I thought the blow-up on the Senate floor yesterday by Sen. Thomas Daschle (D.-McGovern) was unintentional comedy at its funniest: outraaaAAAAageous!

As summarized in this article on washingtonpost.com, \"Daschle Angered by Bush Statement\", Daschle is upset -- well more than just upset -- furious that the President may have accused the Senate Democrats of playing politics with the War effort. (He actually accused them of playing politics with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, but never mind.)

Yet a few paragraphs down, in the same article is this nugget: "A top party strategist said every House Democrat who faces a tough reelection this fall plans to vote for the Bush resolution. Senate Democrats are so concerned that Sen. Paul D. Wellstone (Minn.) could lose his seat because he will likely vote against the Bush resolution that they are drafting an alternative resolution "because he has to have something to give him cover," a Democratic Senate aide said."

Two questions:
1. The Democrats' own strategist is saying that they have to carefully craft the language of their resolution of support of attacking Saddam Hussein as to not jeopardize Senator Wellstone's unlikely re-election prospects? Isn't that playing politics with the War? Just like the President said?
2. And, since it clearly is, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? We have the first amendment: everything should be subject to political debate. And everything is fair game when deciding how a voter should vote. I don't understand the Senate Democratic leadership's insistence that a politician's attitude toward the war not be made a political issue. Of course this should be a political issue. This is a more important issue than prescription drugs or corporate malfeasance. This is life and death. Both parties should play politics with the war and may the best argument win.

OUTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGEOUS!!!!!!

No, the OUUUTTTRAAAAGGEOUUUUUSSSSS thing is that this pResident, like his Vice pResident, is grossly politicizing the Homeland Security Bill and the War, in an effort to avoid talking about his poor stewardship of the economy, the environment, what he knew before 9/11, the sketchy tenures at Harken/Halliburton, and so forth. He and the Vice pResident are therefore flying all over the country, raising money like mad people, and trying to trash the Democratic-controlled Senate, which has repeatedly sided with him on national security issues. They gave him that fascistic Patriot Act, they have said they'd give him a resolution QUICKLY, and many of the Democrats in the Senate unfortunately are for attacking Iraq sooner rather than later.

Lincoln Chafee, a REPUBLICAN, sided with the Democrats on their version of the Homeland Security bill, but so far I've not heard ONE member of the increasingly shrill and war-mad administration (save Colin Powell!) say anything about this. Bush will have his Homeland Security Agency, but he won't get it exactly as he wants it. Republicans should remember how they gummed up Clinton's plans at almost every step--to the point of trying to impeach him!--before they start whining like crybabies when they don't get their way.

Daschle's point was that he was outraged that Bush would accuse the Dem's of not being concerned with national security. Daschle pointed to several Dem war veterans to demonstrate how very aware they are of national security.

But, Charlie, nice job deflecting from what Daschle was actually saying....

I am so sick and so tired of the Republicans saying that Democrats are not supporting this or not supporting that, or saying liberals or Democrats are not patriotic. Thats just plain insulting, stupid and dead wrong!

If Bush was a better strategist from within his own party on how to effectively push bills through the House and Senate,and basically get things done, Like President Clinton did, and so effectively, maybe he wouldn't be so darn cranky!!!

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Yeah, and Zell Miller laced into his fellow Dems about their kowtowing to labor interests at the expense of the best interests of the Homeland Security Agency. Does that make it a tie?

I thought Daschle embarrassed himself. I can understand the underlying sentiment, but he expressed himself poorly and was way too emotional. First of all, the war is a political issue. Nobody has to "politicize" it because it already is. The Republicans have made it the #1 issue on the political landscape. A lot of Democrats are opposed to a military solution yet aren't willing to go public with a unified opposition. Partisan Dems argue that it's because the Republicans will paint them out to be unpatriotic. I think it's because they have their eyes fixed on the polls which show American support of war against Iraq around ~66%.

