that are the envy of other ethnic groups.

By Pikkle on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Wow, no one here seems to remember a
general amnesty for all illegals a while back
do they? And the discussion was about
illegals coming to this country and taking the
shit jobs the Americans didn't want not the
doctor, engineer, scientist jobs Americans
don't seem to capable of anyway. Hell, until I
was an adult, I didn't know white people could
be MD's, never bothered me a bit. As far as
the Irish in America, or any part of the world,
please, read up on your history so I don't have
to insult you because you are insulting me
with your misguided generalizations. The
Irish have been shit on for well over 800 years.
And like I said before the discussion is over
as far as I'm concerned... the general
concensus seems to be let everyone in no
matter what the consequences. Just
remember, there has never been a country
more generous in the world than the U.S. as
far as immigration is concerned and everyone
knows this which is why it's a problem. Like I
said, let's just all get back on our boats and go
back to Europe or where ever... issue
resolved. The 1/16 Chippewa part of me is
telling me to get the fuck off my land too...

By Head_prosthesis on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Hello? I'd like to speak for my people???

I'm 1/32 Algonquin and all you white folk can get off this land now...

Take your boom sticks and fire water with you.
Well... you can leave the fire water.

By _blackjack_ on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 11:16 am: Edit


What is that all about, citizenship by lucky dip?

Um, pretty much. And, yes, Mexicans get a chance too, but our policy is preferential toward Europeans and people with professional skills (Indian and Pakistani computer programmers, Vietnamese dentists, etc.)

The sad bit is, of course, that there is every indication that immigration is GOOD for the economy, despite the protestations that immigrants "take our jobs." It is a cover for racial prejudice and xenophobia.

"Dear God! There are people praking Spanish in Los Angeles and San Antonio!"

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 11:10 am: Edit

I know of someone who until recently an illegal Irish immigrant in America, and then he won a green card and he's now legal!!!!

What is that all about, citizenship by lucky dip?

Is it only the Irish illegal immigrants that can enter this lucky dip or do the Mexicans get a chance too?


By _blackjack_ on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:58 am: Edit

An interesting note on the Irish question--there used to be tons of illegals from Ireland coming into the US. They had a much easier time of it than most, because, so long as they kept their mouths shut, nobody realized they weren't Americans.

Now, however, Ireland's economy is booming to the point that they have a labor shortage, and they are BEGGING emigants to come back. The problem is, for the illegals, unless they turn themselves in for deportation, it's hard to get out of the US without papers...

By _blackjack_ on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:48 am: Edit


Affecting the balance of power? Not hardly since the Watergate and related black bag jobs produced nothing of importance. And BOTH parties routinely engaged in that sort of stupidity. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

I suppose you're in more of a position to know, but the fact that they did that sort of of thing all the time doesn't mean they SHOULD have. Had McGovern's lackey's been caught doing the same thing, I'd have bloody well expected them to go up for it, too. There is stil a difference, however, when one is proactively using the power of the office to cover it up. I don't care how "routine" you think it was, it was a far cry more severe than denying a blowjob that would never have come up had there not been an absurdly intensive investigation of everything he had ever done.

I do think Clinton was an idiot for lying about it. However I doubt many other politicians would have done differently.

Anyway, criticizing Hillery for hypocricy because she was on the Watergate team is silly. As recall, she was one of dozens of lawyers working on the team. She was hardly one of the main architects.

By Daedelus on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:26 am: Edit

now, now, Don

"Affecting the balance of power? Not hardly since the Watergate and related black bag jobs produced nothing of importance. And BOTH parties routinely engaged in that sort
of stupidity. Don't kid yourself otherwise."

No-one to my knowledge is kidding themselves "otherwise" regarding the shenanigans of either political party.

Its just that Nixon's guys got caught....
Like I always say "it's only breaking the law if you get caught". We all do it most every day (well most of us at least)

That was Clinton's problem too. Girls with big mouths may give good BJ's but.....


By Don_walsh on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 07:28 am: Edit

Nope, dunno Ray Moffett. Bear in mind I left DC in '89. However the people I am thinking of were just starting up BR in '88-89 and are still running it. While they Scene very overtly I ma disinclined to name names here because it isn't relevant and this isn't a Scene forum is it?

Affecting the balance of power? Not hardly since the Watergate and related black bag jobs produced nothing of importance. And BOTH parties routinely engaged in that sort of stupidity. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 07:24 am: Edit


It's not about un-checked immigration. But the attitude that is prevalent (in the UK anyway and I presume also in the USA) that people who enter the country from less developed nations take our jobs, sponge off the system and are generally a drain on resources , and we'd be much better off if we just shipped them all back out again.

Immigrants contribute to the economies of countries, they work hard, they do jobs that are unpopular, and then the lazy 'white-trash' (who themselves have no interest in working) accuse them of stealing their jobs. They accuse people of "coming over here and taking our jobs" when even if the immigrants weren't here these people would be sitting on their arses blaming someone else.

And it's not about legal or illegal immigrants it's a colour issue. In the UK asians and blacks who have legally moved here, (indeed encouraged by previous UK governments to do jobs people didn't want to do) and have been here for 40 years, worked hard and created businesses are treated as spongers. Their children who have been born here and have lived nowhere else are told to go back where they came from.

