response 25 of 96:

Dec 13 21:17 UTC 2000

(Sorry, mistyped in previous.)

Re 20. "90K Gore votes weren't counted - utter bullshit."
 
Are Republicans always this dishonest?  I said that there were an
estimated 90,000 uncounted votes in Florida.  NOT "90K Gore votes"!
Probably at least 30,000 of those 90,000 votes were for Bush.  And some of
the others were for Nader, Buchanan, etc., etc. 

Kevin made my statement a lie by changing it, and having made it a lie,
he ridiculed me.  This is typical of the "arguments" and obfuscations that
are being made to defend the indefensible Bush "win".
 
Had the punch card ballots been examined, statewide, by ANY reasonable
standard, and even 10% of them counted votes, Bush's tiny margin would not
have survived.
 
Now watch for the Florida legislature to repeal the "sunshine" law and
seal the ballots so that the election theft will not be revealed.  An
admission, in other words, that the election was stolen.

response 27 of 96:

Dec 13 21:25 UTC 2000

re:  #16 of 26: by Rane Curl (rcurl) on Wed, Dec 13, 2000 (12:59):
 Are you immortal? A lot of people die in a four year period, and many
 of those will suffer more, depending upon the outcome of *this*
 election. I think " another election in just four years" is a rather
 heartless perspective.

So your guy lost.  Suck it up, get a grip, and move on.

response 29 of 96:

Dec 13 21:33 UTC 2000

Don't worry, I'm moving on... I'm already building up a collection of
poison nicknames against Caligula Bush and the other Republinazis which 
will make the usual Rush Limburger nicknames look tame.

The next couple years oughta be pretty fun.  The Republinazis will either have
to pass a lot of hard-to-swallow liberal stuff or else put up with some truly
scary villification... and either way, the next election won't treat the
radical right so nicely.

response 31 of 96:

Dec 13 21:38 UTC 2000

Get a grip and grow up.

response 33 of 96:

Dec 13 22:08 UTC 2000

Perhaps for you, but not for me.

response 35 of 96:

Dec 13 22:46 UTC 2000

I think you are confusing the next 4 years with the past 8.

response 37 of 96:

Dec 13 23:41 UTC 2000

Did you hear about little Jebbie Bush's recent run-in with security at a
shopping mall? (Didn't think so... it wasn't covered domestically. Just
another "My dad will fix it" story that... ends with dad fixing it.)

Bush has been convicted of a criminal offense, and Cheney of two. How many
convictions does Clinton have, again? Zero, you say? So... what was your
point again?

In any event, anybody who sees this as vindication for Bush is either
dishonest or deluded. Gore would have had to deal with similar taint of his
Presidency had the recount been completed, but now it's Bush's problem.
His image as a word-mangling, drug using heavy drinker seems cast in stone
with the stand-up comics and late night talk show hosts. He has a lot to
overcome.

response 39 of 96:

Dec 14 02:26 UTC 2000

Well, if somebody could explain that "Clintonistas" thing, I could probably
make up an explanation for "Caligula Bush" thing.

response 41 of 96:

Dec 14 03:07 UTC 2000

RE #38...to my knowledge he didn't marry his sister either, just slept with
her most of his life and had one (?) child with her, that by most accounts
he ate?  

I like Caligula Bush.  Has no idea what's going on, he does dumb things, and
has advisors who tell him what to do.  I can see him standing there yelling
out by his power as president he makes it so!

response 43 of 96:

Dec 14 05:37 UTC 2000

If he had not been using drugs, why would he refuse to answer the questions?
(NB: Silence is NOT an admission of guilt.  But, Boy, do we like to act 
like it is.)

Check out Sunday's Doonesbury. 

        http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm 

is a place to start.

Or

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm?uc_full_date=20001210&u
c_comic=db&uc_daction=X

(All on one line.)

response 45 of 96:

Dec 14 11:35 UTC 2000

How'd he get to be President of the United States, I wonder?

response 47 of 96:

Dec 14 14:15 UTC 2000

Re 43.  Heh!

response 49 of 96:

Dec 14 16:18 UTC 2000

Re 48.  I agree somewhat about Bush, but I totally disagree about the next
few years.

I think Bush is fairly sincere about being bipartisan, and being "a
uniter" is part of his self-image.  His problem is that his party in
Congress will be in no mood to emulate him.  Now that they control both
houses of Congress and the Presidency -- and face the likelihood of losing
at least the Senate in 2002 or even sooner -- they will be eager to ram
through the right-wing agenda as quickly as possible.

Reagan was very good at holding them off, giving assurances of getting
around to those issues later -- and "later" never came.  That experience
has taught the Right to be very impatient.  They have worked and waited
for this moment; now they have succeeded.  This is their chance.  Of
course they are going to seize it.  Bush's image is not their problem. 
Their first priority is to make some gigantic changes in the whole
direction of the country.

If Bush were a strong and able leader, he'd restrain them for the sake of
his Presidency, but he's not and can't.

Further, GWB will be appointing thousands of Republicans to administrative
positions, and they will look a lot more like Congress than like him.  The
Republican Party's base of activists and officials has moved further to
the right even since Reagan, and these are the people who will be taking
all kinds of powerful and not-highly-visible jobs.  As soon as they sit
down at their desks, they will start making new rules and regulations
which will be radically different than what Clinton's appointees were
doing, in every area of life from strip mining to meat inspection to food
stamps to wiretapping.

And Bush will be making judicial appointments, to the Supreme Court and
countless lower federal courts, many of which are severely stressed by all
the vacancies caused by Trent Lott's refusal to allow votes on more than a
few Clinton nominees since '95.  And just about every single one of the
Bush nominees will be from the extreme right-wing Federalist Society. 
Very likely many of them will prompt tough fights in the Senate -- fights
which will go on and on. 

So, no, I don't think the coming years will be placid at all.  The two
parties, more ideological than ever before, have become so deeply
polarized that there is not really much common ground (in their real
priorities) apart from the handful of "big issues" Bush mentioned in his
speech.  Bitter fighting is inevitable.