The same polls also show that support for military action erodes quickly once some of the human costs of war are factored into the questions. When asked "would you be willing to serve in the military in the war against Iraq?" or "would you be willing to send your child to fight in Iraq?", support shifts to more like two-thirds opposed. The Democrats who oppose the war need to focus on those poll numbers (or better yet, forget the polls entirely and just do what they think is right) and come public with their opposition. Daschle's voice-cracking, emotional outburst yesterday didn't help their cause at all.

I thought the whole fight about the Homeland Security Bill was over the union protections that current government employees have, which would not be included in the new department. The administration is saying they need to drop the protections for "flexibility," while the Dems are fighting to keep them in the new department. From what I read that is why Bush is threatening a veto.

This argument has nothing to do with national security. Democrats are just as dedicated to protecting the American people. But Bush has decided to use the creation of the Homeland dept. as an opportunity to strip federal workers of their civil service protections, simply because he and other radical Republicans are anti-union and anti-workers' rights.

Democrats, of course, want to protect these workers. And for this, they are accused of being unpatriotic, un-American, and not concerned with the security of the American people.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Republicans should remember how they gummed up Clinton's plans at almost every step--to the point of trying to impeach him!--before they start whining like crybabies when they don't get their way.

---

They did impeach him. Here's the _Post_ article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Sep25.html

>>
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 26, 2002; Page A01


Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) blasted President Bush yesterday for "politicizing" the debate over national security and demanded he apologize for contending that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people."
....
<<

Now for some interesting tidbits. For example, where was Goerge?

http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html

>>
Mr. Bush, whose permission to fly was revoked when he was suspended and assigned to a disciplinary unit (he never flew military assignments again) liked to portray himself to voters as a “fighter pilot.” But his embellishments didn’t stop there:
....
<<

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm contains gifs of the paperwork from Bush's ANG days showing that he didn't bother to show up.

http://www.awolbush.com/ has more of this same, and this great link:

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

>>
Who served in the military?

Prominent Democrats
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Served his country in uniform, 1965-71
House Minority Whip David Bonior - Served his country in uniform, 1968-72
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle - Served his country in uniform, 1969-72
Former Vice President Al Gore - Served his country in uniform, 1969-71; recipient of Vietnam Service Medal
Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, Vietnam
Daniel Inouye... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, World War Two
John Kerry... Democrat...Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam
Charles Rangel...Democrat... Bronze Star, Korea
Max Cleland... Democrat... Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam
Howell Heflin... Democrat... Silver Star
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.


Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal. http://www.afji.com/mags/1997/Jan/VietVets.html
Ambassador "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Democratic congressman, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit http://www.af.mil/news/Apr1997/n19970414_970430.html
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: served in combat with the U.S. Army as a staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade; was wounded and received a Purple Heart. http://www.house.gov/mthompson/bio.html
Prominent Republicans
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Majority Whip Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve. "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.

GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
VP Cheney - several deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service")
Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - sought deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State

Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve, too busy being a Republican.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve
Former President Ronald Reagan - served in a noncombat role. He later seems to have confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real thing.
"B-1" Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes (Orange County Register article)
Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments
Senator John McCain - McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. Why did the Bush campaign smear him so? At least Senators Cleland (D-GA), Kerry (D-MA), Kerrey (D-NE), Robb (D-VA) and Hagel (R-NE) defended him.
Former Senator Bob Dole - an honorable man. http://www.bobdole.org/bio/wwII.html
Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam. http://www.senate.gov/~hagel/Information/bio.htm
Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations http://www.house.gov/cunningham/about_duke...e.htm#Biography
<<

You do the math.

Twin58, THANK YOU!!! You are wonderful, you know it!

[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
I thought the whole fight about the Homeland Security Bill was over the union protections that current government employees have, which would not be included in the new department. The administration is saying they need to drop the protections for "flexibility," while the Dems are fighting to keep them in the new department. From what I read that is why Bush is threatening a veto.