Because an individual is the son or daughter of an immigrant it doesn't follow that that person will be a bum who sponges off the system. Why shouldn't that individual be educated by the State like any other citizen, he has committed no crime and is just as likely to contribute to the Nation as any other citizen.


As for the Irish question I've lived through the violence in Northern Ireland from the early 60's until I saw sense and left 13 years ago. It's not a heroic struggle, it's a dirty, filthy, nasty conflict, resulting in nothing other than the pain, death and suffering of innocent people. There are no heroes there and the people who suffer are not the people who pull the triggers or plant the bombs. If you want to see real hatred go to Northern Ireland.

By Pikkle on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 05:47 am: Edit

Okay, who am I to groan, unchecked
immigration is great for this country... it's great
for any country. I say we all leave the U.S. and
move back to whatever country we have ethnic
ties to, or at least the country with the best
goodies, let the Native Americans have it all
back and quit bickering about things no one is
going to change anyway. Hayduke Lives!

By Pikkle on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 05:10 am: Edit

There are immigration laws for a reason, not
because the U.S. government is mean
spirited. All I'm asking is that the people who
come to this country abide by the same laws
that you and I do. It's just frustrating as hell
that I'm out there working 80 hours a week,
busting my ass, paying my taxes like a good
American and you are all going to say it's okay
for people to come here, leech off of our
resources, spend my tax dollars, send their
wages out of this country and yes, breed here
so our government has no choice but to pay
for the education and well being of their
children. People only come here because
they know it's good here. I'm not saying we
shouldn't share this, we should, but in an
orderly fashion, with some sort of regulation,
like the ones we now have in place. There are
quotas on immigration so that this
overburdening of our system doesn't take
place. When people skirt these laws, that's
what pisses me off as it shoudl piss off every
tax paying American.
And yes, we are all animals on this planet and
we do breed. And Mr. Hobgoblin, as for the
Irish question, you don't want me to go there,
I've been a member of Noraid for years and I'd
more than love to go rounds with you about
the Irish but not on this forum. I all ready
seem to step on enough toes here as it is.

By _blackjack_ on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 04:55 am: Edit

That is an interesting phenomenon, because our immigration policy favors professionals, but very often their professional certifications aren't valid in the US. They are allowed in because they can do a certain job, but they aren't allowed to do it once they get here.

By Admin on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 03:56 am: Edit

As a culturally friendly person, I've talked to dozens of folks who are workin' the menial jobs, but in their own country were doctors, lawyers, highly trained professionals of whatever. Not saying this is the norm, but it is very common, especially I would think in urban areas.

By _blackjack_ on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 02:52 am: Edit


Blackjack: so what? Subs go get flogged at the slightest excuse.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that they felt guilty; just that it was slightly hypocritical to judge him. I suspect they'd lie if asked about their activities too. They certainly pay well enough for discression.

I do think there is a difference about lying about a blowjob and lying about covering up a break-in at the other party's headquarters. The later potentially affects the balance of power; the other only affects somebody's cleaning bill.

Do you, by any chance, know Ray Moffett? It strike me that he runs in both the BDSM and defense/spook cirlces as well.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 02:46 am: Edit


"I'm not against immigration in the least, we are all immigrants to this country. I just want the folks who come here to pay their fair share. And those who want to come here because their own countries are so miserable and having nothing to offer, stay in your own country and make it a better place."

It would seem that you are happy for people to be allowed into the USA only if they come from countries that are economically advantaged and people who wish to live in the USA to build a better life and economic future for themselves are not welcome.

Pikkle your country was formed by people seeking a better economic future for themselves. Do you think your ancestors decided to leave their homeland and travel to America for a change of scenery?

You seem to be quite happy to let people emigrate to the USA but only if they have no real reason to.

You also imply that people who come from economically disadvataged nations have no skills to offer. Do you believe that inhabitants of economically deprived nations are naturally lazy and stupid?

"I just want the folks who come here to pay their fair share." - Do you think illegal immigrants avoid paying taxes out of choice? Just like they also work for less than the minimum wage out of choice.


By Don_walsh on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 02:19 am: Edit

"Hell, my friends on the DC BDSM scene inform me that more than a couple of congressmen who voted to impeach Clinton went out and got flogged for it afterwards..."

Blackjack: so what? Subs go get flogged at the slightest excuse. That's because they LIKE to. (Me included.) The typical male sub is a middle aged executive, government official, military officer, entrepreneur -- in short someone who is sexually mature, with a LOT of authority and responsibility, who desires to be relieved of that burden under controlled, safe, sane consitions for a finite period of time. Role reversal! The psychology is so transparent. Shit, my oldest friends are the LEADERS and FOUNDERS of the DC BDSM Scene (Black Rose), but I don't need them to tell you that some Congressmen go get spanked the same way that others go have a beer, and don't need anything to feel 'guilty' about to spur them on. (Spurs! what a good idea...)

PS I don't care about Lewinsky, nor Jones. HOWEVER as the former First Lady now Senator was special counsel to the Watergate Committee which removed a President for lying not for a petty bit of burglary conspiracy no one cared about and both parties did routinely -- there is the issue of equity. Clinton lied and now has admitted he lied. For a President to spend his last day in office speal barganining is SAD.

Incidentally his neglect of Russia in especially interesting in light of his Kremlin-financed visit there when he was an antiwar activist leader in London. I believe every American has a right to their free speech, but that demonstrating against the government WHILE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY DODGING THE DRAFT is a poor qualification for a future Commander in Chief.

In short, FUCK Clinton!

By _blackjack_ on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 12:01 am: Edit

I was polishing my sword.


By Perruche_verte on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 11:46 pm: Edit

More precisely, a Segarra with sugar.

The rest of this bottle is planned for a party tomorrow, but I've been cleaning the house all day and practicing tunes when I wasn't cleaning.

On this cold night, I am imagining a dusty little town with olive groves and dirt roads, old men with lined, solemn faces that suddenly break into a fierce, gap-toothed smile. And still, past midnight, the warmth of the Spanish sun.

Last year, I was on a bus somewhere in Canada and heard a sweet little old Quebecoise lady explain to an American, "Ze 'ol WORL' laff at you! 'Ere you so ahngry for le President! AWL ze poleeteecian 'ave ze mistress! Zey AWL do!"

This is very relaxing. What were we talking about?

By Perruche_verte on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 11:27 pm: Edit

Having an absinthe, thanks.


By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Well, I'm back.

Where is everybody?


By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:44 pm: Edit

I'm going down to the jacuzzi. When I return, I hope you've all lightened up.

Boy, I could use a blowjob right about now.
I wish I were President.

By Admin on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Oh, and btw, 16,000 people marched and rallied in SF today to protest Bush's inauguration, three times more than expected.

By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:19 pm: Edit


OK, I'll stop harping on the lying. Here's a specific criticism of job performance, as you asked for. What did he do about Russia? The neglect of Russia over the past eight years is worse than all the personal rot combined. IMO, he had a huge opportunity to do something spectacular and blew it by neglecting Russia completely.


By _blackjack_ on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:14 pm: Edit

I don't think Clinton was magical. No president could have withstood the level of scrutiny he was subjected to. With the exceptions of Truman and Carter, there is cause to suspect everyone since FDR of adultery at some point in their life. Hell, my friends on the DC BDSM scene inform me that more than a couple of congressmen who voted to impeach Clinton went out and got flogged for it afterwards...

Birds do it, bees do it, even the elected sleeze do it...

By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:14 pm: Edit


To me, the bad part about adultery IS the lying.

(The insertion and thrusting is nothing compared to that.)


I never heard the jury thing. With all the other hoopla, that story must've gotten lost in the shuffle. I just hadn't heard it: thanks. I am glad to know it now.


By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:11 pm: Edit



By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:11 pm: Edit


"If people want to know why we just had 8 years of the slipperiest liar in presidential history, they should look at themselves."

I would amend this slightly. Change the words "at themselves" to "no further than the baby boom generation" and you've struck gold, my good man.


By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Nah, I did mean liberal. The part I didn't mean was "you", as in "yes, you, Parrot."

I meant "one." Bad grammar. Sorry. I meant Clinton shouldn't get a free pass b/c one happens to be a liberal.


By Anatomist1 on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:04 pm: Edit

To me, all the hand wringing about the disgrace and dishonor of adultery in the president has always sounded ludicrously naive, or shamefully disingenuous to me. What the hell do we know about the relationship between Bill and Hillary? For all we know they were never in love and it has always been just a power partnership. To make moral judgements like that based on almost no evidence is foolish.

If people want to know why we just had 8 years of the slipperiest liar in presidential history, they should look at themselves, their own peurile preoccupation with the personal lives of politicians, and their own hypocrisy and incapacity for forgiveness in holding people they know little about to higher standards than themselves and people they know personally. This is the public face of the same sort of erosion of privacy that allows employers to spy on employees with cameras and hire spineless profiteers to watch them pee in plastic cups. Kennedy had his adultery. Elanor Roosevelt was in a freakin' lesbian relationship while her husband was in office. Do we look back on those presidencies as unprecedented disgraces?

The true disgrace of the Clinton years is the way that so many americans let demogogues grab them by the glands and highjack their brains. The commonness of openly vicious hatred and disrespect for the president on the basis of aspects of his behavior that should have remained private is the real shame. Herein lies the major difference between the Clinton administration and prior ones. If people had some civility and kept their attention on job performance, it would've been an entirely different story.

I say this not to imply that Clinton is good, but because discourse of this sort is bad: it makes us worse as people, it is a way of harming and belittling ourselves. Criticize him for bombing Iraq or instituting some bureacracy or tax increases or something, just stop learing at his cock.


By _blackjack_ on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:04 pm: Edit


He failed to admit that he had been arrested and convicted of drunk driving on his jury application. This was widely reported. I'm not saying this is WORSE than what Clinton did, BTW, but both men are comperably sleazy.

For my money, tho, Bush is irrelevant. He is a puppet, moreso even than Reagan. What scares me is that it is now becoming clear what kind of people are pulling his strings, like "We have no king but Jesus" Ashcroft.

I'm putting money on the table right now, BTW, that before Summer, 2002, we will have renewed our war with Iraq. I've got a good track record; I predicted the Florida thing a week ahead of time.