---

Flexibility, hunh? Bush is ANTI-UNION. Yet the very HEROES he and the Republicans are always brandishing--the brave firefighters and the police people of New York, New Jersey and the Port Authority--ALL BELONG TO UNIONS!!!

If they can have protections, why can't our federal workers? The reason we even have a civil service is to prevent the sort of "spoils system" that reached it apogee under President Andrew Jackson. Like I said, Bush will get his Homeland Security Department (which Joseph Lieberman first proposed) but he'll have to work with what he gets. He can't be handed EVERYTHING on a silver platter.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Fantomas said:

>>
Twin58, THANK YOU!!! You are wonderful, you know it!
<<

Yeah, I know. Be sure to go to that last site mentioned, http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html , as it has loads of links. Those aren't just idle claims; they are well documented.

I'm thinking of sending an e-mail to Daschle asking him:

1) what took you so long?, and
2) why are you being so nice?

Actually, Senate rules prohibit nastiness, so he can't say what's really on his mind.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

1. Why shouldn't the war be politicized? Are you honestly suggesting that voters should not be told where candidates stand on the war against Iraq and other national security issues? Of course this should be a political topic.

2. Why is it wrong to question the Democrats' patriotism? Just the other day the NY Times suggested President Bush wanted gays to suffer from hate crimes. The NAACP ran an ad implicating President Bush in the dragging death of a black man in Texas. I've heard Democrats say that Republicans want to take away seniors' Social Security benefits. That Republicans would rather seniors eat dog food than give them a prescription drug benefit. I never see media outrage over this. It's fine, I suppose, for Democrats to suggest Republicans support murder, beatings, swindling, starvation, forced poverty, etc., but how dare any Republican suggest any given Democrat isn't a real, red-blooded, tried and true, apple pie-eatin, Chevy Truck-drivin' American!

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Why is it wrong to question the Democrats' patriotism?

---

Because the people doing the questioning were nowhere to be found when the draft board came around.

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:


Now for some interesting tidbits. For example, where was Goerge?

You do the math.

---

Just so I'm clear on the terms of this debate - what's the point of all this? That you're not patriotic if you didn't serve in the military? That no deferment from military service is ever valid? That serving in the National Guard is dishonorable behavior? That only those with military service - make that military service approved by the left - is allowed to have an opinion on military matters?

Does anyone here actually know the details? Or is everybody just hopping onto their blindly partisan bandwagons? Attack Bush! Attack the Dems! God forbid we have a meaningful exchange of ideas.

What are the workers' protections that the Dems are so vigorously defending? Why does Bush fear that these protections won't allow the Department the flexibility he believes he needs? Unions aren't always right. Two of my uncles work for unions at United, and as much as they enjoy the benefits, they fully acknowledge that the unions' inflexibility has run the airline into the ground.

I'm not saying the Dems are wrong (after all, I don't know the details). I'm just suggesting that we have some kind of meaningful exchange here. I'm tired of blind, mindless partisanship.

Here's David Corn of The Nation on "politicizing the war."

Of Course War is Political

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Just so I'm clear on the terms of this debate - what's the point of all this?

---

With any luck, one of your colleagues will take you aside and explain it to you.

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:


Because the people doing the questioning were nowhere to be found when the draft board came around.

---

I question the Democrats' patriotism. Lots of my friends do. Most of us are in our late 20s-early 30s. I don't think any of us have ever heard from the draft board. If they called, I would go. If it makes you feel any better, I'm sorry there has never been a draft since I turned 18.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
1. Why shouldn't the war be politicized? Are you honestly suggesting that voters should not be told where candidates stand on the war against Iraq and other national security issues? Of course this should be a political topic.

2. Why is it wrong to question the Democrats' patriotism? Just the other day the NY Times suggested President Bush wanted gays to suffer from hate crimes. The NAACP ran an ad implicating President Bush in the dragging death of a black man in Texas. I've heard Democrats say that Republicans want to take away seniors' Social Security benefits. That Republicans would rather seniors eat dog food than give them a prescription drug benefit. I never see media outrage over this. It's fine, I suppose, for Democrats to suggest Republicans support murder, beatings, swindling, starvation, forced poverty, etc., but how dare any Republican suggest any given Democrat isn't a real, red-blooded, tried and true, apple pie-eatin, Chevy Truck-drivin' American!