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Jennifer and I looked to buy a brownstone in Harlem. We found a beautiful one on a 133rd st and Malcolm X Boulevard. Unfortunately, someone else purchased it. We looked at over a dozen properties. All of them beautiful. But, in the past year prices have soared for property in Harlem. It's a very desirable part of the city. The boulevards are big and treelined, the brownstones historic and huge. Ted, you are sorely mistaken about life in Harlem. I wish I could afford to live there. Great food, great jazz clubs. There's even a dreaded Starbucks and Old Navy in Harlem. Home Depot just opened a Harlem Branch. Here come the yuppies.

By Admin on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:02 pm: Edit

But Bob, your previous statement put it in a moral context of sexual fidelity. THAT is what I disagree with.

The lying, yes, that is all shameful. But they're all bloody liers aren't they?

And thank you, Blackjack, I was about to make a similar statement. Though there is a difference between lawful & illegal immigration I think it all boils down to the same thing. That if all these folks had all their papers done right n proper, thru the right channels, people would still making the same outcries: "they're taking our jobs." "they're taking our taxes." "they're ruining our neighborhoods."

People are naturally clannish and by nature will try and turn their spears against "invading tribes." Not that I think that is what the related posts were doing or advocating (we are a bit enlightened, aren't we?), it just seems a different side to the same coin.

By Perruche_verte on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:01 pm: Edit

Bob, I think you meant "radical". Don't call me a liberal, and I won't call you a Nazi.

Most of the posts I've read in this thread were quivering with rage over Clinton's "adultery". I don't feel obliged to defend his lying about it, though it's certainly the most natural thing he would do if he wanted to save his family from further public examination.

What was he supposed to say? "Yes, I did it, and Hilary knew, and I know she's sleeping around with women too, and that's fine, and what's more, I think you should all be ashamed of yourselves for your Hezbollah-like views of sexual morality."

That would have been the most entertaining press conference ever, but somehow I don't think it would have played well to the Bible Belt.

If you won't lie about sex for your friends, what kind of a friend are you? The logic that "how do you know he wouldn't lie about more important things" just doesn't work here. I'd rather he lied about a blow job than about arming the damned Contras.

None of us know, or will ever know, what kind of tacit agreement Clinton may have had with his wife about what kind of behavior was and wasn't acceptable outside of their relationship. And it's none of our business.

By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:01 pm: Edit

Fuck it, Dude. Let's go bowling. At least Clinton will have left us with a soundbite worthy of his predecessors:

"I am not a crook."

"I have lust in my heart."

"We begin bombing in five minutes."

"No new taxes."

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

And only one of these was truthful.


By _blackjack_ on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:57 pm: Edit


he definitely was the most vulgar and insignificant man to have been president.

Um, I think Johnson wins for "vulgar," at least in recent history. And, I suspect, before the advent of TV, those who held the office were often far, far worse than any of the schmucks we've had in there lately.

By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:57 pm: Edit

What and when?

By _blackjack_ on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:54 pm: Edit


to ones that are quite contemporary (not to mention lied about under oath).

Um, Bush lied about his activities under oath too.

By Admin on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:51 pm: Edit

And the only thing I found "dishonorable" about Clinton's behavior regarding his escapades, was lying about it. The rest of it is between him and his wife. And I don't doubt for a second that she's well aware of his proclivities.

And I secretly like the fact that Bush is flawed too, not because I'm smug, but because no one has any business being perfect. Or pretending they are.

It may just be more "free love hippy shit" but the puritanical mirror we hold these people up to is a hypocritical sham. Let them keep their mistresses (or boytoys) and smoke their bowls. Its just sex ferchrissakes.

By _blackjack_ on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:49 pm: Edit


There is no part of Houston which rivals Harlem for repulsive living standards.

You haven't been to Harlem lately. It's been pretty well gentrified, except for a few areas. Sure, it's still a black neighborhood, but it's a wealthy black neighborhood. If you want poverty, stay on the train 'till you get to the South Bronx.

By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:47 pm: Edit

You're not supposed to be offended by the sex, but the lying is different. If he lied about something as stupid as a bj, what happens when something important comes up? He all of a sudden becomes truthful?

The emperor wears no clothes. None ever has. Don't pretend the last one was the magical exception, just b/c you're a liberal.


By _blackjack_ on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:43 pm: Edit


Yes, but once they breed, their children get all the benefits of the rest of us, especially
education... a bit of a catch-22, the parents are illegal here but their spawn are citizens, or will be.

I'm sure it was unintentional, but you seem to be using verbs that one usually applies to animals.

Also, take any of these statements, move them back in time 140 years and replace "Mexicans" with "Irish" and see how it sounds...

Until we start givng the country back to the native population, we've got no business bitching about immigrants and their "spawn," because them is us.

By Perruche_verte on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Hee. We do carry on, don't we.

I voted for neither Gush nor Bore. I don't feel quite the pain that Marc apparently does. I predict four years of through-the-ceiling growth for punk rock, political art in all media, radical direct action, tree-sitting, squatting, monkeywrenching and hell, even union organizing.

Beware. When we're fucked, we multiply.

I'm just still laughing at the idea that I'm supposed to take personal offense at Clinton getting a blow job. Somehow this is supposed to be more offensive than the next-to-last president "not remembering" authorizing a secret war on a country whose democratic elections didn't turn out the way he wanted them to.

For the record, I promise never to criticize the new Commander-in-thief for who or what he chooses to fuck, provided of course that he/she/it is a consenting partner, and that Dubya doesn't condemn the same behavior in others.

By Admin on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Can't you be a recovering adulterer?

Personally, if I were to put the two concepts into overly simplistic terms, I much prefer a philanderer to an alcoholic (I believe that one is both of these things for life, even tho currently abstaining). Despite the power trip that sometimes accompanies sexual predation, it shows a certain passion and lust for life. While alcoholism is a sure sign of psychological and emotional damage, a means of withdrawal from responsibility and life itself.

And I also think that sexual fidelity can be over-rated (even tho there are strong genetic reasons we feel it necessary). Commitment between people is MUCH more than remaining physically constant. And the Clintons are certainly committed, even if that commitment is to rule their world.

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd take a known philanderer over an alcoholic anyday.

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Hey, you asked.

I figured in an absinthe forum, the term
"recovering alcoholic" meant getting over a hangover.

I found it reassuring to have a poonhound for president.

I don't put as much value on fidelity as you do.
Monogamy seems unnatural to me.

By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:57 pm: Edit

"being an adulterer is better than being a recovering alcoholic

Why? How?

A recovered/recovering alcoholic has made a choice to honor his wife and family.

An adulterer has made a choice to dishonor his wife and family.

How could you say the latter is better? It's like you fault Bush for making a positive change in his life and reward Clinton for disrespecting his wife, marriage vows, country, etc.


By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:54 pm: Edit

You make it sound like you personally prefer adultery (i.e., adultery is "better", wink-wink, than recovering from alcholism).

Like someone asked, "For the rest of your life, which would you give up: booze or fidelity? You have 20 seconds to decide."

Clinton was not the worst president we've had, but he definitely was the most vulgar and insignificant man to have been president. Let's hope Bush does better, tho' Willie set the bar is awfully damn low.


By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:45 pm: Edit

being an adulterer is better than being a recovering alcoholic.

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:44 pm: Edit


I figured if I can't beat em, join em. But, I still believe that all this talk won't change a thing. It feels futile to me. Watching Bush's speech today triggered this thread.

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:41 pm: Edit

According to the tri-national North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation, set up by Nafta, Texas pollutes more than any other state
or Canadian province. That's both air and water pollution. According to records kept by the EDF, Texas is number one in:
overall toxic releases
recognized carcinogens in the air
suspected carcinogens in the air
developmental toxins in the air (affecting brain and nervous system development in children)
cancer risk

According to the EPA, Houston has beaten L.A.
for "most polluted".

By Bob_chong on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Two things:

1. "man, this is some boring shit. same old crap you find all over the internet. jive talk in a velvet suit. square is square, absinthe or no."--Marc (i.e., the one who started this thread)

2. which is worse:
being a blowhound and drunk or being an adulterer?

This is a weak question. You are asking us to compare past behaviors (drinking and drugs), which haven't been done in 14 years or more, to ones that are quite contemporary (not to mention lied about under oath).

So which is worse, being a recovered alcoholic or a practicing adulterer?


By Head_prosthesis on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Marc "is that your voice or a vile methane blast"
-Me (I said that)

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 05:56 pm: Edit

The whole area from Gibralter up to Detroit
along the Detroit River was populated by all
sorts of smoke stack industry for years and
years... several steel mills, chemical plants,
waste treatment plants, tire companies, you
name it, when Detroit was in it's industrial
heyday, this was where it was at. I grew up
down wind from all of this. The air constantly
smelled like cat piss or a variety of other
un-natural smells, the sky was pretty hazy.
Not to mention the fact that they built our city
over a former Nike missile site. Yes, who
knows what we were living in and on.

By Tabreaux on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 05:51 pm: Edit


High incidents of cancer can arise not only from air pollution, but equally from soil and or groundwater contamination. In areas which were industrialized early on, most of this contamination is due to refractory chlorinated compounds. These compounds can contribute to a plethora of statistical trends in cancer and other strange afflictions, even when present in ridiculously minute concentrations. It is a very scary scenario, and it is a problem which can be incredibly difficult to deal with.

In my experience, most environmental activists tend to be incredibly ignorant when it comes to hard-core environmental remediation science. Having traveled around this planet in the name of enviromental remediation technology, I can say with absolute sincerity that the U.S. is the environmental 'model' for industrialized and developing nations. So long as we continue to phase in new standards at the same rate as technology allows us to meet those standards without causing an economic crisis, we will be on the right path to environmentally responsible prosperity.

By Tabreaux on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 05:42 pm: Edit


Does your source of information tell you that the smoke from those huge fires in Mexico and Central America contributed to the periodic report? Those weren't from Texas sources. Hell, those fires made it smokey where I live.

The US EPA implements air quality regs. The governor of a state can do nothing to impede implementation of federal regs. Being an environmental scientist, I can tell you that different industries must employ a palette of different technologies to meet the regs. One size does not fit all. Studies must be made to determine the best way and the most economically practical way to implement them. This saves industries and jobs. Bush supports this, as do I. Some industries can't afford to pay a whopping multibillion dollar price tag for untested technology. That *is* the reality of air quality matters today.