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

---

Where did the NY Times suggest this? Please show the quote. The NAACP is not--thankfully!--the President nor the Vice President of the United States. They both should be a bit more prudent and less hyperbolic in their rhetoric. I expect anything from members of Congress--floor rules or no floor rules--but the President (and VP), whose comments affect national and international affairs, markets, and so forth--should be a bit more prudent and not make such inappropriate and unbalanced statements.

The Democrats listed in Twin58's list at least had the courage to go fight for the rights of the Republicans and all other Americans to do whatever it is they do, as did John McCain (whom W. and the Republicans have repeatedly attacked) and Chuck Hagel. McCain ought to just become a Democrat and be done with it--he was down with the Keating crowd, his wife has had drug problems, and he has a good sense of humor. So should Hagel. He seems like he could be a fun guy; he even has that Plains- state Democrat tousled hair thing going on.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
Does anyone here actually know the details? Or is everybody just hopping onto their blindly partisan bandwagons? Attack Bush! Attack the Dems! God forbid we have a meaningful exchange of ideas.

What are the workers' protections that the Dems are so vigorously defending? Why does Bush fear that these protections won't allow the Department the flexibility he believes he needs? Unions aren't always right. Two of my uncles work for unions at United, and as much as they enjoy the benefits, they fully acknowledge that the unions' inflexibility has run the airline into the ground.

I'm not saying the Dems are wrong (after all, I don't know the details). I'm just suggesting that we have some kind of meaningful exchange here. I'm tired of blind, mindless partisanship.

---

Good question, BSR. I "know" about it because I've read about it, but off the top of my head it I don't know where the exact articles are. Basically, it has to do with basic union issues - seniority, termination, etc. Bush wants the Department to have - I'm sorry, fantomas, I don't know what else to call it - flexibility, unions don't. I've heard things like: Under union proposals, when choosing whom to send to various countries as screeners, etc., seniority would matter more than languange skills, i.e. someone who speaks arabic would lose out to someone with more seniority for a job in Saudi Arabia. For what it's worth, I've heard horror stories from friends who work in various departments around town - labor, energy, interior, etc. - about career people there who just basically cannot be fired. The human resources people actually explain to the careerers how to do nothing and not get fired. But that's anecdotal, I don't have any written documentation there. Hope that helps.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Where did the NY Times suggest this?

---

"George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism never embraced protection of gays from hate crimes."
NY Times

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

So we all know that the President is going to be the commander-in-chief. If military service is so important, why not make it a requirement for the Presidency? I'm serious. I don't think it's a terrible idea. If this were a smaller country, I might support some sort of forced military service, at least for guys. One year, maybe. I think the discipline would be good.

[quote]Just the other day the NY Times suggested President Bush wanted gays to suffer from hate crimes

---

I'm bitterly disappointed in you W1865, so bitterly I'm just sitting here with a tear in my eye, shaking my head. As much as you love partisan rhetoric, the actual sentence is this: "George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism never embraced protection of gays from hate crimes", so it's disingenous of you to equate the two sentences, as you well know. The key word, of course, being "protection". It's quite a leap from "he doesn't want sexual orientation added to existing hate crimes legislation" to "Dubya is cheering all the fag bashing going on in West Hollywood now". Nice try though! Interesting to read the rest of the article though; Republicans just seem genetically incapable of appearing warm and fuzzy, no matter how much it suits their needs. [quote]McCain ought to just become a Democrat and be done with it--he was down with the Keating crowd, his wife has had drug problems, and he has a good sense of humor

---

And he's hot in that "silver-haired distinguished gentleman" sort of way. An added bonus, you might say.