The TNRCC has been healthily funded by the Bush administration to study the best ways to tackle problems in Texas.

Some of this funding is apparent in such TNRCC documents as:

Oh, BTW, Bush even put forth funding to help industries in Mexico who contribute air pollution to the Texas environment:

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Hey Ted

How does Detroit rate on that EPA ranking,
more specifically the Downriver area of Detroit.
I grew up there and several years ago I knew
someone in the Detroit office of the EPA who
told me the rate of cancer Downriver was 38
times higher than the national average. I
didn't know if he was being facetious or what
but he said the area was known in EPA circles
as 'Cancer Alley." Ever heard of this?

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Maybe in the Southwest for a day or two... it
would definitely drive up wages for certain shit
jobs and take more unemployed Americans
off of the dole. And proximity is a factor. I've
spent quite a bit of time in Arizona (my mother
lives in Bisbee) and there were many times I
couldn't tell whether I was on the U.S. side of
Nogales or the Mexican side. There is
definitely a matter of proximity, I'm sorry.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against
immigration in the least, we are all
immigrants to this country. I just want the
folks who come here to pay their fair share.
And those who want to come here because
their own countries are so miserable and
having nothing to offer, stay in your own
country and make it a better place.

By Tabreaux on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 05:12 pm: Edit

"I was born in Texas. My father lives in Houston.
Affluent maybe. At the expense of whom? There is hellish poverty in and around Houston."

Last I checked, those who earn money are the only ones offering jobs. The only 'expense' comes when jobs are unavailable. It is much easier to get a job in Houston than in New York, Marc. The standard of living of Houston is phenonenal in comparison to New York, Marc. In comparison to Houston, New York may as well be Haiti. There is no part of Houston which rivals Harlem for repulsive living standards.

The fact is illegal immigrants are willing to take jobs that Americans should be taking. Unfortunately however, many Americans prefer not to work, but rather to live off those of us who choose to work. Some of them make a pretty decent living off of doing nothing. Need money, breed another baby right?

I might point out that Bush does not support Democrat efforts to extend my tax dollars to illegal aliens. Who do you think illegal aliens vote for (and many do find a way to vote!) and why? I think anyone can add 2 and 2.

Finally, in response to this statement:

"Since Bush became governor, Texas air quality has been rated the worst in the nation, leading all fifty states in overall toxic releases, recognized carcinogens in the air, cancer risk and ten other categories."

Well, let's see. I have the US EPA National Air Quality Trend and Emissions Report right in front of me. WIth respect to CO, NO2, particulate matter, sulfur dioxides, etc., US EPA data shows that ppm for ppm, square mile for square mile, California is clearly the worst. Likewise, square mile for square mile, metro NY is pretty bad as well. Meanwhile, most of Texas doesn't even make it to the charts.

I'd really like to know your source of information Marc.

By Daedelus on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 05:07 pm: Edit

all of the restaurants sure as hell would, as well as all of the constuction jobs, once the projects got to the brick and mortar stage or the roofing stage.


By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 05:05 pm: Edit

The employer makes out not only in having to
pay these people dirt poor wages, but doesn't
have to pay the matching income tax for them
as well. If they weren't there, would these
proprieters still be in business? Of course,
making a little less, but they'd find a way to
skirt the system once again.
I was once dating a girl from China who was a
student here. I met her while she was
working at a Chinese restaraunt. I came to
find out everyone working in the place was an
illegal, mostly all students whose father's
owned some sort of factory in Taiwan or
Macao and could easily afford to not only send
their children to the U.S. for a better education
but send them money as well. But why
bother? There is tax free money to be made
here. As if this is only a problem with the
Mexicans. It's a problem with anyone who
comes here illegally and works without paying
taxes. If all the illegal immigrants left
tomorrow, do you think everything would just

By Daedelus on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 05:04 pm: Edit


to add to marc's argument about Bush's environmental record, I must add that Dubya helped pass and signed a bill creating a "voluntary clean-up program" for many of the largest Grandfathered air pollutors in the State, if not the Country. Also many of those who sat on the boards of those companies, like ALCOA, Exxon, Shell, Mobil, etc. are now in Dubya's cabinet.

To date, a report released by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commision, states that there have been "ZERO" reductions in air pollutants since the inception of the program in Nov. 1997.

(The TNRCC is a regulating body that answers directly to the state)


How is that for an environmental record.

You can not trust business to self-regulate itself, just like you can not trust the Government to self-regulate itself. At lest with the Gov you can vote the bastards out of office.

Bush's environmental record stinks. Houston is the smoggiest city in the US. Austin and Dallas are well on there ways to being "non-attainment" areas in terms of air quality, and they keep allowing more and more nuclear waste dumps to be opened in West Texas.

Where is the good side of Dubya's environmental record? other than the 40 or so killers he allowed to be put to death last year. (which to me isn't such a bad thing as it is to most who argue on this board, oh well)


By Anatomist1 on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 04:57 pm: Edit


Go to the back doors of non-fast food restaurants. Madison is about as upscale and white-oriented as a small midwestern city can get. Aside from a popular Mexican food restaurant and a latin dance club that was shut down by the city because brown-skinned people loitered in the parking lot I had no idea how many were working in Madison until I delivered flowers. Proximity to the border is not the main factor. Any time there's a boring, dirty job to do for which an employer is only willing to pay minimum wage or less, Mexicans will be there.


By Anatomist1 on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 04:49 pm: Edit


I used to deliver flowers here in Madison. Often I would deliver to restaurants. My experience was that if you go into the back door of any restaurant, you'll think you walked across the border. Often they didn't speak enough english to understand my questions about where to put the flowers.

One thing many people don't understand about illegal mexican workers is that they often don't WANT to live here, it's just the only way they could manage to get a job. As crappy as the wages and the working conditions are for them here, they are much worse there. I think a phrase by Michael Moore sums up the kind of job you can get there: "As soon as you get your arm out of that machine, you're fired!" As you say, many of them work very hard long hours in the US and send most of their money back to their families in Mexico... and go back home for as long as they can whenever they can manage it.


By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 04:47 pm: Edit

And pray tell, how does someone pay taxes
with a fake social security card? Where does
this money go? How do they keep from
getting audited? This ought to be good...

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Why did you single out Mexicans? I'm talking
about anyone who immigrates here illegally.
You can only tackle one problem at a time
anyway and I all ready don't eat at McDonalds.
In fact I hate fast food. So actually that's two
problems. I'm not supporting 'the man' and
I'm helping to keep some illegal from a job
he's not entitled to anyway by not patronizing
his employer. Go figure.

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Yes, but once they breed, their children get all
the benefits of the rest of us, especially
education... a bit of a catch-22, the parents are
illegal here but their spawn are citizens, or will
be. These people know what they're doing.
They themselves don't have benefits? What
do you think happens when they go to a
hospital and can't pay and can't be denied
services? I pay, you pay, they don't pay. And
as for the jobs no one else will do, it seems
more a problem with proximity to a border than
anything else. You have very few immigrants
of any type doing those jobs in Michigan and
much of the midwest. That's always been a
weak arguement in my book.

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 04:36 pm: Edit


go pick on somebody who has a little power. Mexicans are not the enemy. Show some guts.
Go after the motherfuckers who are killing this planet. Start with McDonald's.

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Mexicans are now the new slave class in this country. They do the work no one else will go near. I hate to admit it, but, in my business (restaurants), Mexican's work for 80 hours a week to earn a few hundred dollars. And state and federal taxes are taken out of their checks. As well as social security, which means nothing to them. These Mexican workers have fake social security cards or green cards. They pay taxes on their pay checks just like you and me. But, unlike you and me, they work like dogs for almost nothing. This country's economy has thrived because of this new Mexican underclass.

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Should they also stop doing the jobs no one else in this country will do:

washing dishes in the restaurants where you eat,
picking the lettuce you eat, mopping the floors of your hospitals and schools...

If all the illegal immigrants in New york City
left tommorrow, every restaurant in the city
would have to shut down. Most restaurants operate with a 10% profit margin. Without immigrant labor, they'd go out of business.

illegal immigrants may not pay all taxes, but they also work for less than minimum wage, do not have health insurance and are, in general, exploited because of their illegal status.

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Perhaps those who feel they are being treated
unfairly would like to step back over whatever
border they came from and live the good life in
their homeland? And while their at it, they can
quit spending all the money we pay in taxes.

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 04:01 pm: Edit

I was born in Texas. My father lives in Houston.
Affluent maybe. At the expense of whom. There is hellish poverty in and around Houston. My stepmother is an Hispanic judge in Houston. She deals with poor immigrants, slaves. The injustice is awful. These people are treated worse than dogs. The rich get richer. The poor get ignored.

Since Bush became governor, Texas air quality has been rated the worst in the nation, leading all fifty states in overall toxic releases, recognized carcinogens in the air, cancer risk and ten other categories.

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 03:59 pm: Edit

No, it's true, I just generalized a lot. Everything
you can say about Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton has
been there five times over. I'm suprised
Clinton survived but he never embarassed
anyone else but himself... I'm sure if more of
his buddies ended up having to come into the
spotlight because of his foibles, Gore would
have President years ago. Yes, you would
have had ole Stiffy as chief dick!

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 03:54 pm: Edit


that was weak.

By Tabreaux on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 03:54 pm: Edit

"Texas has the worst environmental record in the country. It's education system is one of the worst."

These are two lies concocted from political propaganda. I spend a lot of time in Texas (family lives there). I have been a professional in the environmental business for several years. Neither of the above statements is true. Dig a little deeper, you'll see what the Demos did to arrive at these misleading conclusions. Of course, they don't expect you to investigate it, which is why they program you with what they want you to believe. It is exactly these type of in-your-face, intelligence insulting lies which have driven me from that party, despite my firm liberal beliefs in individual freedoms. Unfortunately, unlike myself, many persons take everything they hear at face value.

Compare the economy of Texas with that of Indiana. The standard of living in Texas is very impressive. A short drive around Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc., reveals the most thriving, well kept, affluent urban areas in the U.S.