I heard a rumor that McCain IS going to jump to the Democrats and team up with Bob Kerry to form the Dem's ticket in 2004. Of course, if McCain does See the Light and go to the Side of Good, the Republicans will go insane (as well they should, actually) and I'd fully expect "unamed sources" to spin out tales of his carnal knowledge with farm animals when he was a boy and similar things to start hitting the press.

Re: Unions. I think a balance needs to be struck between employers having all the cards and the do-nothing approach that W1865 outlines. I'm working for the Los Angeles Unified School District as a temp now and all the contract employees and temps hate dealing with the school district people (who are all union) because they are soooo slow in doing things and freak out if you dare suggest that they do something that's not explicitly in their job description. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the Triangle Waistshirt Co. days, but unions do seem to breed a tendency towards inertia.

Re: The Draft. I missed mandatory registration by about 6 months (it was abolished altogether a few years later) and I was fully prepared to fight it. I would have totally played the Homosexuality Card to stay out of the military. It's like the story of Jim Morrison of The Doors before the draft board in 1965; he said "If you draft me, it'll be the worst mistake you've ever made". Proving that the words military & intelligence sometimes DO go together in a sentence, they 4F'd him (I think 4F was Not Acceptable). Some people are cut out for service and some aren't. I'm completely in the Not Cut Out category. My dad (24 years in the Air Force) took me to a recruitment office when I was 18--he thought the military might be a good place for me to learn discipline and grow up (As IF). I wanted to smoke pot and listen to Pink Floyd, not do boot camp. I had long hair, was stoned and mocked the guy behind the desk for being such a gung-ho jarhead when I knew him from school as a pothead. As my dad said when we left "He wanted to leap over that desk and kick your ass". Yep.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

"Not protecting gays from hate crimes," in liberalese, means "wants gays to suffer from hate crimes." I think the NY Times is insane, but they seem to honestly believe this stuff.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I question the Democrats' patriotism. Lots of my friends do. Most of us are in our late 20s-early 30s. I don't think any of us have ever heard from the draft board. If they called, I would go. If it makes you feel any better, I'm sorry there has never been a draft since I turned 18.

---

Why don't you and your friends volunteer? What's stopping you?

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
If this were a smaller country, I might support some sort of forced military service, at least for guys. One year, maybe. I think the discipline would be good.

---

It's not a smaller country, but I repeat: you are free to volunteer.

[quote]"Not protecting gays from hate crimes," in liberalese means "wants gays to suffer from hate crimes."

---

[Adoringly] Gosh W1865! You're so all knowing! [/adoration] Or not. Or is that like when a rightist says "We believe in diversity" they mean: Yes, we believe that rich, straight white males can be either Episcopalian or Presybeterian. Or "We believe in equal opportunity for all" meaning: If you're a WASP.

Ooohhh, this is fun, we should set up a site that translates what the Right and Left really means!

And what Twin58 said.

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:


Why don't you and your friends volunteer? What's stopping you?

---

I can't speak for my friends, but I think I'm too old. Isn't there an age limit? I really don't know. Also, for required service, I was thinking for a year or so just to instill disipline and patriotism, with an option to remain for longer. Not a four-year tour as is required for volunteers.

Point being, though - and unlike all of you guys - I really don't think that serving in the military necessarily makes you more noble. I think it might instill some much needed discipline in otherwise shiftless people, but I don't think that I'm a bad person for having not served in the military. That's the standard you seem to be holding people up to. I'm just saying I don't think it's fair.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
[Adoringly] Gosh W1865! You're so all knowing! [/adoration] Or not. Or is that like when a rightist says "We believe in diversity" they mean: Yes, we believe that rich, straight white males can be either Episcopalian or Presybeterian. Or "We believe in equal opportunity for all" meaning: If you're a WASP.

Ooohhh, this is fun, we should set up a site that translates what the Right and Left really means!

And what Twin58 said.

---

Jim, I take offense at what you perceive to be my narrow definition of diversity. I happen to know several rich, straight, white males who are Methodists. I will accept your apology in advance.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I can't speak for my friends, but I think I'm too old. Isn't there an age limit? I really don't know.

---

35. You're quite eligible to enlist anytime you feel like it. Would you like me to post the address and phone number of your nearest Armed Forces recruiter?

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:


35. You're quite eligible to enlist anytime you feel like it. Would you like me to post the address and phone number of your nearest Armed Forces recruiter?

---

How do you know I'm not 35 already? Maybe I'm sixty and just lied in a previous post because I'm insecure about my age.

But actually, that's not the case, so sure, if you don't mind, I would love to know where the recruiter's offices are here in DC. You can post it here, or you can just email it to me. Thanks, I appreciate it.

[quote]I will accept your apology in advance

---

[Screaming, as if being held down prior to being tortured for secrets] NEVER!!! NEV - ER!!!!!!

Hee hee.

I see what you're getting at re: military service but it IS interesting to see how in polls, when the question is asked this way:

Do you favor invading Iraq?

the response is through the roof. But if it's phrased this way:

So, are you willing to be gassed with mustard gas, torn to bits by a shell or cut in half by machine gun fire to invade Iraq?

the responses shrink to next to nothing. Nothing wrong with self-interest, really, but after 8 years of the Republicans hammering at Slick Willy for his draft dodging, I'm in no mood to be lectured by guys who did the exact same thing about the necessity of war while they sit in their cushy offices with no chance of being anywhere near the action. No very logical or intellectually defensible, but I have real issues with the military and military culture (I grew up on Air Force bases and my dad was in the AF until I was 15) and get irrational with the issue.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
How do you know I'm not 35 already? Maybe I'm sixty and just lied....

---

A Republican lie? Ha, ha, ha, very funny.

[quote]But actually, that's not the case, so sure, if you don't mind, I would love to know where the recruiter's offices are here in DC. You can post it here, or you can just email it to me. Thanks, I appreciate it.

---

Tough break. 27 may be the upper limit.

http://www.armedforcescareers.com/

>>
With more than 100,000 visitors per month… "armedforcescareers.com" is your career "map" exclusive for 16 - 27 years olds, searching for the latest scoop on your military career options…
<<

Elsewhere on the page it says the upper limit is 24.

In the local phone book, look in the government blue pages under "R." In DC the ofice for all branches is at 1099 14th Street NW, at the intersection with L Street. The number is 202-761-4396

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
That's the standard you seem to be holding people up to. I'm just saying I don't think it's fair.

---

You "don't think it's fair" that I expect people to live up to standards?

<ann coulter>
That's just the sort of remark I'd expect from a sniveling liberal.
</ann coulter>

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:


You "don't think it's fair" that I expect people to live up to standards?

<ann coulter>
That's just the sort of remark I'd expect from a sniveling liberal.
</ann coulter>

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

---

I don't think the standard is fair, Twin. You know what I meant.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
Does anyone here actually know the details? Or is everybody just hopping onto their blindly partisan bandwagons? Attack Bush! Attack the Dems! God forbid we have a meaningful exchange of ideas.

What are the workers' protections that the Dems are so vigorously defending? Why does Bush fear that these protections won't allow the Department the flexibility he believes he needs? Unions aren't always right. Two of my uncles work for unions at United, and as much as they enjoy the benefits, they fully acknowledge that the unions' inflexibility has run the airline into the ground.

I'm not saying the Dems are wrong (after all, I don't know the details). I'm just suggesting that we have some kind of meaningful exchange here. I'm tired of blind, mindless partisanship.

---

BSR, here's something from the Wall Street Journal that explains things a bit:


Something from the WSJ That Explains Things a Bit

Letterman: "Last weekend in Chicago these punks, father and son, ... they jumped out and beat up the first base coach. Sadly, it's inspired a lot of copy cat crime. Earlier today Senator Tom Daschle was beaten to a pulp by both George Bushes."

I am interested in seeing how the debate changes after the november elections. That will tell a little something about the seriousness of the current rhetoric.