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Oh, and Willy was an angel? I don't think
anyone who has a desire to serve in the public
circle has anything less than personal
motivations. Period. If this hasn't been more
than obvious since the beginning of time, then
you need to wake up. Someone is always
propping up someone and the higher up you
go on the foodchain, the more handlers you'll
have. And who out there hasn't gotten some
help from friends or family with a job, money,
getting bailed out of a sticky situation, etc. I
think anyone who criticizes like that is a
serious hypocrite. Remember, when you
point the finger, you have three pointing back
at you. And those of you who'd have an easy
time on the day you were getting sworn in as
the most powerful leader of the free world who
wouldn't have a hard time reading from the
teleprompter, raise your hands... now go to
timeout for being a bunch of liars!

By Martin on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Who cares? They're ALL scum! What difference does it make who the President is? It's not like any elected official gives a shit about anything other than money....


By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Based on Bush's speech this morning, it's clear the man is dimwitted. He struggled with reading the teleprompter. The cadence of the speech was
robotic, as if he didn't comprehend it's content.
I kept wondering: who's pulling the strings?

If anybody's interested in reading about Dubya's
stellar business and political career, read
"Shrub". The guy's a loser. His father and father's friends have propped this guy up in every business and political venture he has undertaken. As a businessman, Bush is a loser. His father bailed him out of one bad business deal after another. He made money on a shady investment in a baseball team.
As a military man, he claims to have been in the National Guard, but, he never showed up for duty.
Texas has the worst environmental record in the country. It's education system is one of the worst.
A Texas governor is the fifth most powerful person in Texas politics. Lieutenant governor, attorney general, land commissioner and comptroller wield more power. Texas has what is called "a weak gorvernor system". Bush was a figurehead, not much more. For years, it was Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock who was the real power in Texas politics. Dubya got along just fine by basically doing what Bullock told him to do. I think as president, Bush will continue to carry on his tradition of being bossed around. This may not be anything new in presidential politics, but
I don't think it's ever been this obvious.


which is worse:
being a blowhound and drunk or being an adulterer? I think screwing around is healthier.

By Artemis on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:47 am: Edit

Amen to Ted on this one.

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:59 am: Edit

Gore the bore... please. If anything, Bush will
give us plenty of gaffs to chordle at. Hopefully,
he'll follow through on his tax-cut plan, who
knows. I'm sure the Dems will try to kill it.
I'm tired of being punished because I make
more because I'm driven to succeed. I'm tired
of having to take care of people who don't give
a damn and live on the dole. Welfare has
been a dismal failure and I'm tired of paying
for it. Anything's better than Willy and his little
stoolie Gore.

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:53 am: Edit

Oops... my bad Blackjack.
Hear hear Tabreaux, I am for anyone who is
pro-business and less government
regulation. It can only be better for those of us
who'd like to keep more of their money in their
pockets... that's more we can spend on

By _blackjack_ on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:51 am: Edit

>>Has Bush caused shame by manipulating the poor,>>


>>or claiming to be the inventor of the internet, the subject of movies, or inventing other lies? >>

Gore never claimed to have invented the internet, and he WAS one of the inspirations for the movie in question. Sure, he had a tendancy to phrase things in a manner as to over-emphasise his involvement, but he's no more a liar than any other politician.

To my knowlege, he never lied on court documents denying his criminal record, for instance...

By _blackjack_ on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:48 am: Edit

>> Has Bush caused shame by committing open adultery while in public office? >>

His father did. Reagan fathered a child out of wedlock, albeit before his political career, and left his first wife because of it. Get over the adultery thing. There is plenty to criticize Clinton about. Attacking his sex life is absurd.

By _blackjack_ on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:45 am: Edit

Actually, Bush Fils never admitted to his cocaine use, specifically. He just said he hadn't done it lately. The only thing he admitted to was being a drunk.

And I thought Dan Quayle was the Republican version of Dan Quayle...

By Tabreaux on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:43 am: Edit

Has Bush caused shame by committing open adultery while in public office?

Has Bush caused shame by manipulating the poor, or claiming to be the inventor of the internet, the subject of movies, or inventing other lies?

While Bush may not be the epitome of the 'ideal candidate' for many, he hasn't yet disgraced the office with adultery, nor has he openly told lies (none that have been exposed anyway). He is the only of the three beforementioned persons to carry the support of his home state...which seems to say a lot. If he does what he says he will do, those who create business (e.g. you and I) will both benefit, as will those we employ and on down. If not, he'll be gone in four years. Until then, let he with better integrity cast the first stone.

By Pikkle on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:35 am: Edit

Don't worry Marc... I felt much the same way
about Slick Willy... what a relief he's gone, like
piano lifted off my chest, or at least a crate of
cigars. I remember while he was still a
candidate, he was on Nightline with PR of
Kalifornia Governor Jerry Brown who was
running for the Dem. nomination as well and
there was a mini debate of sorts... all I can say
was Brown verbally trounced him and all Willy
could do was turn red and grin a lot... that's
when I knew we were in for it. America loves a
good liar. Yes, Bush may be the Republican
version of Dan Quayle but at least he's
admitted to his past, not "I just waved my nose
over it, but didn't snort."

By Marc on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 09:21 am: Edit

what an embarrasment. the mouthbreather is our leader. how shameful.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation